Short-term Outcomes After Robot-Assisted vs Open Pancreaticoduodenectomy After the Learning Curve

ROBOT-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy in 300 consecutive cases: Annual trend analysis and propensity score-matched comparison of perioperative and long-term oncologic outcomes with the open method

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

We previously reported perioperative and oncologic outcomes of robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy (RAPD); however, the follow-up period in RAPD was relatively short, and disease-matched survival analyses were lacking. Therefore, this study investigated time trends of perioperative and long-term disease-matched outcomes of RAPD.

METHODS

Annual clinicopathologic outcomes of 328 patients with RAPD between 2015 and 2020 were analyzed and compared with 929 patients with open PD using the propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis based on postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) risk and oncologic variables in malignant patients.

RESULTS

Robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy cases increased from 10 (6.3%) in 2015 to 116 (50.2% of total PD) in 2020, with malignancy proportion increasing from 50.0% to 80.2%. POPF risk-based PSM analysis showed that compared with open PD, RAPD had younger patients (63.7 vs 65.6 years, P = .018), longer operation time (339.1 vs 290.0 min, P < .001); however, estimated blood loss (P = .275), complications (17.1% vs 18.3%, P = .702), and clinically relevant POPF (9.8% vs 11.1%, P = .584) were similar with shorter postoperative hospital stay (10.8 vs 15.6 days, P < .001). In disease and stage-matched malignant patients, R0 resection (93.9% vs 91.2%, P = .376), total retrieved lymph node (18.2 vs 19.9, P = .058), and 5-year survival rate (57.3% vs 60.6%, P = .406) were similar between RAPD and open PD, also in pancreatic cancer patients (31.6% vs 26.3%, P = .068).

CONCLUSIONS

Robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy demonstrated similar perioperative outcomes with earlier recovery and equivalent long-term survival with open PD. RAPD is safe and feasible for periampullary lesions, including pancreatic cancers, and its role will expand in the era of minimally invasive surgery.

Robot-assisted pancreatic surgery-optimized operating procedures: set-up, port placement, surgical steps

Even in most complex surgical settings, recent advances in minimal-invasive technologies have made the application of robotic-assisted devices more viable. Due to ever increasing experience and expertise, many large international centers now offer robotic-assisted pancreatic surgery as a preferred alternative. In general however, pancreatic operations are still associated with high morbidity and mortality, while robotic-assisted techniques still require significant learning curves. As a prospective post-marketing trial, we have established optimized operating procedures at our clinic. This manuscript intends to publicize our standardized methodology, including pre-operative preparation, surgical set-up as well as the surgeons’ step-by-step actions when using pancreatic-assisted robotic surgery. This manuscript is based on our institutional experience as a high-volume pancreas operating center. We introduce novel concepts that should standardize, facilitate and economize the surgical steps in all types of robotic-assisted pancreatic surgery. The “One Fits All” principle enables single port placement irrespective of the pancreatic procedure, while the “Reversed 6-to-6 Approach” offers an optimized manual for pancreatic surgeons using the robotic console. Novel and standardized surgical concepts could guide new centers to establish a robust, efficient and safe robotic-assisted pancreatic surgery program.

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy: Where do we stand?

Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is a complex operation accompanied by significant morbidity rates. Due to this complexity, the transition to minimally invasive PD has lagged behind other abdominal surgical operations. The safety, feasibility, favorable post-operative outcomes of robotic PD have been suggested by multiple studies. Compared to open surgery and other minimally invasive techniques such as laparoscopy, robotic PD offers satisfactory outcomes, with a non-inferior risk of adverse events. Trends of robotic PD have been on rise with centers substantially increasing the number the operation performed. Although promising, findings on robotic PD need to be corroborated in prospective trials.

Outcomes of laparoscopic, robotic, and open pancreatoduodenectomy: A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and propensity-score matched studies

BACKGROUND

This network meta-analysis was performed to determine the optimal surgical approach for pancreatoduodenectomy by comparing outcomes after laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy, robotic pancreatoduodenectomy and open pancreatoduodenectomy.

METHODS

A systematic search of the PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science databases was conducted to identify eligible randomized controlled trials and propensity-score matched studies.

RESULTS

Four randomized controlled trials and 23 propensity-score matched studies comprising a total of 4,945 patients were included for analysis. Operation time for open pancreatoduodenectomy was shorter than both laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (mean difference -57.35, 95% CI 26.25-88.46 minutes) and robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (mean difference -91.08, 95% CI 48.61-133.56 minutes), blood loss for robotic pancreatoduodenectomy was significantly less than both laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (mean difference -112.58, 95% CI 36.95-118.20 mL) and open pancreatoduodenectomy (mean difference -209.87, 95% CI 140.39-279.36 mL), both robotic pancreatoduodenectomy and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy were associated with reduced rates of delayed gastric emptying compared with open pancreatoduodenectomy (odds ratio 0.59, 95% CI 0.39-0.90 and odds ratio 0.69, 95% CI 0.50-0.95, respectively), robotic pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with fewer wound infections compared with open pancreatoduodenectomy (odds ratio 0.35, 95% CI 0.18-0.71), and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy patients enjoyed significantly shorter length of stay compared with open pancreatoduodenectomy (odds ratio 0.43, 95% CI 0.28-0.95). There were no differences in other outcomes.

CONCLUSION

This network meta-analysis of high-quality studies suggests that when laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy and robotic pancreatoduodenectomy are performed in high-volume centers, short-term perioperative and oncologic outcomes are largely comparable, if not slightly improved, compared with traditional open pancreatoduodenectomy. These findings should be corroborated in further prospective randomized studies.

Robotic pancreas surgery: an overview of history and update on technique, outcomes, and financials

The use robotics in surgery is gaining momentum. This approach holds substantial promise in pancreas surgery. Robotic surgery for pancreatic lesions and malignancies has become well accepted and is expanding to more and more center annually. The number of centers using robotics in pancreatic surgery is rapidly increasing. The most studied robotic pancreas surgeries are pancreaticoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy. Most studies are in their early phases, but they report that robotic pancreas surgery is safe feasible. Robotic pancreas surgery offers several advantages over open and laparoscopic techniques. Data regarding costs of robotics versus conventional techniques is still lacking. Robotic pancreas surgery is still in its early stages. It holds promise to become the new surgical standard for pancreatic resections in the future, however, more research is still needed to establish its safety, cost effectiveness and efficacy in providing the best outcomes.

Technical progress in robotic pancreatoduodenectomy: TRIANGLE and periadventitial dissection for retropancreatic nerve plexus resection

PURPOSE

The resection of retropancreatic nerve plexuses for pancreatic head cancer became standard of care during open pancreatoduodenectomy to minimize local recurrences. Since more surgical centers are progressing on the learning curve, robotically-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy is now increasingly performed with decreasing anatomic exclusion criteria. To achieve comparable and favorable oncologic outcomes, advanced surgical techniques should be transferred and implemented when performing robotic resections.

METHODS

The nomenclature and anatomic principles of retropancreatic nerve plexuses and three different levels of dissections are utilized based on established definitions.

RESULTS

The en bloc dissection in the "TRIANGLE" area (triangular-shaped retropancreatic space enclosed by the common hepatic artery, superior mesenteric artery, and superior mesenteric vein/portal vein) and the periadventitial dissection of arteries for non-tunica media-invading tumors were executed robotically. Both can be utilized to achieve a radical dorsal and medial margin. Video recordings are provided to illustrate varying TRIANGLE dissections.

CONCLUSION

To accomplish oncologic non-inferiority, established principles from open pancreatic resections can be incorporated precisely and safely, overcoming the lack of haptic feedback while exploiting the technological advantages of the robotically-assisted platform.

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a retrospective study of 200 cases and the optimization of the single-center learning curve

Background

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) is widely used in several centers. This study analyzed the postoperative complications rate curve, possible cause, and solution of LPD and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD).

Methods

Between January 2015 and December 2019, the study included 213 and 204 patients undergoing OPD and LPD, respectively. Postoperative outcomes, complications, and complication risk, along with operation time were analyzed, and the learning curve was determined.

Results

The OPD group (378.7±8.98 min) had shorter operation time than the LPD group (402.5±7.12 min) (P=0.037). Blood loss was significantly lower in the LPD group (389.9±19.05 mL) than in the OPD group (530.1±33.55 mL) (P<0.001). The incidence of biliary-enteric anastomosis leakage was higher in the LPD group (2.9%) than in the OPD group (0.5%) (P=0.0495). The LPD group showed lower lung infection (7.4% vs. 17.4%, P=0.037), incision infection (1% vs. 8.5%, P<0.001), and anal exhaust time (3.35±0.07 vs. 4.05±0.07 days, P<0.001) than the OPD group. The biliary-enteric anastomosis leakage was strongly correlated with the pancreatic fistula (B/C) (R=0.6410), intraperitoneal infection (R=0.6126) and Clavien-Dindo Classification ≥3 (R=0.7403). According to the cumulative sum (CUSUM) curve, pancreatic fistula had a negative K value in 44 cases, biliary-enteric anastomosis leakage had a negative K value in 46 cases, and Clavien-Dindo Classification ≥3 had a negative K value in 40 cases. The learning curve for LPD has an inflection point in 86 cases.

Conclusions

LPD is safe and effective for patients with pancreatic cancer, and has a long learning curve and improved postoperative complications in 50 cases. This study’s results will help in reducing the complication rates of the first 50 consecutive cases of LPD.

Perioperative Outcomes of Robotic Pancreaticoduodenectomy: a Propensity-Matched Analysis to Open and Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy

INTRODUCTION

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy is slowly gaining acceptance within pancreatic surgery. Advantages have been demonstrated for robotic surgery in other fields, but robust data for pancreaticoduodenectomy is limited. The aim of this study was to compare the short-term outcomes of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) and laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD).

METHODS

Patients who underwent a pancreaticoduodenectomy between January 2011 and July 2019 at the Johns Hopkins Hospital were included in this retrospective propensity-matched analysis. The RPD cohort was matched to patients who underwent OPD in a 1:2 fashion and LPD in a 1:1 fashion. Short-term outcomes were analyzed for all three cohorts.

RESULTS

In total, 1644 patients were included, of which 96 (5.8%) underwent RPD, 131 (8.0%) LPD, and 1417 (86.2%) OPD. RPD was associated with a decreased incidence of delayed gastric emptying (9.4%) compared to OPD (23.5%; P = 0.006). The median estimated blood loss was significantly less in the RPD cohort (RPD vs OPD, 150 vs 487 mL; P < 0.001, RPD vs LPD, 125 vs 300 mL; P < 0.001). Compared to OPD, the robotic approach was associated with a shorter median length of stay (median 8 vs 9 days; P = 0.014) and a decrease in wound complications (4.2% vs 16.7%; P = 0.002). The incidence of other postoperative complications was comparable between RPD and OPD, and RPD and LPD.

CONCLUSION

In the hands of experienced surgeons, RPD may have a modest yet statistically significant reduction in estimated blood loss, postoperative length of stay, wound complications, and delayed gastric emptying comparing to OPD in similar patients.

State of the art of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy

Current evidence shows that robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) is feasible with a safety profile equivalent to either open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) or laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD). However, major intraoperative bleeding can occur and emergency conversion to OPD may be required. RPD reduces the risk of emergency conversion when compared to LPD. The learning curve of RPD ranges from 20 to 40 procedures, but proficiency is reached only after 250 operations. Once proficiency is achieved, the results of RPD may be superior to those of OPD. As for now, RPD is at least equivalent to OPD and LPD with respect to incidence and severity of POPF, incidence and severity of post-operative complications, and post-operative mortality. A minimal annual number of 20 procedures per center is recommended. In pancreatic cancer (versus OPD), RPD is associated with similar rates of R0 resections, but higher number of examined lymph nodes, lower blood loss, and lower need of blood transfusions. Multivariable analysis shows that RPD could improve patient survival. Data from selected centers show that vein resection and reconstruction is feasible during RPD, but at the price of high conversion rates and frequent use of small tangential resections. The true Achilles heel of RPD is higher operative costs that limit wider implementation of the procedure and accumulation of a large experience at most single centers. In conclusion, when proficiency is achieved, RPD may be superior to OPD with respect to CR-POPF and oncologic outcomes. Achievement of proficiency requires commitment, dedication, and truly high volumes.

Laparoscopic versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic or periampullary tumours: a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The benefit and safety of laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) for the treatment of pancreatic or periampullary tumours remain controversial. Studies have shown that the learning curve plays an important role in LPD, yet there are no randomised studies on LPD after the surgeons have surmounted the learning curve. The aim of this trial was to compare the outcomes of open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) with those of LPD, when performed by experienced surgeons.

METHODS

In this multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial done in 14 Chinese medical centres, we recruited patients aged 18-75 years with a benign, premalignant, or malignant indication for pancreatoduodenectomy. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to undergo either LPD or OPD. Randomisation was centralised via a computer-generated system that used a block size of four. The patients and surgeons were unmasked to study group, whereas the data collectors, outcome assessors, and data analysts were masked. LPD and OPD were performed by experienced surgeons who had already done at least 104 LPD operations. The primary outcome was the postoperative length of stay. The criteria for discharge were based on functional recovery, and analyses were done on a modified intention-to-treat basis (ie, including patients who had a pancreatoduodenectomy regardless of whether the operation was the one they were assigned to). This trial is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov, number NCT03138213.

FINDINGS

Between May 18, 2018, and Dec 19, 2019, we assessed 762 patients for eligibility, of whom 656 were randomly assigned to either the LPD group (n=328) or the OPD group (n=328). 31 patients in each group were excluded and 80 patients crossed over (33 from LPD to OPD, 47 from OPD to LPD). In the modified intention-to-treat analysis (297 patients in the LPD group and 297 patients in the OPD group), the postoperative length of stay was significantly shorter for patients in the LPD group than for patients in the OPD group (median 15·0 days [95% CI 14·0-16·0] vs 16·0 days [15·0-17·0]; p=0·02). 90-day mortality was similar in both groups (five [2%] of 297 patients in the LPD group vs six [2%] of 297 in the OPD group, risk ratio [RR] 0·83 [95% CI 0·26-2·70]; p=0·76). The incidence rate of serious postoperative morbidities (Clavien-Dindo grade of at least 3) was not significantly different in the two groups (85 [29%] of 297 patients in the LPD group vs 69 [23%] of 297 patients in OPD group, RR 1·23 [95% CI 0·94-1·62]; p=0·13). The comprehensive complication index score was not significantly different between the two groups (median score 8·7 [IQR 0·0-26·2] vs 0·0 [0·0-20·9]; p=0·06).

INTERPRETATION

In highly experienced hands, LPD is a safe and feasible procedure. It was associated with a shorter length of stay and similar short-term morbidity and mortality rates to OPD. Nonetheless, the clinical benefit of LPD compared with OPD was marginal despite extensive procedural expertise. Future research should focus on identifying the populations that will benefit from LPD.

FUNDING

National Natural Science Foundation of China and Tongji Hospital, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, China.

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy provides better histopathological outcomes as compared to its open counterpart: a meta-analysis

The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate whether robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) may provide better clinical and pathologic outcomes compared to its open counterpart. The Pubmed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were systematically searched. Overall postoperative morbidity and resection margin involvement rate were the primary endpoints. Secondary endpoints included operating time, estimated blood loss (EBL), incisional surgical site infection (SSI) rate, length of hospital stay (LOS), and number of lymph nodes harvested. Twenty-four studies totaling 12,579 patients (2,175 robotic PD and 10,404 open PD were included. Overall postoperative mortality did not significantly differ [OR (95%CI) = 0.86 (0.74, 1.01); p = 0.06]. Resection margin involvement rate was significantly lower in robotic PD [15.6% vs. 19.9%; OR (95%CI) = 0.64 (0.41, 1.00); p = 0.05; NNT = 23]. Operating time was significantly longer in robotic PD [MD (95%CI) = 75.17 (48.05, 102.28); p < 0.00001]. EBL was significantly decreased in robotic PD [MD (95%CI) = - 191.35 (- 238.12, - 144.59); p < 0.00001]. Number of lymph nodes harvested was significantly higher in robotic PD [MD (95%CI) = 2.88 (1.12, 4.65); p = 0.001]. This meta-analysis found that robotic PD provides better histopathological outcomes as compared to open PD at the cost of longer operating time. Furthermore, robotic PD did not have any detrimental impact on clinical outcomes, with lower wound infection rates.

Overcoming the Arduous Transition for Robotic Hepatopancreatobiliary Cases: A Multi-Procedure Learning Curve Study Utilizing CUSUM Analysis

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

Quick optimization and mastery of a new technique is an important part of procedural medicine, especially in the field of minimally invasive surgery. Complex surgeries such as robotic pancreaticoduodenectomies (RPD) and robotic distal pancreatectomies (RDP) have a steep learning curve; therefore, findings that can help expedite the burdensome learning process are extremely beneficial. This single-surgeon study aims to report the learning curves of RDP, RPD, and robotic Heller myotomy (RHM) and to review the results' implications for the current state of robotic hepatopancreaticobiliary (HPB) surgery.

STUDY DESIGN

This is a retrospective case series of a prospectively maintained database at a non-university tertiary care center. Total of 175 patients underwent either RDP, RPD, or RHM with the surgeon (DRJ) from January 2014 to January 2020.

RESULTS

Statistical significance of operating room time (ORT) was noted after 47 cases for RDP (p < 0.05), 51 cases for RPD (p < 0.0001), and 18 cases for RHM (p < 0.05). Mean ORT after the statistical mastery of the procedure for RDP, RPD, and RHM was 124, 232, 93 min, respectively. No statistical significance was noted for estimated blood loss or length of stay.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic HPB procedures have significantly higher learning curves compared to non-HPB procedures, even for an experienced HPB surgeon with extensive laparoscopic experience. Our RPD curve, however, is quicker than the literature average. We suggest that this is because of the simultaneous implementation of HPB (RDP and RPD) and non-HPB robotic surgeries with a shorter learning curve-especially foregut procedures such as RHM-into an experienced surgeon's practice. This may accelerate the learning process without compromising patient safety and outcomes.

Robotic pancreatectomy for intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm of the pancreas: A large-scale study

BACKGROUND

Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) of the pancreas is a mucin-producing tumor that develops from the epithelial lining of the main pancreatic duct or branch pancreatic ducts. Here, we assessed the feasibility and safety of various robotic pancreatectomy approaches to treating IPMN, and short- and long-term outcomes of robotic IPMN resection.

METHODS

Data from patients who underwent robotic pancreatectomy for IPMN between 2012 and 2019 at our hospital were retrospectively analyzed. The survival outcomes for patients were compared using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression analysis.

RESULTS

Of the 174 patients who underwent robotic pancreatectomy, 120 and 54 patients had benign or malignant tumors, respectively. Patients with malignant IPMN had lost more weight in the 6 months prior to surgery (P = .008), and a higher serum level of CA19-9 (P < .001) and CEA (P < .001). Postoperative pancreatic or biliary fistula occurred in 17 or 6 patients overall, respectively. The pathology of the IPMN (P = .030), tumor diameter (P = .016), mural nodule (P = .023), tumor capsule (P = .003) and CA19-9 (P = .024) values were all independent risk factors for survival. The median OS time after surgical resection for the malignant IPMN group was 29.0 months (range, 21.6-36.4). The OS was significantly different in patients with IPMN according to their different pathology, tumor capsule, mural nodule group, CA19-9 level, or tumor diameter.

CONCLUSIONS

This large-scale survey of 174 patients indicated that various robotic pancreatectomy approaches were feasible and safe for IPMN. Patients had an acceptable prognosis, indicating that robotic pancreatectomy represents a feasible potential therapeutic strategy for IPMN.

Safety and efficacy of robot-assisted versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: a meta-analysis of multiple worldwide centers

The objective of the study is to compare the safety and efficacy of robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) with open PD. The PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases were searched for the literature available from their respective inception dates up to May 2020 to find studies comparing robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) with open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD). The RevMan 5.3 statistical software was used for analysis to evaluate surgical outcome and oncology safety. The combination ratio (RR) and weighted mean difference (WMD) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using fixed-effect or random effect models. 18 cohort studies from 16 medical centers were eligible with a total of 5795 patients including 1420 RPD group patients and 4375 OPD group patients. The RPD group fared better than the OPD group in terms of estimated blood loss (EBL) (WMD = - 175.65, 95% CI (- 251.85, - 99.44), P < 0.00001), wound infection rate (RR = 0.60, 95% CI (0.44, 0.81), P = 0.001), reoperation rate (RR = 0.61, 95% CI (0.41, 0.91), P = 0.02), hospital day (WMD = - 2.95, 95% CI (- 5.33, - 0.56), P = 0.02), intraoperative blood transfusion (RR = 0.56, 95% CI (0.42, 0.76), P = 0.0001), overall complications (RR = 0.78, 95% CI (0.64, 0.95), P = 0.01), and clinical postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) (RR = 0.54, 95% CI (0.41, 0.70), P < 0.0001). In terms of lymph node clearance (WMD = 0.48, 95% CI (- 2.05, 3.02), P = 0.71), R0 rate (RR = 1.05, 95% CI (1.00, 1.11), P = 0.05), postoperative pancreatic fistula (RR = 1, 95% CI (0.85, 1.19), P = 0.97), bile leakage (RR = 0.99, 95% CI (0.54, 1.83), P = 0.98), delayed gastric emptying (DGE) (RR = 0.79, 95% CI (0.60, 1.03), P = 0.08), 90-day mortality (RR = 0.82, 95% CI (0.62, 1.10), P = 0.19), and severe complications (RR = 0.98, 95% CI (0.71, 1.36), P = 0.91), and there were no significant differences between the two groups. Robotic surgery was inferior to open surgery in terms of operational time (WMD = 80.85, 95% CI (16.09, 145.61), P = 0.01). RPD is not inferior to OPD, and it is even more advantageous for EBL, wound infection rate, reoperation rate, hospital stay, intraoperative transfusion, overall complications and clinical POPF. However, these findings need to be further verified by high-quality randomized controlled trials.

Rare postoperative hemorrhage after robotic-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic head cancer: a case report

Post-pancreaticoduodenectomy hemorrhage is a life-threatening complication that occurs in 2-10% of patients. The most common location for post-pancreaticoduodenectomy hemorrhage is the gastroduodenal artery stump. Nonetheless, unusual sources of hemorrhage, which are hard to locate, exist. Here, we report a rare postoperative hemorrhage after robotic-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic head cancer. A 67-year-old man presenting with appetite loss, general fatigue and painless jaundice was admitted to our ward. The patient had an elevated level of carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (50 U/mL). Computed tomography scan revealed a 17-mm wide low-density area in the uncinate process of the pancreas. Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography showed the dilation of bile and pancreatic ducts. Robotic-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy was performed on the patient by using the da Vinci Model S Surgical System. On postoperative days 5 and 6, the patient vomited blood, and bloody fluid was observed in the drainage. Emergent gastroscopic examination was performed and revealed a large amount of hematocele in the stomach. On postoperative day 6, emergency operation was undertaken, and the output jejunal loop was found to have intussuscepted in the stomach. This is the first case report of output jejunal loop intussusception in the stomach that consequently caused hemorrhage after robotic-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic head cancer.

Laparoscopic assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy: an important link in the process of transition from open to total laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy

Background

The safety of total laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy still remains controversial. Laparoscopic assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (LAPD) may be an alternative selection. The purpose of the present study is to compare a consecutive cohort of LAPD and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) from a single surgeon.

Methods

A comparison was conducted between LAPD and OPD from January 2013 to December 2018. Perioperative outcomes and short-term oncological results were compared. Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed to determine associations among variables.

Results

133 patients were enrolled, 36 patients (27.1%) underwent LAPD and 97 (72.9%) underwent OPD. No 30-day and 90-day mortality occurred. LAPD was associated with decreased intraoperative estimated blood loss (300 versus 500 ml; P = 0.002), longer operative time (372 versus 305 min; P < 0.001) compared with OPD. LAPD had a conversion rate of 16.7%, and wasn’t associated with an increased grade B/C pancreatic fistula rate, major surgical complications, intraoperative blood transfusion, reoperation rate or length of hospital stay after surgery. In the subset of 58 pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas, R0 resection rate, median total harvested lymph node or lymph nodes ≥12 did not differ between the two groups.

Conclusion

LAPD could be performed with non-inferior short-term perioperative and oncologic outcomes achieved by OPD in selected patients.