The learning curve for robotic distal pancreatectomy: an analysis of outcomes of the first 100 consecutive cases at a high-volume pancreatic centre

Learning curve of laparoscopic and robotic pancreas resections: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive pancreatic resection has been shown recently in some randomized trials to be superior in selected perioperative outcomes compared with open resection when performed by experienced surgeons. However, minimally invasive pancreatic resection is associated with a long learning curve. This study aims to summarize the current evidence on the learning curve of minimally invasive pancreatic resection and define the number of cases required to surmount the learning curve.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed on PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane database using a detailed search strategy. Studies that did not describe the learning curve were excluded from the study. Data on the method of learning curve analysis, single surgeon versus institutional learning curve, and outcome measures were extracted and analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 32 studies were included in the pooled analysis: 12 on laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy, 9 on robotic pancreatoduodenectomy, 12 on laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy, and 3 on robotic distal pancreatectomy. Sample population was comparable between laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy and robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (median 63 vs 65). Six of 12 studies and 7 of 9 studies used nonarbitrary methods of analysis in laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy and robotic pancreatoduodenectomy, respectively. Operating time was used as the single outcome measure in 4 of 12 studies in laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy and 5 of 9 studies in robotic pancreatoduodenectomy. Overall, there was no significant difference between the number of cases required to surmount the learning curve for laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy versus robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy 34.1 [95% confidence interval 30.7-37.7] versus robotic pancreatoduodenectomy 36.7 [95% confidence interval 32.9-41.0]; P = .8241) and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy versus robotic distal pancreatectomy (laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy 25.3 [95% confidence interval 22.5-28.3] versus robotic distal pancreatectomy 20.7 [95% confidence interval 15.8-26.5]; P = .5997.) CONCLUSION: This study provides a detailed summary of existing evidence around the learning curve in minimally invasive pancreatic resection. There was no significant difference between the learning curve for robotic pancreatoduodenectomy versus laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy and robotic distal pancreatectomy versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. These findings were limited by the retrospective nature and heterogeneity of the studies published to date.

Minimally invasive pancreatic surgery—will robotic surgery be the future?

Due to the complexity of the procedures and the texture of the organ itself, pancreatic surgery remains a challenge in the field of visceral surgery. During the past decade, a minimally invasive approach to pancreatic surgery has gained distribution in clinical routine, extending from left-sided procedures to pancreatic head resections. While a laparoscopic approach has proven beneficial for many patients with left-sided pancreatic pathologies, the complex reconstruction in pancreas head resections remains worrisome with the laparoscopic approach. The robotic technique was established to overcome such technical constraints while preserving the advantages of the laparoscopic approach. Even though robotic systems are still in development, especially in pancreatoduodenectomy, the current literature demonstrates the feasibility of this approach and stable clinical and oncological outcomes compared to the open technique, albeit only under the condition of such operations being performed by specialist teams in a high-volume setting (>20 robotic pancreaticoduodenectomies per year). The aim of this review is to analyze the current evidence regarding a minimally invasive approach to pancreatic surgery and to review the potential of a robotic approach. Presently, there is still a scarcity of sound evidence and long-term oncological data regarding the role of minimally invasive and robotic pancreatic surgery in the literature, especially in the setting of pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Perioperative and oncologic outcomes of open, laparoscopic, and robotic distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma

The utilization of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) is increasing, yet debate remains regarding its oncologic safety in the setting of pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Herein we present our institutional experience with robotic (RDP), laparoscopic (LDP), and open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) in the setting of PDAC.Retrospective review of a prospectively collected single institutional database of patients undergoing consecutive ODP, LDP, and RDP for left-sided PDAC between January 2008 and December 2019 at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) was done. Perioperative and postoperative outcomes were compared using non-parametric testing and Fischer exact or chi-squared testing. Kaplan-Meier survival curves for disease-free survival and overall survival were compared by Log-Rank sum test. Backward Cox-proportional hazard regression analysis was used to determine if the operative approach was an independent predictor of recurrence and overall survival.Over 12 years, 146 consecutive distal pancreatectomies for PDAC were performed, of which 28.1% ODP, 60.3% RDP, and 11.6% LDP. There were no statistical differences in patients' baseline characteristics, including gender, comorbidities, prior abdominal surgeries, and AJCC^8th stage (p > 0.05). Postoperatively, there was no difference in the frequency of major complications (p = 0.414), CR-POPF (p = 0.563), or DGE (p = 0.179). The median overall survival was 28.4 months for ODP, 34.6 months for RDP, and 32.5 months for LDP (Log Rank p = 0.914). On multivariate Cox proportional hazard analysis, the surgical approach was not associated with overall survival. This comparative analysis suggests a non-inferiority of RDP platforms, compared to LDP and classic ODP. The merits of MIS pancreatic surgery in the setting of PDAC should be evaluated in future prospective studies with care to analyze RDP outcomes separately from LDP.

Risk factors and outcomes of conversion in minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy: a systematic review

Purpose

The reported conversion rates for minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) range widely from 2 to 38%. The identification of risk factors for conversion may help surgeons during preoperative planning and patient counseling. Moreover, the impact of conversion on outcomes of MIDP is unknown.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted as part of the 2019 Miami International Evidence-Based Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreas Resection (IG-MIPR). The PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases were searched for studies concerning conversion to open surgery in MIDP.

Results

Of the 828 studies screened, eight met the eligibility criteria, resulting in a combined dataset including 2592 patients after MIDP. The overall conversion rate was 17.1% (range 13.0–32.7%) with heterogeneity between studies associated with the definition of conversion adopted. Only one study divided conversion into elective and emergency conversion. The main indications for conversion were vascular involvement (23.7%), concern for oncological radicality (21.9%), and bleeding (18.9%). The reported risk factors for conversion included a malignancy as an indication for surgery, the proximity of the tumor to vascular structures in preoperative imaging, higher BMI or visceral fat, and multi-organ resection or extended resection. Contrasting results were seen in terms of blood loss and length of stay in comparing converted MIDP and completed MIDP patients.

Conclusion

The identified risk factors for conversion from this study can be used for patient selection and counseling. Surgeon experience should be considered when contemplating MIDP for a complex patient. Future studies should divide conversion into elective and emergency conversion.

Variation in Hospital Utilization of Minimally Invasive Distal Pancreatectomy for Localized Pancreatic Neoplasms

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) for localized neoplasms has been demonstrated to be feasible and safe. However, national adoption of the technique is poorly understood. Objectives of this study were to identify factors associated with use of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy for localized neoplasms and assess hospital variation in MIDP utilization.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study of patients with pancreatic cysts, stage I pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, and stage I pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors undergoing distal pancreatectomy from the ACS NSQIP Pancreas Targeted Dataset. Factors associated with use of MIDP were identified using multivariable logistic regression and hospital-level variation was assessed.

RESULTS

Analysis included 3,059 patients at 139 hospitals. Overall, 64.5% of patients underwent minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy. Patients were more likely to undergo MIDP if they had lower ASA classification (P = 0.004) or BMI ≥ 30 (P < 0.001) and less likely if they had pancreatic adenocarcinoma (P < 0.001). There was notable hospital variability in utilization (range 0 to 100% of cases). Hospital-level utilization of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy did not appear to be driven by patient selection, as hierarchical analysis demonstrated that only 1.8% of observed hospital variation was attributable to measured patient selection factors.

CONCLUSION

Utilization of MIDP for localized pancreatic neoplasms is highly variable. While some patient-level factors are associated with MIDP use, hospital adoption of MIDP appears to be the primary driver of utilization. Monitoring hospital-level use of MIDP may be a useful quality measure to monitor uptake of emerging techniques in pancreatic surgery.

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.

The slope of the learning curve in 600 consecutive endoscopic transsphenoidal pituitary surgeries

BACKGROUND

Endonasal endoscopic transsphenoidal surgery (EETS) for pituitary adenoma has become a mainstay of treatment over the last two decades and it is generally accepted that once this learning curve is achieved, a plateau is reached with little incremental improvement.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to assess the slope of the learning curve over a long period of time for a variety of outcomes measures.

METHODS

We examined outcomes and complications in a consecutive series of 600 EETS for pituitary adenoma grouped into quartiles based on date of surgery.

RESULTS

GTR significantly increased across quartiles from 55 to 79% in the last quartile (p < 0.005). The rate of intraoperative CSF leak significantly decreased from 60% in the first quartile to 33% in the last quartile and the rate of lumbar drain placement from 28% in the first quartile to 6% in the last quartile (p < 0.005). Hormonal remission for secreting adenomas increased from 68% in the first quartile to 90% in the last quartile (p < 0.05). The rate of post-operative CSF leak trended lower (3% in first quartile to 0.7% in last two quartiles). The greatest improvement in outcome occurred between the first and second quartiles (19.9%), but persistent improvement occurred between the second and third (6.7%) and third and fourth quartiles (8.0%).

CONCLUSION

Although the slope of the learning curve is steeper earlier in a surgeon's experience, the slope does not plateau and continues to increase even over more than a decade.

Applying the Delphi process for development of a hepatopancreaticobiliary robotic surgery training curriculum

BACKGROUND

Robotic hepatopancreaticobiliary (HPB) procedures are performed worldwide and establishing processes for safe adoption of this technology is essential for patient benefit. We report results of the Delphi process to define and optimize robotic training procedures for HPB surgeons.

METHODS

In 2019, a robotic HPB surgery panel with an interest in surgical training from the Americas and Europe was created and met. An e-consensus-finding exercise using the Delphi process was applied and consensus was defined as 80% agreement on each question. Iterations of anonymous voting continued over three rounds.

RESULTS

Members agreed on several points: there was need for a standardized robotic training curriculum for HPB surgery that considers experience of surgeons and based on a robotic hepatectomy includes a common approach for "basic robotic skills" training (e-learning module, including hardware description, patient selection, port placement, docking, troubleshooting, fundamentals of robotic surgery, team training and efficiency, and emergencies) and an "advanced technical skills curriculum" (e-learning, including patient selection information, cognitive skills, and recommended operative equipment lists). A modular approach to index procedures should be used with video demonstrations, port placement for index procedure, troubleshooting, and emergency scenario management information. Inexperienced surgeons should undergo training in basic robotic skills and console proficiency, transitioning to full procedure training of e-learning (video demonstration, simulation training, case observation, and final evaluation). Experienced surgeons should undergo basic training when using a new system (e-learning, dry lab, and operating room (OR) team training, virtual reality modules, and wet lab; case observations were unnecessary for basic training) and should complete the advanced index procedural robotic curriculum with assessment by wet lab, case observation, and OR team training.

CONCLUSIONS

Optimization and standardization of training and education of HPB surgeons in robotic procedures was agreed upon. Results are being incorporated into future curriculum for education in robotic surgery.

A single institution experience with robotic and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies

Backgrounds/Aims

This study aims to describe our experience with minimally-invasive distal pancreatectomies, with emphasis on the comparison between robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP).

Methods

Retrospective review of 102 consecutive RDP and LDP from 2006 to 2019 was performed.

Results

There were 27 and 75 patients who underwent RDP and LDP, respectively. There were 12 (11.8%) open conversions and 16 (15.7%) patients had major (>grade 2) morbidities. Patients who underwent RDP had significantly higher rates of splenic preservation (44.4% vs. 13.3%, p=0.002), higher rates of splenic-vessel preservation (40.7% vs. 9.3%, p=0.001), higher median difficulty score (5 vs. 3, p=0.002) but longer operation time (385 vs. 245 minutes, p<0.001). The rate of open conversion tended to be lower with RDP (3.7% vs. 14.7%, p=0.175).

Conclusions

In our institution practice, both RDP and LDP were safe and effective. The use of RDP appeared to be complementary to LDP, allowing us to perform more difficult procedures with comparable postoperative outcomes.

100 Robotic Distal Pancreatectomies: The Future at Hand

INTRODUCTION

This study was undertaken to examine 100 consecutive robotic distal pancreatectomies with splenectomies, and to compare our outcomes to predicted outcomes as calculated using the American college of surgeons national surgical quality improvement program (ACS NSQIP) Surgical Risk Calculator and to the outcomes contained within NSQIP.

METHODS

Outcomes were compared with predicted outcomes, calculated using the ACS NSQIP Surgical Risk Calculator, and with outcomes documented in NSQIP for distal pancreatectomy. For illustrative purposes, data are presented as median (mean ± SD).

RESULTS

Patients who underwent robotic distal pancreatectomy were of age 67 (63 ± 13.4) years with a BMI of 29 (29 ± 6.3) kg/m², with 49% being women. Operative duration was 242 (265 ± 112.2) minutes and estimated blood loss was 110 (211 ± 233.9) mL. Predicted outcomes were similar to those reported in NSQIP. Our actual outcomes were significantly superior to the predicted outcomes for serious complication, any complication, surgical site infection, sepsis, and length of stay. Compared to NSQIP outcomes, our actual outcomes for serious complication, any complication, surgical site infection, sepsis, and delayed gastric emptying were significantly superior. Twelve percent of operations were converted to "open." There were 3 deaths within 30 days, similar to predicted outcomes. Deaths were due to sepsis (2) and respiratory failure (1).

CONCLUSION

Our patients' predicted outcomes were the same as national outcomes; our patients were not a select group. However, their actual outcomes were like or significantly superior than those predicted by NSQIP or reported in NSQIP. We believe that the robot has the future of distal pancreatectomy with or without splenectomy.

Robotic-assisted versus open distal pancreatectomy for benign and low-grade malignant pancreatic tumors: a propensity score-matched study

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to compare the short-term outcomes of open and robotic-assisted distal pancreatectomy (ODP and RDP) for benign and low-grade malignant tumors.

METHODS

The patients who underwent RDP and ODP for benign or low-grade malignant pancreatic tumors at our center were included. After PSM at a 1:1 ratio, the perioperative variations in the two cohorts were compared.

RESULTS

After 1:1 PSM, 219 cases of RDP and ODP were recorded. The RDP cohort showed advantages in the operative duration [120 (90-150) min vs 175 (130-210) min, P < 0.001], estimated blood loss [50 (30-175) ml vs 200 (100-300) ml, P < 0.001], spleen preservation rate (63.5% vs 26.5%, P < 0.001), infection rate (4.6% vs 12.3%, P = 0.006), and gastrointestinal function recovery [3 (2-4) vs. 3 (3-5), P = 0.019]. There were no significant differences in postoperative pancreatic fistula, postoperative hemorrhage, and delayed gastric emptying. Multivariate analysis showed that RDP (HR 0.24; 95% CI 0.16-0.36, P < 0.001), age (HR 1.02; 95% CI 1.00-1.03, P = 0.033), tumor size (HR 1.28; 95% CI 1.17-1.40, P < 0.001), pathological inflammatory neoplasm type (HR 5.12; 95% CI 2.22-11.81, P < 0.001), and estimated blood loss (HR 1.003; 95% CI 1.001-1.004, P < 0.001) were independent predictors of spleen preservation; RDP (HR 0.27; 95% CI 0.17-0.43, P < 0.001), age (HR 1.02; 95% CI 1.00-1.03, P = 0.022), elevated CA 19-9 level (HR 2.55; 95% CI 1.02-6.39, P = 0.046), tumor size (HR 1.44; 95% CI 1.29-1.61, P < 0.001), pathological inflammatory neoplasm type (HR 4.48; 95% CI 1.69-11.85, P = 0.003), and estimated blood loss (HR 1.003; 95% CI 1.001-1.004, P < 0.001) were independent predictors of spleen preservation with the Kimura technique.

CONCLUSION

RDP has advantages in the operative time, blood loss, spleen preservation, infection rate, and gastrointestinal function recovery over ODP in treating benign and low-grade malignant pancreatic tumors. The robotic-assisted approach was an independent predictor of spleen preservation and use of the Kimura technique.

Improved oncologic outcomes for minimally invasive left pancreatectomy: Propensity-score matched analysis of the National Cancer Database

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Minimally invasive (MIS) left pancreatectomy (LP) is increasingly used to treat pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Despite improved short-term outcomes, no studies have demonstrated long-term benefits over open resection.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database was queried between 2010 and 2016 for patients with PDAC, grouped by surgical approach (MIS vs open). Demographics, comorbidities, clinical staging, and pathologic staging were used for propensity-score matching. Perioperative, short-term oncologic, and survival outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

After matching, both cohorts included 805 patients. There were no differences in baseline characteristics, staging, or preoperative therapy between cohorts. The MIS cohort had a shorter length of stay (6.8 ± 5.5 vs 8.5 ± 7.3 days; P < .0001) with the trend toward improved time to chemotherapy (53.9 ± 26.1 vs 57.9 ± 29.9 days; P = .0511) and margin-positive resection rate (15.3% vs 18.9%; P = .0605). Lymph node retrieval and receipt of chemotherapy were similar. The MIS cohort had higher median overall survival (28.0 vs 22.1 months; P = .0067). Subgroup analysis demonstrated the highest survival for robotic compared with laparoscopic and open LP (41.9 vs 26.6 vs 22.1 months; P < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates the safety of MIS LP and favorable long-term oncologic outcomes. The improved survival after MIS LP warrants further study with prospective, randomized trials.

Management of the pancreatic transection plane after left (distal) pancreatectomy: Expert consensus guidelines by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS)

BACKGROUND

The aim was to evaluate the various operative techniques and outcomes used to manage the pancreatic transection plane (or stump) during a left (distal) pancreatectomy and to develop expert consensus guidelines.

METHODS

Evidence-based, clinically relevant questions were discussed and then were circulated among members of the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery. After agreement on the questions and statements, voting in a 9-point Likert scale was used to gauge the level of objective support for each.

RESULTS

Studies using the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery definition of postoperative pancreatic fistula including 16 randomized trials were reviewed to generate a series of statements set into 14 domains. There was strong consensus in the following statements: there was no difference in the postoperative pancreatic fistula rate after left pancreatectomy between the handsewn and stapler techniques; a stapling technique could not be used in all cases of left pancreatectomy; the use of an energy-based tissue sealant or a chemical sealant device or combinations of these did not impact the postoperative pancreatic fistula rate; there was no difference in the postoperative pancreatic fistula rate between the open, laparoscopic, or robotic approaches; and there are 1 or more clinically important, patient-related risk factors associated with the postoperative pancreatic fistula rate. There was weak or conditional agreement on the use of prophylactic somatostatin analogs, stents, stump closure, stump anastomosis, and the role of abdominal drains.

CONCLUSION

Areas of strong consensus suggests a change in clinical practice and priority setting. Eight domains with lower agreement will require novel approaches and large multicenter studies to determine future key areas of practice.

Robot-assisted combined pancreatectomy/hepatectomy for metastatic pancreatic acinar cell carcinoma: case report and review of the literature

Acinar cell carcinoma (ACC) of the pancreas is a rare neoplasm with less aggressive behavior than ductal carcinoma. As a result, surgical resection for metastatic ACC is a therapeutic option which can result in long-term survival. There is a paucity of data describing institutional approaches to these challenging patients, and therefore, we herein describe our institution's approach to a patient with a distal pancreatic ACC and isolated liver metastasis. The patient underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy (FOLFIRINOX), followed by a robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy/splenectomy and non-anatomic segment 6 resection. He was discharged to home post-operative day 2. Final pathology revealed complete tumor response of the liver metastasis and a margin negative resection of the primary tumor. He remains disease free and without complications at 3 months. We highlight that combined modality therapy for metastatic ACC can yield long-term survival in selected patients. Similarly, the robotic platform enables performance of complex multivisceral resections with rapid recovery. Future research investigating precision medicine for metastatic ACC is warranted given widely variable tumor biology in this disease.

Up-to-date comparison of robotic-assisted versus open distal pancreatectomy: A PRISMA-compliant meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Although robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RADP) has been successfully performed since 2003, its advantages over open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) are still uncertain. The objective of this meta-analysis is to compare the clinical and oncologic safety and efficacy of RADP vs ODP.

METHODS

Multiple databases (PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library) were searched to identify studies that compare the outcomes of RADP and ODP (up to February, 2020). Fixed and random effects models were applied according to different conditions.

RESULTS

A total of 7 studies from high-volume robotic surgery centers comprising 2264 patients were included finally. Compared with ODP, RADP was associated with lower estimated blood loss, lower blood transfusion rate, lower postoperative mortality rate, and shorter length of hospital stay. No significant difference was observed in operating time, the number of lymph nodes harvested, positive margin rate, spleen preservation rate, rate of severe morbidity, incidence of postoperative pancreatic fistula, and severe postoperative pancreatic fistula (grade B and C) between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

With regard to perioperative outcomes, RADP is a safe and feasible alternative to ODP in centers with expertise in robotic surgery. However, the evidence is limited and more randomized controlled trials are needed to further clearly define this role.

Critical Appraisal of the Impact of Individual Surgeon Experience on the Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Distal Pancreatectomies: Collective Experience of Multiple Surgeons at a Single Institution

BACKGROUND

Presently, there are limited studies analyzing the learning experience of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomies (MIDPs) and these frequently focused on a single surgeon or institution learning curve. This study aims to critically analyze the impact of individual surgeon experience on the outcomes of MIDP based on the collective experiences of multiple surgeons at a single institution.

METHODS

A retrospective review of 90 consecutive MIDP from 2006 to 2018 was performed. These cases were performed by 13 surgeons over various time periods. The cohort was stratified into 4 groups according to individual surgeon experience. The case experience of these surgeons was as follows: <5 cases (n=8), 6 to 10 cases (n=2), 11 to 15 cases (n=2), and 30 cases (n=1).

RESULTS

The distribution of the 90 cases were as follows: experience <5 cases (n=44), 6 to 10 cases (n=20), 11 to 15 cases (n=11), and 15 cases (n=15). As individual surgeons gained increasing experience, this was significantly associated with increasingly difficult resections performed, increased frequency of the use of robotic assistance and decreasing open conversion rates (20.5% vs. 100% vs. 9.1% vs. 0%, P=0.038). There was no significant difference in other perioperative outcomes. These findings suggest that the outcomes of MIDP in terms of open conversion rate could be optimized after 15 cases. Subset analyses suggested that the learning curve for MIDP of low difficulty was only 5 cases.

CONCLUSION

MIDP can be safely adopted today and the individual surgeon learning curve for MIDP of all difficulties in terms of open conversion rate can be overcome after 15 cases.

Safe implementation of minimally invasive pancreas resection: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive pancreas resection (MIPR) has been expanding in the past decade. Excellent outcomes have been reported, however, safety concerns exist. The aim of this study was to define prerequisites for performing MIPR with the objective to guide safe implementation of MIPR into clinical practice.

METHODS

This systematic review was conducted as part of the 2019 Miami International Evidence-Based Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreas Resection (IG-MIPR). PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched for literature concerning the implementation of MIPR between 1946 and November 2018. Quality assessment was according to The Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN).

RESULTS

Overall, 1150 studies were screened, of which 32 studies with 8519 patients were included in this systematic review. Training programs for minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy, laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy and robotic pancreatoduodenectomy have been described with acceptable outcomes during the learning curve and improved outcomes after training. Learning curve studies have revealed an association between growing experience and improving perioperative outcomes. In addition, the association between higher center volume and lower mortality and morbidity has been reported by several studies.

CONCLUSION

When embarking on MIPR, it is recommended to participate in a dedicated training program, to assure a sufficient volume, especially when implementing minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy, (20 procedures recommended annually), and prospectively collect and closely monitor outcomes for continuous quality assessment, this can be achieved through institutional databases and participation in national or international registries.

How to train and evaluate minimally invasive pancreas surgery

Training for minimally invasive pancreas surgery is critical as an evolving body of literature supports its use with acceptable outcomes during training and improved short term outcomes following completion. Although case volume needed to achieve mastery remains unclear, improved outcomes for both laparoscopic and robotic pancreatectomy are demonstrated following a learning curve and inflection point. Therefore, dedicated training curricula for both laparoscopic and robotic pancreatectomy have been developed to mitigate this learning curve and improve outcomes.

Revisiting the potential advantage of robotic surgical system in spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy over conventional laparoscopic approach

Background

This study aimed to compare success rate of spleen preservation between robotic and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (DP).

Methods

Between November 2007 and March 2018, forty-one patients underwent the conventional laparoscopic DP (Lap group) and the other 37 patients underwent robotic DP (Robot group). The perioperative clinicopathologic variables were compared.

Results

The robotic procedure was chosen by younger patients compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery (42.9±14.0 vs. 51.3±14.6 years, P=0.016). The mean operation time was longer (313 vs. 246 min, P=0.000), but the mean tumor size was smaller in Robot group (2.7±1.2 vs. 4.2±3.3 cm, P=0.018). The overall spleen-preserving rate was higher in the Robot group (91.9% vs. 68.3%, P=0.012). However, with accumulating laparoscopic experiences (after 16th case), the statistical differences in spleen preservation rate between the Robot and Lap groups had diminished (P=0.428).

Conclusions

The present results suggest a robot can be helpful to save the spleen during DP for benign and borderline malignancy. However, a surgeon highly experienced in the laparoscopic approach can also produce a high success rate of spleen preservation, similar to that shown with the robotic approach.

Meta-analysis of short-term outcomes comparing robot-assisted and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy

Aim: To evaluate and compare the short-term outcomes of robotic surgery and laparoscopic approach in distal pancreatectomy (DP). Materials & methods: EMBASE, PubMed, the Cochrane Library, CNKI and Wan Fang database were retrieved from the inception of electronic databases to June 2019. All analyses were performed using Stata/SE 15.1 version (StataCorp). Results: Twenty-two papers were included, four of which were prospective studies and the rest were retrospective studies. There was significant difference in spleen preservation rate (odds ratio: 2.020; 95% CI: 1.085-3.758; p = 0.027), operation time (mean difference [MD]: 27.372; 95% CI: 8.236-47.210; p = 0.000), the length of hospital stay (MD: -0.911; 95% CI: -1.287 to -0.535; p = 0.000), conversion rate (rate difference: -0.090; 95% CI: -1.287 to -0.535; p = 0.000), operation cost (MD: 2816.564; 95% CI: 1782.028-3851.064; p = 0.000). However, no significant difference was detected in estimated blood loss, total complication, severe complication, lymph nodules harvest, blood transfusion rate, total pancreatic fistula, severe pancreatic fistula, R0 resection rate and mortality. Conclusion: Both robotic and laparoscopic DP are safe and feasible. Although robotic DP increases the operation cost, the spleen-preserving rate is much higher. Robotic surgery may be an alternative approach to DP.

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy and the cost of conversion

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is preferred for distal pancreatectomy but is not always attempted due to the risk of conversion to open. We hypothesized that the total cost for MIS converted to open procedures would be comparable to those that started open.

METHODS

A prospectively collected institutional registry (2011-2017) was reviewed for demographic, clinical, and perioperative cost data for patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy.

RESULTS

There were 80 patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy: 41 open, 39 MIS (11 laparoscopic and 28 robotic). Conversion to open occurred in 14 of 39 (36%, 3 laparoscopic and 11 robotic). Length of stay was shorter for the MIS completed (6 days; range, 3-8), and MIS converted to open (7 days; range, 4-10) groups, compared with open (10 days; range, 5-36; P = .003). Laparoscopic cases were the least expensive (P = .02). Robotic converted to open procedures had the highest operating room cost. However, the total cost for robotic converted to open cohort was similar to the open cohort due to cost savings associated with a shorter length of stay.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the higher intraoperative costs of robotic surgery, there is no significant overall financial penalty for conversion to open. Financial considerations should not play a role in selecting a robotic or open approach.

Systematic review of learning curves in robot-assisted surgery

Background

Increased uptake of robotic surgery has led to interest in learning curves for robot‐assisted procedures. Learning curves, however, are often poorly defined. This systematic review was conducted to identify the available evidence investigating surgeon learning curves in robot‐assisted surgery.

Methods

MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched in February 2018, in accordance with PRISMA guidelines, alongside hand searches of key congresses and existing reviews. Eligible articles were those assessing learning curves associated with robot‐assisted surgery in patients.

Results

Searches identified 2316 records, of which 68 met the eligibility criteria, reporting on 68 unique studies. Of these, 49 assessed learning curves based on patient data across ten surgical specialties. All 49 were observational, largely single‐arm (35 of 49, 71 per cent) and included few surgeons. Learning curves exhibited substantial heterogeneity, varying between procedures, studies and metrics. Standards of reporting were generally poor, with only 17 of 49 (35 per cent) quantifying previous experience. Methods used to assess the learning curve were heterogeneous, often lacking statistical validation and using ambiguous terminology.

Conclusion

Learning curve estimates were subject to considerable uncertainty. Robust evidence was lacking, owing to limitations in study design, frequent reporting gaps and substantial heterogeneity in the methods used to assess learning curves. The opportunity remains for the establishment of optimal quantitative methods for the assessment of learning curves, to inform surgical training programmes and improve patient outcomes.

Three-dimensional printed dry lab training models to simulate robotic-assisted pancreaticojejunostomy

BACKGROUND

This pioneering study is aimed to design training models for robotic pancreaticojejunostomy (PJ) and to assess their usefulness using quality improvement exercise in the dry lab.

METHODS

Three dry lab models were developed including the anastomosis model of a transected silicon pancreatic stent (model 1), a rough model (model 2) simulating PJ, and an advanced three-dimensional printed model (model 3) more vividly simulating PJ. Three surgeons (A, B, C) with same specialty and levels of expertise in surgery were enrolled in the training which was divided into three rounds of tasks. In the first round, all three surgeons (A, B, C) participated in the training on basic technical tasks before moved on to the next rounds. While surgeons A, B participated in the second round on model 1, only surgeon A worked on model 2 in the third round. Their proficiency of performance was evaluated on model 3.

RESULTS

The results of the first and second rounds between surgeons are similar. Surgeon A practiced with model 2 for 6 h, completing 10 cases. In model 3, the times of attempts before achieving a consecutively three times of satisfactory anastomosis procedures were compared, for surgeon A, six cases, 20 for B and 25 for C.

CONCLUSIONS

The specifically designed series of dry lab training models may be a potential training tool for advancing the robotic PJ through quality improvement exercise in dry lab. Further larger and well-designed studies are warranted to validate this issue.

Oncologic Outcomes After Robotic Pancreatic Resections Are Not Inferior to Open Surgery

OBJECTIVE

Compare oncologic outcomes after open and robotic pancreatic resections for pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy improves survival after resected PDAC. Complications after pancreatectomy have been shown to prohibit the administration of adjuvant chemotherapy and survival. We examined the effect of surgical approach on receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy, complications, and overall survival after pancreatectomy.

METHODS

A single-institution retrospective review of all patients with PDAC who underwent robotic or open pancreatectomy from 2011 to 2016 with 24-month follow-up.

RESULTS

Four hundred fifty-six patients underwent resection: 226 robotic and 230 open. No significant difference was identified in major complications or receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy between robotic and open pancreatectomy, nor was approach an independent predictor of these outcomes. Robotic pancreatectomy patients had a shorter length of stay than patients who underwent open pancreatectomy (7 days vs 9 days; P < 0.001). Additionally, wound infection rate (32.3% vs 12.4%, P < 0.0001) and transfusion (39.6% vs 12.4%, P < 0.0001) was improved in robotic pancreatectomy group with no differences in perioperative mortality. Improved median overall survival approached statistical significance for the robotic cohort (25.6 months vs 23.9 months; P = 0.055); however, on multivariable analysis the robotic approach predicted overall survival, (hazard ratio 0.77, P = 0.041). Robotic approach was an independent predictor of decreased blood loss and less transfusions than the open approach.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic pancreatectomy was not inferior compared to open pancreatectomy in a high-volume experienced center for oncologic outcomes and due to decreased blood loss and transfusion may have improved survival.

International Validation of Reduced Major Morbidity After Minimally Invasive Distal Pancreatectomy Compared With Open Pancreatectomy

OBJECTIVE

To quantify the nationwide impact of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) on major morbidity as compared with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP).

BACKGROUND

A recent randomized controlled trial (RCT) demonstrated significant reduction in time to functional recovery after MIDP compared with ODP, but was not powered to assess potential risk reductions in major morbidity.

METHODS

International cohort study using the American College of Surgeons' National Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) (88 centers; 2014-2016) to evaluate the association between surgical approach (MIDP vs ODP) and 30-day composite major morbidity (CMM; death or severe complications) with external model validation using Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group data (17 centers; 2005-2016). Multivariable logistic regression assessed the impact of nationwide MIDP rates between 0% and 100% on postoperative CMM at conversion rates between 0% and 25%, using estimated marginal effects. A sensitivity analysis tested the impact at various scenarios and patient populations.

RESULTS

Of 2921 ACS-NSQIP patients, 1562 (53%) underwent MIDP with 18% conversion, and 1359 (47%) underwent ODP. MIDP was independently associated with reduced CMM [odds ratio (OR) 0.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.42-0.60, P < 0.001], confirmed by external model validation (n = 637, P < 0.003). The association between rising MIDP implementation rates and falling postoperative morbidity was linear between 0% (all ODP) and 100% (all MIDP). The absolute risk reduction for CMM was 11% (95% CI 7.3%-15%) at observed conversion rates and improved to 14% (95% CI 11%-18%) as conversion approached 0%. Similar effects were seen across subgroups.

CONCLUSION

This international study predicted a nationwide 11% risk reduction for CMM after MIDP versus ODP, which is likely to improve as conversion rates decrease. These findings confirm secondary outcomes of the recent LEOPARD RCT.

International consensus statement on robotic pancreatic surgery

The robotic surgical system has been applied to various types of pancreatic surgery. However, controversies exist regarding a variety of factors including the safety, feasibility, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of robotic surgery. This study aimed to evaluate the current status of robotic pancreatic surgery and put forth experts' consensus and recommendations to promote its development. Based on the WHO Handbook for Guideline Development, a Consensus Steering Group* and a Consensus Development Group were established to determine the topics, prepare evidence-based documents, and generate recommendations. The GRADE Grid method and Delphi vote were used to formulate the recommendations. A total of 19 topics were analyzed. The first 16 recommendations were generated by GRADE using an evidence-based method (EBM) and focused on the safety, feasibility, indication, techniques, certification of the robotic surgeon, and cost-effectiveness of robotic pancreatic surgery. The remaining three recommendations were based on literature review and expert panel opinion due to insufficient EBM results. Since the current amount of evidence was low/meager as evaluated by the GRADE method, further randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are needed in the future to validate these recommendations.

Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: An analysis from the U.S. neuroendocrine tumor study group

BACKGROUND

To determine short- and long-term oncologic outcomes after minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) for the treatment of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor (pNET).

METHODS

The data of the patients who underwent curative MIDP or ODP for pNET between 2000 and 2016 were collected from a multi-institutional database. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to generate 1:1 matched patients with MIDP and ODP.

RESULTS

A total of 576 patients undergoing curative DP for pNET were included. Two hundred and fourteen (37.2%) patients underwent MIDP, whereas 362 (62.8%) underwent ODP. MIDP was increasingly performed over time (2000-2004: 9.3% vs 2013-2016: 54.8%; P < 0.01). In the matched cohort (n = 141 in each group), patients who underwent MIDP had less blood loss (median, 100 vs 200 mL, P < 0.001), lower incidence of Clavien-Dindo ≥ III complications (12.1% vs 24.8%, P = 0.026), and a shorter hospital stay versus ODP (median, 4 versus 7 days, P = 0.026). Patients who underwent MIDP had a lower incidence of recurrence (5-year cumulative recurrence, 10.1% vs 31.1%, P < 0.001), yet equivalent overall survival (OS) rate (5-year OS, 92.1% vs 90.9%, P = 0.550) compared with patients who underwent OPD.

CONCLUSION

Patients undergoing MIDP over ODP in the treatment of pNET had comparable oncologic surgical metrics, as well as similar long-term OS.

The Evolution of Kidney Transplantation Surgery Into the Robotic Era and Its Prospects for Obese Recipients

Robotic-assisted kidney transplantation (RAKT) represents the most recent innovation in the evolution of kidney transplantation surgery. Vascular techniques enabling kidney transplantation have existed since the early 20th century and contributed to the first successful open kidney transplant procedure in 1954. Technical advances have since facilitated minimally invasive laparoscopic and robotic techniques in live-donor surgery, and subsequently for the recipient procedure. This review follows the development of surgical techniques for kidney transplantation, with a special focus on the advent of robotic-assisted transplantation because of its potential to facilitate transplantation of those deemed previously too obese to transplant by standard means. The different techniques, indications, advantages, disadvantages, and future directions of this approach will be explored in detail. Robot-assisted kidney transplantation may become the preferred means of transplanting morbidly obese recipients, although its availability to such recipients remains extremely limited and strategies targeting weight loss pretransplantation should never be abandoned in favor of a "RAKT-first" approach.

Robotic pancreatic surgery: old concerns, new perspectives

BACKGROUND

Described for the first time in 2003, the robotic pancreatic surgery shows interesting results. The evaluation of post-operative outcomes is necessary once we describe an innovative surgical approach.

METHODS

We have performed a retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database on robotic pancreatic surgery including malignant and benign indications for surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 50 consecutive patients underwent robotic pancreatic surgery (26 pancreatico duodenectomy and 24 distal pancreatectomy) between January 2012 and July 2015 in a single centre. The overall operative time was 425 (390-620) min. In a subgroup of highly selected malignant tumours, we were able to achieve 88% of R0 resection with robotic approach. A number of lymphnodes rose significantly with growing experience (p = .025). The overall major complication rate (15%), as well as pancreatic fistula rate (16%) were acceptable. The two-year overall survival for the whole group was 65%.

CONCLUSION

The robotic pancreatic surgery in a highly selected group of patients seems safe and feasible. The cost-effectiveness and long-term oncologic outcomes need further investigations.

True learning curve of laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy with splenic vessel preservation

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is generally the treatment of choice for diseases of the pancreatic body and tail. Most surgeons prefer the spleen- and splenic vessel-preserving technique (SPVP-LDP) in benign/borderline pancreatic disease because complications of splenic infarction and gastric varices can arise after Warshaw technique. This study was aimed to determine the true learning curve of the SPVP-LDP procedure not LDP including Warshaw technique.

METHODS

Data were collected retrospectively from all patients who underwent a LDP between June 2007 and April 2017 at Gangnam Severance Hospital. We used cumulative sum control chart (CUSUM) analysis to assess the learning curve for the SPVP-LDP technique.

RESULTS

Eight-three patients were performed LDP and we excluded patients who underwent robotic approach (N = 10) and open conversion DP (N = 8). Patients who underwent SPVP-LDP procedures were categorized into Group 1 (primary end-point). Those who underwent LDP procedures with splenectomy and the Warshaw technique were categorized into Group 2. We found that the 16th case was the cutoff point and the mean length of hospital stay was 13.0 days in the first period and 8.7 days in the second period (p = < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

These results indicated that the frequency of SPVP-LDPs had increased and that technological progress had been made over time. The true learning curve for SPVP-LDP was indicated as 16 cases in a group of surgeons with no experience of laparoscopic pancreatic surgery.

Comprehensive comparative analysis of cost-effectiveness and perioperative outcomes between open, laparoscopic, and robotic distal pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND

NSQIP data show that half of distal pancreatectomies (DP) are performed by a minimally invasive approach (MIS). Advantages have been demonstrated for MIS DP, yet comparative cost data are limited. Outcomes and cost were compared in patients undergoing open (ODP), laparoscopic (LDP), and robotic (RDP) approaches at a single institution.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed on patients undergoing DP between 1/2010-5/2016. Analysis was intention-to-treat, and cost was available after 1/2013.

RESULTS

DP was performed in 374 patients: ODP = 85, LDP = 93, and RDP = 196. Operating time was lowest in the RDP cohort (p < 0.0001). ODP had higher estimated blood loss (p < 0.0001) and transfusions (p < 0.0001) than LDP and RDP. LDP had greater conversions to open procedures than RDP (p = 0.001). Postoperative outcomes were similar between groups. Length of stay was higher in the ODP group (p = 0.0001) than LDP and RDP. Overall cost for the ODP was higher than the RDP and LDP group (p = 0.002). On multivariate analysis, RDP reduced LOS (ODP: Odds = 6.5 [p = 0.0001] and LDP: Odds = 2.1 [p = 0.036]) and total cost (ODP: Odds = 5.7 [p = 0.002] and LDP: Odds = 2.8 [p = 0.042]) independently of all demographics and illness covariates.

CONCLUSIONS

A robotic approach is associated with reduced length of stay and cost compared to open and laparoscopic procedures.

Learning curves for robotic pancreatic surgery-from distal pancreatectomy to pancreaticoduodenectomy

This study sought to identify the learning curves of console time (CT) for robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) and robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP). Perioperative outcomes were compared between the early group of surgeries performed early in the learning curve and the late group of surgeries performed after the learning curve.Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is a technically demanding and challenging procedure carrying a high morbidity.Data for RDP and RPD were prospectively collected for analysis. The learning curve was assessed by cumulative sum (CUSUM). Based on CUSUM analyses, patients were divided into the early group and the late group.There were 70 RDP and 61 RPD cases. It required 37 cases to overcome the learning curve for RDP and 20 cases for RPD. The median console time was significantly shorter in the late group for both RDP (112 minutes vs 225 minutes, P < .001) and RPD (360 minuntes vs 520 minutes, P < .001). Median blood loss was significantly less in the late group for both RDP (30 cc vs 100 cc, P = .003) and RPD (100 cc vs 200 cc, P < .001). No surgical mortality occurred in either group. Clinically relevant pancreatic fistula rate was 22.9% for RDP (32.4% in the early group vs 12.1% in the late group, P = .043), and 11.5% for RPD (0 in early group vs 17.1% in late group, P = .084).This study demonstrates that the RPD learning curve is 20 cases with prior experience of RDP and confirms the safety and feasibility of both RPD and RDP. Practice and familiarity with the robotic platform are likely to contribute to significant shortening of the learning curve in robotic pancreatic surgery, while knowledge and experience, in addition to practical skills, are also essential to minimize the potential surgical risks of RPD.

Robotic Inguinal Hernia Repair: A Large Health System's Experience With the First 300 Cases and Review of the Literature

BACKGROUND

Over the past 5 y, robotic surgery has expanded within general surgery, especially in regard to hernia repairs. We aimed to evaluate the outcomes of the early experience of over 300 consecutive robotic inguinal hernia repairs performed in an academic multihospital system.

METHODS

Consecutive robotic inguinal hernia repairs performed between December 2015 and June 2017 were analyzed. Retrospective chart review was performed, and hospital records were queried. Descriptive statistics were performed. A surgical learning curve case study is presented, breakdown of operative time is delineated, and review of the literature performed.

RESULTS

Over a period of 19 mo, 335 robotic inguinal hernia repairs were performed across seven hospitals by 18 surgeons. The mean patient age was 59 y (standard deviation [SD] 14), 93% were male, and the mean body mass index was 27 (SD 4.6). Bilateral hernia repairs were performed on 131 patients (39%). The mean operative time was 102 min (SD 38) and a resident or fellow trainee was present in the operating room for 119 cases (36%). Minor postoperative complications occurred in 54 patients (16%), including 14 with urinary retention (4.2%) and 13 with scrotal swelling (3.9%). The learning curve of the first adopted surgeon was 11-12 cases.

CONCLUSIONS

In the largest case series of robotic inguinal hernia repairs to date reporting short-term outcomes, early experience in an academic multihospital system produced safe outcomes including no open conversions, reoperations, and one readmission. In addition, the learning curve is manageable showing improvement in operating time with experience.

Robotic surgery trends in general surgical oncology from the National Inpatient Sample

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery is offered at most major medical institutions. The extent of its use within general surgical oncology, however, is poorly understood. We hypothesized that robotic surgery adoption in surgical oncology is increasing annually, that is occurring in all surgical sites, and all regions of the US.

STUDY DESIGN

We identified patients with site-specific malignancies treated with surgical resection from the National Inpatient Sample 2010-2014 databases. Operations were considered robotic if any ICD-9-CM robotic procedure code was used.

RESULTS

We identified 147,259 patients representing the following sites: esophageal (3%), stomach (5%), small bowel (5%), pancreas (7%), liver (5%), and colorectal (75%). Most operations were open (71%), followed by laparoscopic (26%), and robotic (3%). In 2010, only 1.1% of operations were robotic; over the 5-year study period, there was a 5.0-fold increase in robotic surgery, compared to 1.1-fold increase in laparoscopy and 1.2-fold decrease in open surgery (< 0.001). These trends were observed for all surgical sites and in all regions of the US, they were strongest for esophageal and colorectal operations, and in the Northeast. Adjusting for age and comorbidities, odds of having a robotic operation increased annually (5.6 times more likely by 2014), with similar length of stay (6.9 ± 6.5 vs 7.0 ± 6.5, p = 0.52) and rate of complications (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.83-1.01, p = 0.08) compared to laparoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic surgery as a platform for minimally invasive surgery is increasing over time for oncologic operations. The growing use of robotic surgery will affect surgical oncology practice in the future, warranting further study of its impact on cost, outcomes, and surgical training.

Comparison of surgical outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy versus laparoscopic and open resections: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RADP) has been developed with the aim of improving surgical quality and overcoming the limitations of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) and open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) for pancreatic resections. A systematic search was performed in the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and China Biology Medicine databases up to December 2016 for studies that compared the surgical outcomes of RADP vs. LDP or ODP for pancreatic resections. The weighted mean differences, odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated, and the data were combined using the random-effects model. The GRADE system was used to interpret the primary outcomes of this meta-analysis. A total of seventeen non-randomized observational clinical studies involving 2133 patients satisfied the eligibility criteria. Compared with LDP, RADP was associated with a longer operative time (P = 0.018), a shorter hospital length of stay (P = 0.030), and a higher rate of spleen preservation (P = 0.022). Moreover, RADP was associated with a shorter hospital LOS (P = 0.014) and a lower total complication rate (P = 0.034) than ODP. We found no statistically significant differences between the techniques in the mean estimated blood loss, severe complication rate, incidence of total pancreatic fistulas or incidence of severe pancreatic fistulas. The overall quality of evidence was poor for all outcomes. This meta-analysis indicates that RADP may be safe and comparable in terms of surgical results to LDP and ODP. Further RCTs are needed to confirm the outcomes of this meta-analysis.

Oncologic outcomes after robot-assisted versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: Analysis of the National Cancer Database

BACKGROUND

How the oncologic outcomes after robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) compare to those after laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) remains unknown.

METHODS

Using the National Cancer Database (NCDB), we analyzed all patients undergoing LDP or RDP for resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma over a 4-year period (2010-2013).

RESULTS

Of the 704 eligible patients, 605 (86%) underwent LDP and 99 (14%) underwent RDP. The median follow-up for patients was 25 months. There were no differences in the two groups with respect to sociodemographic, clinicopathologic, or treatment characteristics. On comparing LDP versus RDP, there was no difference in the margin-positive rate (15% vs 16%; P = 0.84); lymph nodes examined (12 vs 11; P = 0.67); overall survival (hazard ratio [HR], 1.1, 95% confidence intervals [CI], 0.7 to 1.7; 28 vs 25 months; P = 0.71); hospital stay (6 vs 5 days; P = 0.14); time to chemotherapy (50 vs 52 days; P = 0.65); 30-day readmission (9.4% vs 9.1%; P = 0.92); and mortality (1% vs 0%; P = 0.28). Patients undergoing LDP had a significantly higher conversion rate to open or minimally invasive pancreatic cancer resections compared with RDP (27% vs 10%; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The early national experience with RDP demonstrates similar oncologic outcomes to LDP, with a significantly lower conversion rate.

Proficiency-based training and credentialing can improve patient outcomes and decrease cost to a hospital system

BACKGROUND

While proficiency-based robotic training has been shown to enhance skill acquisition, no studies have shown that training leads to improved outcomes or quality measures.

METHODS

Board-certified general surgeons participated in an optional proficiency-based robotic training curriculum and outcomes from robotic hernia cases were analyzed. Multivariable analysis was performed for operative times to adjust for patient and surgical variables.

RESULTS

Six out of 16 (38%) surgeons completed training and 210 robotic hernia cases were analyzed. Longer operative times were associated with bilateral repairs (observed-to-expected operative time ratio [OTR] = 1.41, p < 0.001) and incarceration (OTR = 1.24, p = 0.006), while female patients (OTR = 0.87, p = 0.001) and increasing chronologic case order (OTR = 0.94, p < 0.001) were associated with shorter operative times. Surgeons who completed robotic training achieved shorter OTRs than those who did not (p = 0.03). Comparing non-risk adjusted hospital costs, trainees had an average of $1207 in savings (20% reduction) per robotic hernia case.

CONCLUSIONS

A structured proficiency-based robotics training curriculum is an effective way to reduce operative times and costs.

True learning curve of laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy with splenic vessel preservation

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is generally the treatment of choice for diseases of the pancreatic body and tail. Most surgeons prefer the spleen- and splenic vessel-preserving technique (SPVP-LDP) in benign/borderline pancreatic disease because complications of splenic infarction and gastric varices can arise after Warshaw technique. This study was aimed to determine the true learning curve of the SPVP-LDP procedure not LDP including Warshaw technique.

METHODS

Data were collected retrospectively from all patients who underwent a LDP between June 2007 and April 2017 at Gangnam Severance Hospital. We used cumulative sum control chart (CUSUM) analysis to assess the learning curve for the SPVP-LDP technique.

RESULTS

Eight-three patients were performed LDP and we excluded patients who underwent robotic approach (N = 10) and open conversion DP (N = 8). Patients who underwent SPVP-LDP procedures were categorized into Group 1 (primary end-point). Those who underwent LDP procedures with splenectomy and the Warshaw technique were categorized into Group 2. We found that the 16th case was the cutoff point and the mean length of hospital stay was 13.0 days in the first period and 8.7 days in the second period (p = < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

These results indicated that the frequency of SPVP-LDPs had increased and that technological progress had been made over time. The true learning curve for SPVP-LDP was indicated as 16 cases in a group of surgeons with no experience of laparoscopic pancreatic surgery.

Safety and efficacy for robot-assisted versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This meta-analysis was conducted to compare the clinical safety and efficacy of robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (RAPD) or robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RADP) with open surgery.

METHODS

Multiple databases (PubMed, Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane Library) were searched to identify studies comparing the outcomes of RAPD and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) or RADP and open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) (up to December 31, 2017). Fixed and random effects models were applied according to different conditions.

RESULTS

Fifteen non-randomized controlled trials (11 RAPD vs. OPD and 4 RADP vs. ODP) involving 3690 patients were included. Robot-assisted surgery had longer operative time (RAPD vs. OPD: P = 0.0005; RADP vs. ODP: P < 0.00001) but lesser blood loss than open surgery (RAPD vs. OPD: P = 0.0009; RADP vs. ODP: P = 0.0007). RAPD was associated with less wound infection, a lower positive margin rate, lower overall complications, and faster postoperative off-bed activity. There was no significant difference in the lymph node yield, the rate of pancreatic fistula, delayed gastric emptying, reoperation, length of hospital stay and mortality between the two groups. Compared with ODP, RADP was associated with less blood transfusion, fewer lymph nodes harvested, lower complications and shorter hospital stay. There was no significant difference between the two groups in the rate of spleen preservation, positive margin, pancreatic fistula, and mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Robot-assisted surgery is a safe and feasible alternative to OPD and ODP with regard to perioperative outcomes. However, due to the lack of high-quality randomized controlled trials, the evidence is still limited.

Do patients benefit more from robot assisted approach than conventional laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy? A meta-analysis of perioperative and economic outcomes

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Robotic approach has improved the ergonomics of conventional laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP), but whether patients benefit more from robot assisted distal pancreatectomy (RADP) is still controversial. This meta-analysis aims to compare the perioperative and economic outcomes of RADP with LDP.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was carried out on PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library between January 1990 and March 2017. All eligible studies comparing RADP versus LDP were included. Perioperative and economic outcomes constituted the end points.

RESULTS

13 English studies with 1396 patients were included. Regarding to intraoperative outcomes, RADP was associated with a significant decrease in conversion rate (OR = 0.52; 95%CI: 0.34, 0.78; P = 0.002). Although the spleen-preserving rates were comparable between RADP and LDP, a significant higher splenic vessels conservation rate was observed in the RADP group (OR = 4.71; 95%CI: 1.77, 12.56; P = 0.002). No statistically significant differences were found at operation time, estimated blood loss and blood transfusion rate. Concerning postoperative outcomes, pooled data indicated the overall morbidity, pancreatic fistula and the length of hospital stay did not differ significantly between the RADP and LDP groups. And concerning pathological outcomes, positive margin rate and the number of lymph nodules harvested were comparable between the two groups. The operative cost of RADP was almost double that of LDP (WMD = 2350.2 US dollars; 95%CI: 1165.62, 3534.78; P = 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

RADP showed a slight technical advantage. But whether this benefit is worth twofold cost should be considered by patient's individuation.

Assessing the impact of conversion on outcomes of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy and pancreatoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

Our aim was to compare outcomes of patients who undergo conversion to open during minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MI-DP) and pancreatoduodenectomy (MI-PD) to those completed in minimally invasive fashion, and to compare outcomes of minimally invasive completions and conversions to planned open pancreatectomy.

METHODS

Propensity scoring was used to compare outcomes of completed and converted cases from a national cohort, and multivariate regression analysis (MVA) was used to compare minimally invasive completions and conversions to planned open pancreatectomy.

RESULTS

MI-DP was performed in 43.0%. Conversions (20.2%) had increased morbidity (32.3 vs 42.0%), serious morbidity (11.1 vs 21.2%), and organ space infection (6.2 vs 14.2%). Outcomes of MI-DP conversions were comparable to open. MI-PD was performed in 6.1%. Conversions (25.2%) had increased organ space infection (10.9 vs 26.6%), blood transfusions (17.2 vs 42.2%), and clinically relevant pancreatic fistula (11.5 vs 28.1%). On MVA, conversion of MI-PD was associated with increased mortality (OR 2.84, 95% CI 1.09-7.42), post-operative percutaneous drain placement (OR 2.36, 95% CI 1.32-4.20), and blood transfusions (OR 1.85, 95% CI 1.07-3.21).

CONCLUSION

Converted cases have increased morbidity compared to completions, and for patients undergoing PD, conversions may be associated with inferior outcomes compared to planned open cases.

The impact of unplanned conversion to an open procedure during minimally invasive pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive pancreatic resection (MIPR) is being increasingly utilized. Outcomes for patients experiencing unplanned conversion to an open procedure during MIPR have been incompletely assessed. We sought to determine the short-term outcomes and factors associated with unplanned conversion during MIPR.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program pancreatectomy-targeted data set was conducted. Successful MIPR was compared with unplanned conversion. Propensity matching was used to separately compare unplanned conversion during MIPR with planned open pancreatectomy.

RESULTS

Unplanned conversion occurred in 24.6% of 350 attempted minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) and 19.6% of 1174 attempted minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP). Conversion was associated with greater overall morbidity and 30-day mortality compared with successful MIPR for both MIPD and MIDP. After matching, unplanned conversion resulted in outcomes equivalent or inferior to open pancreatectomy. Factors significantly associated with unplanned conversion during MIPD included intermediate gland texture, vascular resection, hypertension, disseminated cancer, and chronic steroid use. For MIDP, male sex, hard gland texture, vascular resection, smoking, and recent weight loss were independently associated with conversion. A robotic approach was inversely associated with conversion for MIPD and MIDP.

CONCLUSIONS

Unplanned conversion during MIPR is associated with greater morbidity and 30-day mortality. Conversion resulted in outcomes that, at best, mimicked those of open pancreatectomy. Several risk factors including the need for vascular resection are associated with unplanned conversion and should be acknowledged when planning an operative approach.

Impact of Operative Time on Outcomes after Pancreatic Resection: A Risk-Adjusted Analysis Using the American College of Surgeons NSQIP Database

BACKGROUND

Longer operative time (OT) has been associated with negative outcomes in various surgical procedures, but its role in pancreatic resection, a complex, high-acuity endeavor, is not yet well defined. The aim of this study was to analyze the relationship between OT and pancreatectomy outcomes in a risk-adjusted fashion.

STUDY DESIGN

This retrospective cohort study analyzed patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) or distal pancreatectomy (DP) between 2014 and 2015 using the procedure-targeted pancreatectomy database of the American College of Surgeons NSQIP. Univariable analyses and multiple backward stepwise conditional logistic regression models were used to assess the impact of OT on postoperative occurrences.

RESULTS

Among 10,157 patients, 6,844 PDs and 3,313 DPs were performed. Median operative time was 358 minutes (interquartile range 282 to 444 minutes) for PD and 213 minutes (interquartile range 157 to 285 minutes) for DP. Male sex, younger age, obesity, neoadjuvant treatment, minimally invasive approaches, and vascular/concurrent organ resections were associated with longer OT for both procedures. Morbidity increased in a stepwise manner with increasing OT. After risk adjustment, increasing OT was negatively associated with overall morbidity, major complications, pancreatectomy-specific complications, infectious complications, and prolonged hospital stay. These associations were independent from patients' preoperative characteristics, operative approach, vascular or concurrent organ resection, and postoperative diagnosis. These findings held true for both PD and DP. Conversely, the association between OT and mortality was mainly driven by the excessive operative durations for PDs, and was not significant for DPs.

CONCLUSIONS

Longer OT is independently associated with worse perioperative outcomes after pancreatic resection, and should be considered a relevant parameter in risk-adjustment processes for outcomes evaluation. These findings suggest possible areas of quality improvement through individual and system-level initiatives.

[A single-team experience with robotic pancreatic surgery in 1010 cases]

OBJECTIVE

To assess the safety and advantages of robotic pancreatic surgery (RPS) based on the single-team experience with 1010 cases.

METHODS

The clinical data of 1010 cases of RPS performed by a single team from November, 2011 to September, 2017 in our hospital were collected prospectively and analyzed. In most of cases the surgeries were performed using the third-generation da Vinci robotic surgical system.

RESULTS

The 1010 cases receiving RPS included 417 cases of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD), 428 cases of robotic distal pancreatectomy, 60 cases of robotic central pancreatectomy, 53 cases of robotic pancreatic tumor enucleation, 3 cases of Appleby procedure, and 49 cases of other operations (including 4 cases of innovative robotic retroperitoneal laparoscopic surgery, 4 cases of robotic pancreatic tumor enucleation combined with main pancreatic duct bridging repair, 1 case of single incision robotic pancreatic tumor enucleation, and 2 cases of robotic central pancreatectomy combined with end-to-end anastomosis reconstruction). The median operative time was 210 min (30-720 min) with a median intraoperative blood loss of 80 mL (10-2000 mL), a conversion rate of 4.06% (41/1010), a blood transfusion rate of 6.7% (68/1010), a mean post-operative stay of 10.87∓6.70 days, a complication rate (beyond grade III according to Clavien-Dindo scoring system) of 8.0% (81/1010), and a pancreatic fistula rate (beyond) grade B of 9.21% (93/1010). The mortality rate of the patients was 0.69% (7/1010) in 30 days and 1.31% (12//934) in 90 days. The application of RPS in total pancreatectomy increased steadily from the rate of 10.44% in 2012 to 72.06% in 2017.

CONCLUSION

This represents to our knowledge the world largest series of robotic pancreatic resections. RPS is expected to gradually replace open procedure and laparoscopic procedure to become the primary choice of approach for pancreatectomy. After the learning curve, RPS procedure including distal pancreatectomy, robotic Appleby procedure and other operations can be safely performed, and the experiences from other centers can be beneficial to reduce severe complications in the early stage of learning.

Surgical resection of pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasm by minimally invasive surgery-the robotic approach?

Over the past decade, there has been increasing adoption of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery world-wide and this has naturally expanded to the management of pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (PNENs). More recently, robotic pancreatic surgery (RPS) was introduced to overcome the limitations during laparoscopic pancreatic surgery (LPS). Due to the relative rarity of PNEN and the novelty of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery in particular RPS today, the evidence for robotic surgery in PNENs remains extremely limited. Presently, the available evidence is limited to a few low level retrospective case-control studies. These studies suggest that RPS may be associated with a higher splenic preservation rates and lower open conversion rates compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery. Ideally a prospective randomized trial should be performed but this would be extremely challenging due to the rarity of PNEN, making it almost impossible to conduct a sufficiently powered trial.