250 robotic pancreatic resections: safety and feasibility. Ann Surg. 2013;258:554-559; discussion 559-562. [PMID: 24002300 DOI: 10.1097/sla.0b013e3182a4e87c]

Novel single-layer continuous suture of pancreaticojejunostomy for robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

The best technique for pancreatic anastomosis after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) remains controversial, and the procedure for robotic PD (RPD) has not been previously reported. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and feasibility of a novel technique of pancreaticojejunostomy (PJ) for RPD.

METHODS

The demographics and perioperative outcomes of a consecutive series of RPD patients who underwent single-layer continuous suture (SCS) for PJ between September 2018 and November 2018 were analyzed.

RESULTS

Thirty patients were included in the study. Twenty patients had a soft pancreas, and 15 patients had a small main pancreatic duct (MPD) (<3 mm). The mean operative time was 234.1 min, the mean duration of PJ was 14.9 min, and the median estimated blood loss was 100.0 ml. No patients required conversion to laparotomy. Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) included seven cases of Grade A and two cases of Grade B. No case of Grade C POPF occurred. The mean postoperative hospital stay was 12.3 days. No 90-day readmission or mortality was observed. Neither pancreatic texture nor MPD size affected the perioperative outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Single-layer continuous suture is easy to perform and is associated with favorable clinical outcomes, regardless of the pancreatic duct size and texture.

Predicting Selection Preference of Robotic Pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) in a Chinese Single Center Population: Development and Assessment of a New Predictive Nomogram

BACKGROUND Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) is a novel type of minimally invasive surgery to treat tumors located at the head of the pancreas. This study aimed to construct a novel prediction model for predicting selection preference for RPD in a Chinese single medical center population. MATERIAL AND METHODS The clinical data from 451 pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma patients were collected and analyzed from January 2013 to December 2016. Twenty-three items affecting clinical strategies were optimized by LASSO (least absolute shrinkage and selection operator) regression analysis and then were incorporated in multivariable logistic regression analysis. C-index was used for evaluating the discriminative ability. Decision curve was applied to determine clinical application of this model and the calibration of this nomogram was evaluated by calibration plot. The model was internally validated through bootstrapping validation. RESULTS Clinicopathological factors included in the model were age, history of diabetes mellitus, history of hypertension, history of heart, brain and kidney disease, history of abdominal surgery, symptoms (jaundice, accidental discovery and weight loss), anemia, elevated carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), smoking, alcohol intake, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scores, vascular invasion, overweight, preoperative lymph node metastasis and tumor size >3.5 cm. A C-index of 0.831 indicated good discrimination and calibration of this model. Interval validation generated an acceptable C-index of 0.787. When surgical approach was determined at the threshold of preference possibility less than 63%, decision curve analysis indicated that this model had good clinical application value in this range. CONCLUSIONS This new nomogram could be conveniently used to predict the selection preference of robotic surgery for patients with pancreatic head cancer.

Learning Curve From 450 Cases of Robot-Assisted Pancreaticoduocectomy in a High-Volume Pancreatic Center: Optimization of Operative Procedure and a Retrospective Study

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to describe our experience and the learning curve of 450 cases of robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) and optimize the surgical process so that our findings can be useful for surgeons starting to perform RPD.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Robotic surgical systems were first introduced 20 years ago. Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is a challenging surgery because of its technical difficulty. RPD may overcome some of these difficulties.

METHODS

The medical records of 450 patients who underwent RPD between May 2010 and December 2018 at the Shanghai Ruijin Hospital were retrospectively analyzed. Operative times and estimated blood loss (EBL) were analyzed and the learning curve was determined. A cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis was used to identify the inflexion points. Other postoperative outcomes, postoperative complications, and long-term follow-up were also analyzed.

RESULTS

Operative time improved gradually over time from 405.4 ± 112.9 minutes (case 1-50) to 273.6 ± 70 minutes (case 301-350) (P < 0.001). EBL improved from 410 ± 563.5 mL (case 1-50) to 149.0 ± 103.3 mL (case 351-400) (P < 0.001). According to the CUSUM curve, there were 3 phases in the RPD learning curve. The inflexion points were around cases 100 and 250. The incidence of pancreatic leak in the last 350 cases was significantly lower than that in the first 100 cases (30.0% vs 15.1%, P = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

RPD is safe and feasible for selected patients. Operative and oncologic outcomes were much improved after experience of 250 cases. Our optimization of the surgical process may have also contributed to this. Future prospective and randomized studies are needed to confirm our results.

Use of Video Review to Investigate Technical Factors That May Be Associated With Delayed Gastric Emptying After Pancreaticoduodenectomy

Importance

Technical proficiency at robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) and video assessment are promising tools for understanding postoperative outcomes. Delayed gastric emptying (DGE) remains a major driver of cost and morbidity after pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Objective

To determine if technical variables during RPD are associated with postoperative DGE.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A retrospective study was conducted of technical assessment performed in all available videos (n = 192) of consecutive RPDs performed at a single academic institution from October 3, 2008, through September 27, 2016.

Exposures

Video review of gastrojejunal anastomosis during RPD.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Delayed gastric emptying was classified according to International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery criteria. Video analysis reviewed technical variables specific in the construction of the gastrojejunal anastomosis. Using multivariate analysis, DGE was correlated with known patient variables and technical variables, individually and combined.

Results

Of 410 RPDs performed, video was available for 192 RPDs (80 women and 112 men; mean [SD] age, 65.7 [11.1] years). Delayed gastric emptying occurred in 41 patients (21.4%; grade A, 15; grade B, 14; and grade C, 12). Patient variables contributing to DGE on multivariate analysis were advanced age (odds ratio [OR] 1.11; 95% CI, 1.05-1.16; P < .001), small pancreatic duct size (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.72-0.98; P = .03), and postoperative pseudoaneurysm (OR, 17.29; 95% CI, 2.34-127.78; P = .005). However, technical variables contributing to decreased DGE on multivariate analysis included the flow angle (within 30° of vertical) between the stomach and efferent jejunal limb (OR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.08-0.79; P = .02), greater length of the gastrojejunal anastomosis (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.20-0.77; P = .006), and a robotic-sewn anastomosis (robotic suture vs stapler: OR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.09-0.95; P = .04).

Conclusions and Relevance

This study examines modifiable technical factors through the use of review of video obtained at the time of operation and suggests ways by which the surgical construction of the gastrojejunal anastomosis during RPD may reduce the incidence of DGE as a framework for prospective quality improvement.

Pre- and intraoperative diagnostic requirements, benefits and risks of minimally invasive and robotic surgery for neuroendocrine tumors of the pancreas

Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (PanNET) are rare tumours, accounting for 1%-2% of all pancreatic neoplasms. These tumors are classified as functioning neuroendocrine tumours (F-PanNETs) or non-functioning (NF-PanNETs) depends on whether the tumour is associated with clinical hormonal hypersecretion syndrome or not. In the last decades, diagnosis of PanNETs has increased significantly due to the widespread of cross-sectional imaging. Whenever possible, surgery is the cornerstone of PanNETs management and the only curative option for these patients. Indeed, after R0 resection, the 5-year overall survival rate is around 90-100% for low grade lesions but significantly drops after incomplete resections. Compared to standard resections, pancreatic sparing surgery, i.e. enucleation and central pancreatectomy, significantly decreased the risk of pancreatic insufficiency. It should be performed in patients with good general condition and normal pancreatic function to limit the operative risk and enhance the benefit of surgery. Nowadays, due to many known advantages of minimally invasive surgery, there is an ongoing trend towards laparoscopic and robotic pancreatic surgery. The aim of this study is to describe the pre- and intraoperative diagnostic requirements for the management of PanNETs and the benefits and risks of minimally invasive surgery including laparoscopic and robotic approach in view of the recent literature.

Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic left pancreatectomy at a high-volume, minimally invasive center

INTRODUCTION

While minimally invasive left pancreatectomy has become more widespread and generally accepted over the last decade, opinions on modality of minimally invasive approach (robotic or laparoscopic) remain mixed with few institutions performing a significant portion of both operative approaches simultaneously.

METHODS

247 minimally invasive left pancreatectomies were retrospectively identified in a prospectively maintained institutional REDCap™ database, 135 laparoscopic left pancreatectomy (LLP) and 108 robotic-assisted left pancreatectomy (RLP). Demographics, intraoperative variables, postoperative outcomes, and OR costs were compared between LLP and RLP with an additional subgroup analysis for procedures performed specifically for pancreatic adenocarcinoma (35 LLP and 23 RLP) focusing on pathologic outcomes and 2-year actuarial survival.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in preoperative demographics or indications between LLP and RLP with 34% performed for chronic pancreatitis and 23% performed for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. While laparoscopic cases were faster (p < 0.001) robotic cases had a higher rate of splenic preservation (p < 0.001). Median length of stay was 5 days for RLP and LLP, and rate of clinically significant grade B/C pancreatic fistula was approximately 20% for both groups. Conversion rates to laparotomy were 4.3% and 1.8% for LLP and RLP approaches respectively. RLP had a higher rate of readmission (p = 0.035). Pathologic outcomes and 2-year actuarial survival were similar between LLP and RLP. LLP on average saved $206.67 in OR costs over RLP.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that at a high-volume center with significant minimally invasive experience, both LLP and RLP can be equally effective when used at the discretion of the operating surgeon. We view the laparoscopic and robotic platforms as tools for the modern surgeon, and at our institution, given the technical success of both operative approaches, we will continue to encourage our surgeons to approach a difficult operation with their tool of choice.

Robotic-assisted versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: the results of a case-matched comparison

Robotic-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) is progressively gaining momentum. It seems to provide some potential advantages over open approach. Unfortunately, only few studies investigated the impact of RPD on the oncologic outcomes. We performed a 1:1 case-matched comparison between two groups of 35 patients affected by a malignant tumor who underwent RPD and open (OPD) pancreaticoduodenectomy from August 2014 to April 2016. Operative time was longer in the RPD group compared to OPD (355 vs 262 min, p = 0.023), whereas median blood loss (235 vs 575 ml, p = 0.016) and length of hospitalization (6.5 vs 8.9 days, p = 0.041) were lower for RPD. A significant reduction of overall postoperative morbidity rate was found in the RPD group compared to the OPD group (31.4% vs 48.6% p = 0.034). No statistically significant difference was found between the two groups in terms of overall pancreatic fistula rate, R0 resection rate, and number of harvested lymph nodes. The overall and disease-free survival at 1 and 3 years were similar. RPD is a safe and effective technique. It reduces the estimated blood loss, the length hospital of stay and the rate of complications after pancreaticoduodenectomy, while preserving a good oncologic adequacy.

[Evidence for robotic surgery in oncological visceral surgery]

The superiority of minimally invasive operative methods compared to open surgery with respect to various parameters of short-term outcome with adequate oncological long-term results has already been confirmed for many tumor entities in high-quality studies. The continuously expanding robotic surgery offers certain additional benefits in minimally invasive oncological visceral surgery, such as a high-resolution stable 3‑dimensional view, optimal freedom of movement in situ, elimination of natural tremor and better ergonomics. This article evaluates whether these postulated advantages are reflected in an improvement of the short-term perioperative and long-term oncological results compared to conventional minimally invasive surgery in oncological visceral surgery (rectum, colon, stomach, esophagus, pancreas, liver) according to the criteria of evidence-based medicine. With the exception of colorectal surgery, there are currently no randomized controlled studies comparing robotic to laparoscopic surgery in oncological visceral surgery. There is still a clear imbalance between the exponentially expanding application of robotic surgery and the existing lack of high-quality evidence. Further randomized controlled clinical trials urgently need to be performed especially considering the great technological development potential of robotic surgery.

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.

Robotic Single-Site Plus One Port: Pancreas Enucleation

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic approaches to enucleation of the pancreas have been frequently described. Here we present a case of robotic single-site plus one port pancreas enucleation. To our knowledge, this enucleation surgical technique is the first to be reported in the medical literature.

METHODS

A 46-year-old male patient without previous medical or surgical history was incidentally diagnosed with a pancreatic mass during evaluation of intermittent right flank pain. Robotic single-site plus one port pancreas enucleation was performed using the Da Vinci single-site surgical platform with one additional port on November 16, 2016. Usual robotic instruments such as hook, bipolar, and vessel sealer with endo-wrist function could be used to facilitate effective surgical procedure with the additional port. The resected specimen was delivered through the umbilicus and a drain was not inserted.

RESULTS

Total operation time was 124 min with total console time of 73 min. Estimated blood loss was 50 cm³. Final pathology result was neuroendocrine tumor, grade 1. The patient was discharged without any complications on postoperative day #4.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic single-site plus one port pancreas enucleation seems feasible with acceptable perioperative outcomes.

Can post-hoc video review of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy predict portal/superior mesenteric vein margin status in pancreatic adenocarcinoma?

BACKGROUND

Achieving margin negative resection is a significant determinant of outcome in pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDA). However, because of the fibrotic nature of PDA, it can be difficult to discriminate fibrosis from active disease intra-operatively. We sought to determine if post-hoc video review of robotic pancreatico-duodenectomy (RPD) could predict the portal/superior mesenteric vein (PV/SMV) margin status on final pathology.

METHODS

Experienced pancreatic surgeons, blinded to patient and operative variables, reviewed the PV/SMV margin for available RPD videos of consecutive PDA patients from 9/2012 through 6/2017.

RESULTS

107 RPD videos were reviewed. Of 76 patients (71%) predicted to have a negative vein margin on video review, 20 patients (26%) had a pathologic positive margin. 25 of 31 patients (81%) predicted to have positive margin on video review were positive on pathology. The specificity of video prediction was 90.3% with a sensitivity of 55.6% and an accuracy of 75.7%.

CONCLUSION

Post-hoc video review prediction is unable to reliably predict a positive (R1) margin at the portal vein/SMV, suggesting that intra-operative clinical assessment may be suboptimal in determining the need for more extensive resections.

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: are the best times coming?

Background

The introduction of laparoscopic technology has greatly promoted the development of surgery, and the trend of minimally invasive surgery is becoming more and more obvious. However, there is no consensus as to whether laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) should be performed routinely.

Main body

We summarized the development of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) in recent years by comparing with open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) and evaluated its feasibility, perioperative, and long-term outcomes including operation time, length of hospital stay, estimated blood loss, and overall survival. Then, several relevant issues and challenges were discussed in depth.

Conclusion

The perioperative and long-term outcomes of LPD are no worse and even better in length of hospital stay and estimated blood loss than OPD and RPD except for a few reports. Though with strict control of indications, standardized training, and learning, ensuring safety and reducing cost are still and will always the keys to the healthy development of LPD; the best times for it are coming.

Short-term and long-term outcomes after robot-assisted versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNETs): a multicenter comparative study

PURPOSE

Minimally invasive surgery has increasingly gained popularity as a treatment of choice for pancreatectomy with encouraging initial results in robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP). However, few data are available on the comparison between RDP and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNETs). Our aim, thus, is to compare perioperative and long-term outcomes as well as total costs of RDP and LDP for pNETs.

METHODS

All RDPs and LDPs for pNETs performed in four referral centers from 2008 to 2016 were included. Perioperative outcomes, histopathological results, overall (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS), and total costs were evaluated.

RESULTS

Ninety-six RDPs and 85 LDPs were included. Demographic and clinical characteristics were comparable between the two cohorts. Operative time was 36.5 min longer in the RDP group (p = 0.009) but comparable to LDP after removing the docking time (247.9 vs 233.7 min; p = 0.6). LDP related to a lower spleen preservation rate (44.7% vs 65.3%; p < 0.0001) and higher blood loss (239.7 ± 112 vs 162.5 ± 98 cc; p < 0.0001). Advantages in operative time for RDP were documented in case of the spleen preservation procedures (265 ± 41.52 vs 291 ± 23 min; p = 0.04). Conversion rate, postoperative morbidity, and pancreatic fistula rate were similar between the two groups, as well as histopathological data, OS, and DFS. Significant advantages were evidenced for LDP regarding mean total costs (9235 (± 1935) € vs 11,226 (± 2365) €; p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Both RDP and LDP are safe and efficacious for pNETs treatment. However, RDP offers advantages with a higher spleen preservation rate and lower blood loss. Costs still remain the main limitation of the robotic approach.

Appleby Procedure (Distal Pancreatectomy With Celiac Artery Resection) for Locally Advanced Pancreatic Carcinoma: Indications, Outcomes, and Imaging

OBJECTIVE. We describe the indications, surgical technique, outcome, and imaging findings in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) treated with distal pancreatectomy and celiac artery resection (modified Appleby procedure). CONCLUSION. Distal pancreatectomy and celiac artery resection is a feasible surgery in selected patients with locally advanced PDAC. Knowledge of surgical technique and imaging features may aid radiologists in identifying patients with locally invasive PDAC who might benefit from resection and identifying characteristic distal pancreatectomy and celiac artery resection complications.

Clinical efficacy of middle pancreatectomy contrasts distal pancreatectomy: a single-institution experience and review of literature

Background

We aim to analyse the difference of clinical efficacy between middle pancreatectomy (MP) and distal pancreatectomy (DP).

Methods

A retrospective study was used to analyse 39 cases of MP and 52 cases of DP from the Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery of the Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University from February 2007 to December 2016. Furthermore, we identify randomized controlled trials or strictly designed clinical controlled trials on MP and DP. We performed a meta‐analysis of the final included studies using RevMan 5.3 software to illustrate the differences in efficacy between MP and DP.

Results

In the MP group, the operation time and diet start time were significantly longer than DP group. However, there was no significant difference in serious complications including clinically significant pancreatic fistula (grades B and C), delayed gastric emptying, reoperative and mortality. Furthermore, compared with DP, patients in MP group could benefit from long‐term post‐operative exocrine and endocrine function. Finally, we performed a meta‐analysis including 14 studies with a total of 1104 patients and proved that the pancreatic fistula rate, endocrine and exocrine function were significantly different in the two groups.

Conclusion

The MP is a safe and feasible surgical method. It can well preserve the endocrine and exocrine function of pancreas and improve the life quality of patients.

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.

Initial experience with minimally invasive extended pancreatectomies for locally advanced pancreatic malignancies: Report of six cases

Background

Recently, there have been several reports on minimally-invasive surgery for extended pancreatectomy (MIEP) in the literature. However, to date, only a limited number of studies reporting on the outcomes of MIEP have been published. In the present study, we report our initial experience with MIEP defined according to the latest the International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery (ISPGS) guidelines.

Methods

Over a 14-month period, a total of 6 consecutive MIEP performed by a single surgeon at a tertiary institution were identified from a prospectively maintained surgical database. EP was defined as per the 2014 ISPGS consensus. Hybrid pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) was defined as when the entire resection was completed through minimally-invasive surgery, and the reconstruction was performed open through a mini-laparotomy incision.

Results

Six cases were performed including 2 robotic extended subtotal pancreatosplenectomies with gastric resection, 1 laparoscopic-assisted (hybrid) extended PD with superior mesenteric vein wedge resection, 2 robotic-assisted (hybrid) PD with portal vein resection (1 interposition Polytetrafluoroethylene graft reconstruction and 1 wedge resection) and 1 totally robotic PD with wedge resection of portal vein. Median estimated blood loss was 400 (250-1500) ml and median operative time was 713 (400-930) min. Median post-operative stay was 9 (6-36) days. There was 1 major morbidity (Grade 3b) in a patient who developed early post-operative intestinal obstruction secondary to port site herniation necessitating repeat laparoscopic surgery. There were no open conversions and no in-hospital mortalities.

Conclusion

Based on our initial experience, MIEP although technically challenging and associated with long operative times, is feasible and safe in highly selected cases.

A propensity score-matched analysis of robotic versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer based on margin status

BACKGROUND

No study has shown the oncologic non-inferiority of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) versus open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) for pancreatic cancer (PC).

METHODS

This is a single institution propensity score matched study comparing RPD and ODP for resectable PC, based on factors predictive of R1 resection (≤ 1 mm). Only patients operated on after completion of the learning curve in both procedures and for whom circumferential margins were assessed according to the Leeds pathology protocol were included. The primary study endpoint was the rate of R1 resection. Secondary study endpoints were as follows: number of examined lymph nodes (N), rate of perioperative transfusions, percentage of patients receiving adjuvant therapies, occurrence of local recurrence, overall survival, disease-free survival, and sample size calculation for randomized controlled trials (RCT).

RESULTS

Factors associated with R1 resection were tumor diameter, number of positive N, N ratio, logarithm odds of positive N, and duodenal infiltration. The matching process identified 20 RPDs and 24 OPDs. All RPDs were completed robotically. R1 resection was identified in 11 RPDs (55.0%) and in 10 OPDs (41.7%) (p = 0.38). There was no difference in the rate of R1 at each margin as well as in the proportion of patients with multiple R1 margins. RPD and OPD were also equivalent with respect to all secondary study endpoints, with a trend towards lower rate of blood transfusions in RPD. Based on the figures presented herein, a non-inferiority RCT comparing RPD and OPD having the rate of R1 resection as the primary study endpoint requires 3355 pairs.

CONCLUSIONS

RPD and OPD achieved the same rate of R1 resections in resectable PC. RPD was also non-inferior to OPD with respect to all secondary study endpoints. Because of the high number of patients required to run a RCT, further assessment of RPD for PC would require the implementation of an international registry.

A Comparison of Open and Minimally Invasive Surgery for Hepatic and Pancreatic Resections Among the Medicare Population

INTRODUCTION

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has become standard of care for many gastrointestinal surgical procedures. Despite possible clinical benefits, MIS may be underutilized in some populations. The aim of this study was to access the utilization of MIS among Medicare patients undergoing hepatopancreatic procedures and define clinical outcomes, as well as costs, of minimally invasive techniques compared with the conventional open approach.

METHODS

The Medicare Provider Analysis and Review (MEDPAR) Inpatient Files were reviewed to identify Medicare patients who underwent pancreatic and liver procedures between 2013 and 2015. Primary outcomes of the analysis included perioperative clinical outcomes such as rates of complications, index hospitalization length-of-stay (LOS), failure-to-rescue, rates, and causes of 90-day readmission, as well as 90-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were Medicare payments for index hospitalization and readmission. Multivariable logistic regression was used to investigate the impact of MIS on clinical outcomes and health expenditures.

RESULTS

A total of 13,716 (90.6%) patients underwent open resection, while MIS was performed in 1424 (9.4%) patients. LOS was shorter among patients undergoing MIS (mean 7.3 ± SD 7.3) versus open (mean 9.3 ± SD 9.1) surgery (p < 0.001). The incidence of perioperative complications was lower following MIS (open 25.5%, n = 3492 vs. MIS 17.2%, n = 245) (p < 0.001). Rates of failure-to-rescue were similar among patients undergoing an open versus MIS pancreatic procedure (open 19.4%, n = 271 vs. MIS 13.4%, n = 17) (p = 0.09). In contrast, 90-day readmission (open 31.1%, n = 1630 vs. MIS 24.1%, n = 201, p < 0.001), as well as 90-day mortality (open 7.7%, n = 404 vs. MIS 4.2%, n = 35, p < 0.001) were lower among patients undergoing pancreatic resections via an MIS approach. In contrast, failure-to-rescue and readmission, as well as mortality, were all comparable among patients undergoing a liver resection, regardless as to whether the operation was performed open or via an MIS approach (all p > 0.05). Mean total payments for open pancreatic surgery were on average $1421 higher in the open versus MIS pancreatic group (p = 0.01); in contrast, there was no difference in the overall payment for hepatic resection (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The MIS approach was underutilized among patients undergoing liver and pancreatic procedures. MIS was associated with lower complication and readmission and shorter LOS, as well as comparable/slightly lower Medicare payments, compared with the open approach. The MIS approach should strongly be considered among older patients undergoing liver and pancreatic procedures.

Robotic enucleations of pancreatic benign or low-grade malignant tumors: preliminary results and comparison with robotic demolitive resections

BACKGROUND

The incidental detection of benign to low-grade malignant small pancreatic neoplasms increased in the last decades. The surgical management of these patients is still under debate. The aim of this paper is to evaluate the safety and feasibility of robotic enucleations and to compare the outcomes with non-parenchymal sparing robotic resections.

METHODS

The study included a total of 25 patients. Nine of them underwent a robotic enucleation (EN Group) and 16 patients received a robotic demolitive resection (DR Group). Perioperative and medium-term outcomes were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

Patients' baseline characteristics were similar in the two groups except for presence of symptoms and tumor size, due to the inclusion criteria. Operative time was significantly shorter and postoperative results were better for EN group, including a significant shorter hospitalization (5 vs. 8 days, p = 0.027), reduced pancreatic leaks (22% vs. 50%, p = 0.287) and a better preservation of glandular function (100% vs. 62.5%, p = 0.066). Mortality rate was zero in both groups, with all patients free from disease at a median follow-up of 18 months.

CONCLUSIONS

The risks of under/overtreatment remain still unavoidable for benign to low-grade malignant small pancreatic neoplasms. Simple enucleation should be performed whenever oncological appropriate, to achieve the best postoperative outcomes. The adoption of robotic technique might widen the indications for parenchymal sparing, minimally invasive surgery.

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.

Independent Predictors of Increased Operative Time and Hospital Length of Stay Are Consistent Across Different Surgical Approaches to Pancreatoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

While minimally invasive approaches are increasingly being utilized for pancreatoduodenectomy (PD), factors associated with prolonged operative time (OpTime) and hospital length of stay (LOS) remain poorly defined, and it is unclear whether these factors are consistent across surgical approaches.

METHODS

The ACS-NSQIP targeted pancreatectomy database from 2014 to 2016 was used to identify all patients who underwent open (OPD), laparoscopic (LPD), or robotic (RPD) pancreatoduodenectomy. Multivariable linear regression analyses were used to evaluate predictors of OpTime and LOS, as well as quantify the changes observed relative to each surgical approach.

RESULTS

Among 10,970 patients, PD procedure types varied: 9963 (92%) open, 418 (4%) laparoscopic, and 409 (4%) robotic. LOS was longer for the open and laparoscopic approaches (11 vs. 11 vs. 10 days, P = 0.0068), whereas OpTime was shortest for OPD (366 vs. 426 vs. 435 min, P < 0.0001). Independent predictors of a prolonged OpTime were ASA class ≥ 3 (P = 0.0002), preoperative XRT (P < 0.0001), pancreatic duct < 3 mm (P = 0.0001), T stage ≥ 3 (P = 0.0108), and vascular resection (P < 0.0001) for OPD; T stage ≥ 3 (P = 0.0510) and vascular resection (P = 0.0062) for LPD; and malignancy (P = 0.0460) and conversion to laparotomy (P = 0.0001) for RPD. Independent predictors of increased LOS were age ≥ 65 years (P = 0.0002), ASA class ≥ 3 (P = 0.0012), hypoalbuminemia (P < 0.0001), and preoperative blood transfusion (P < 0.0001) for OPD as well as an OpTime > 370 min (all p < 0.05) and specific postoperative complications (all p < 0.05) for all surgical approaches.

CONCLUSIONS

Perioperative risk factors for prolonged OpTime and hospital LOS are relatively consistent across open, laparoscopic, and robotic approaches to PD. Particular attention to these factors may help identify opportunities to improve perioperative quality, enhance patient satisfaction, and ensure an efficient allocation of hospital resources.

Robotic Developments in Cancer Surgery

Indications for robotic surgery have been rapidly expanding since the first introduction of the robotic surgical system in the US market in 2000. As the robotic systems have become more sophisticated over the past decades, there has been an expansion in indications. Many new tools have been added with the aim of optimizing outcomes after oncologic surgery. Complex abdominal cancers are increasingly operated on using robot-assisted laparoscopy and with acceptable outcomes. In this article, the authors discuss robotic developments, from the past and the future, with an emphasis on cancer surgery.

Distal Pancreatectomy with Celiac Axis Resection (DP-CAR) for Pancreatic Cancer. How I do It

Approximately 30% of all pancreatic cancer patients have locally advanced (AJCC stage 3) disease. A sub-group of these patients-where the cancer only involves the celiac axis-may benefit from distal pancreatectomy with celiac axis resection (DP-CAR). Previous studies have shown that DP-CAR offers a survival benefit to a selected group of patients with otherwise unresectable pancreatic cancer, when performed by experienced pancreatic cancer treatment teams at high-volume centers. This article proposes a standardized approach to DP-CAR, including routine neoadjuvant (FOLFIRINOX) chemotherapy. This approach to selecting patients and performing DP-CAR has the potential to improve short-term outcomes and overall survival in selected patients, but it should be reserved for high-volume centers.

Outcomes associated with robotic approach to pancreatic resections

Minimally invasive techniques have improved post-operative outcomes, however, the majority of pancreatic surgery, known for its complexity, is still performed via open approaches. The development of robotics has improved dexterity which may allow for application in more complex surgeries. We queried a prospectively maintained robotic database to identify patients who underwent robotic pancreatic resection by a single surgeon between 2012 and 2016. Patient demographics and operative outcomes were compared using Mann-Whitney U, Kruskal Wallis and Pearson's Chi-square test as appropriate. We identified 119 patients; 65 Whipples [Robotic Whipple (RW)], 43 distal pancreatectomies, 4 total pancreatectomies, 6 pancreatic enucleations, and 1 robotic cyst gastrostomy with a median age of 71 [24-91], median body mass index (BMI) of 27.6 (16.8-40.2), and American society of anesthesiologists (ASA) of 3. The median estimated blood loss (EBL) was 125 [25-800] and loss of heterozygosity (LOH) 6 [1-34]. Mean operative time for RW decreased after 15 cases (578 vs. 457 minutes, P<0.004). Conversions to open occurred in 5 (4.2%) patients. In total of 117 (98.3%) patients underwent R0 resections and the median lymph node (LN) harvest was 16 [0-37]. The 30 and 90 days mortality was 1 (0.8%). Major complications (Clavien-Dindo grade 3-5) were seen in 16 (13.4%) cases (20.3%) but decreased steadily as volume increased (case 30). Pancreatic leaks occurred in 14 (11.8%): A, 8 (6.7%); B, 4 (3.4%); and C, 2 (1.7%). Robotic assisted approaches to pancreatic resections is feasible. However, it takes approximately 15 cases before a decrease in operative time and 30 cases before major complications are decreased. These trends in complications are associated with surgeon experience and volume are critical to consider in robotic pancreatic surgery.

Which method of distal pancreatectomy is cost-effective among open, laparoscopic, or robotic surgery?

Background

The aim of this study was to analyze the clinical and economic impact of robotic distal pancreatectomy, laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy, and open distal pancreatectomy.

Methods

All consecutive patients who underwent distal pancreatic resection for benign and malignant diseases between January 2012 and December 2015 were prospectively included. Cost analysis was performed; all charges from patient admission to discharge were considered.

Results

There were 21 robotic (RDP), 25 laparoscopic (LDP), and 43 open (ODP) procedures. Operative time was longer in the RDP group (RDP =345 minutes, LDP =306 min, ODP =251 min, P=0.01). Blood loss was higher in the ODP group (RDP =192 mL, LDP =356 mL, ODP =573 mL, P=0.0002). Spleen preservation was more frequent in the RDP group (RDP =66.6%, LDP =61.9%, ODP =9.3%, P=0.001). The rate of patients with Clavien-Dindo > grade III was higher in the ODP group (RDP =0%, LDP =12%, ODP =23%, P=0.01), especially for non-surgical complications, which were more frequent in the ODP group (RDP =9.5%, LDP =24%, ODP =41.8%, P=0.02). Length of hospital stay was increased in the ODP group (ODP =19 days, LDP =13 days, RDP =11 days, P=0.007). The total cost of the procedure, including the surgical procedure and postoperative course was higher in the ODP group (ODP =30,929 Euros, LDP =22,150 Euros, RDP =21,219 Euros, P=0.02).

Conclusions

Cost-effective results of RDP seem to be similar to LDP with some better short-term outcomes.

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.

Surgical and oncological outcomes of our first 59 cases of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy

PURPOSE

Robotics has shown encouraging results for a number of technically demanding abdominal surgeries including pancreaticoduodenectomy, which has originally represented a relative contraindication to the application of the minimally-invasive technique. We aimed to investigate the perioperative, clinicopathologic, and oncological outcomes of robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy by assessing a consecutive series of totally robotic procedures.

METHODS

All consecutive patients who underwent robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy were included in the present analysis. Perioperative, clinicopathologic and oncological outcomes were examined. In order to investigate the role of the learning curve, surgical outcomes were also used to compare the early and the late phase of our experience.

RESULTS

A total of 59 patients underwent surgery. Median hospital stay was 9 days (5 - 110), with an overall morbidity and mortality of 37% and 3%, respectively. Of note, the rate of clinically relevant pancreatic fistula was 11.8%. R0 resections were achieved in 96% of patients and the 3-year disease-free and overall survivals were 37.2 and 61.9%, respectively. Overall, surgical outcomes did not vary significantly between the first and the late phase of the series.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy can be performed competently. It satisfies all features of oncological adequacy and may offer a number of advantages over standard procedures in terms of surgical results.

Comparison between robotic and open pancreaticoduodenectomy with modified Blumgart pancreaticojejunostomy: A propensity score-matched study

BACKGROUND

This study is to clarify the feasibility of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy in terms of surgical risks, clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula, and oncologic outcomes compared with open pancreaticoduodenectomy by using propensity score matching. Traditional open pancreaticoduodenectomy and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy have been compared only in small, retrospective, and nonrandomized cohort studies with variable quality.

METHODS

Prospectively collected data for pancreaticoduodenectomy were evaluated. Comparison between robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy and open pancreaticoduodenectomy was carried out after propensity-score matching. A total of 117 robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy and 128 open pancreaticoduodenectomy cases were performed during the study period. After propensity score matching, 87 cases were included for comparison in each cohort.

RESULTS

Longer operation time, less blood loss, more lymph nodes harvested, and less delayed gastric emptying were noted in the robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy cases. We found no significant difference regarding the overall postoperative complications by Clavien-Dindo classification, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage, wound infection rate, and postoperative hospital stay. Clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula was not significantly different between robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy and open pancreaticoduodenectomy, regardless of the Callery risk factor, with overall clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula of 8.0% by robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy and 12.6% by open pancreaticoduodenectomy after propensity score matching. We found no survival difference between robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy and open pancreaticoduodenectomy when the comparison was specifically performed for each primary periampullary malignancy.

CONCLUSION

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy is associated with less blood loss, less delayed gastric emptying, and more lymph node yield. Propensity scored-matched analysis revealed that robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy is not inferior to open pancreaticoduodenectomy in terms of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula, surgical risks, and survival outcomes.

Ultrasound-Guided Robotic Enucleation of Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PanNETs) are relatively rare neoplasms with a low to mild malignant potential. They can be further divided into functioning and nonfunctioning, according to their secretive activity. Surgery is an optimal approach, but the classic open approach is challenging, with some patients having long hospitalization and potentially life-threatening complications. The robotic approach for PanNETs may represent an option to optimize their management.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed our prospectively maintained databases from 2 high-volume Italian centers for pancreatic surgery. Demographics, pathological characteristics, perioperative outcome, and medium-term follow-up of patients who underwent robotic pancreatic enucleations were collected.

RESULTS

Twelve patients with final diagnosis of PanNET were included. The mean age of the patients was 53.8 years (25-77). The median body mass index was 26 (24-29). Three lesions were functioning insulinomas, while the others were nonfunctioning tumors. No deaths occurred. Mild postoperative complications occurred, except for 1 grade B pancreatic fistula. The mean postoperative stay was 3.9 days (2-5).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results confirm that robotic enucleation is a feasible and safe approach for the treatment of PanNETs, with short hospital stay and low incidence of morbidity.

Race and Health Disparities in Patient Refusal of Surgery for Early-Stage Pancreatic Cancer: An NCDB Cohort Study

AIM

To identify factors associated with refusal of surgery in patients with early-stage pancreatic cancer and estimate the impact of this decision on survival.

METHODS

Using the National Cancer Data Base, 26,358 patients were identified with potentially resectable tumors (pretreatment clinical stage I: T1 or T2 N0M0). Multivariate models were employed to identify factors predicting failure to undergo surgery and assess the impact on survival.

RESULTS

Of early-stage patients who were recommended surgery, 7.8% (N = 992) refused surgery for resectable early-stage pancreatic cancer. On multivariable analysis, patients were more likely to refuse surgery if they were older [odds ratio (OR) = 1.18; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.16-1.19], female (OR = 1.52; 95% CI 1.33-1.73), African American (vs White, OR = 1.79; 95% CI 1.37-2.34), on Medicare/Medicaid (vs private, OR = 2.75; 95% CI 1.54-4.92) or had higher Charlson-Deyo score (2 vs 0, OR = 1.33; 95% CI 1.03-1.72). Patients were also significantly more likely to refuse surgery if they were seen at a center that is not an academic/research program (OR 1.9; 95% CI 1.6-2.27). Patients who were recommended surgery but refused had significantly worse survival than those with stage I who received surgery [median survival 6.8 vs 24 months, Cox hazard ratio (HR) 3.41; 95% CI 3.12-3.60].

CONCLUSIONS

The percentage of patients refusing surgery for operable early-stage pancreatic cancer has been decreasing in the last decade but remains a significant issue that affects survival. Disparities in refusal of surgery are independently associated with several variables including gender, race, and insurance. To mitigate national disparities in surgical care, future studies should focus on exploring potential reasons for refusal and developing communication interventions.

Current Management of Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors: From Demolitive Surgery to Observation

Incidental diagnosis of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PanNETs) greatly increased in the last years. In particular, more frequent diagnosis of small PanNETs leads to many challenging clinical decisions. These tumors are mostly indolent, although a percentage (up to 39%) may reveal an aggressive behaviour despite the small size. Therefore, there is still no unanimity about the best management of tumor smaller than 2 cm. The risks of under/overtreatment should be carefully evaluated with the patient and balanced with the potential morbidities related to surgery. The importance of the Ki-67 index as a prognostic factor is still debated as well. Whenever technically feasible, parenchyma-sparing surgeries lead to the best chance of organ preservation. Lymphadenectomy seems to be another important prognostic issue and, according to recent findings, should be performed in noninsulinoma patients. In the case of enucleation of the lesion, a lymph nodal sampling should always be considered. The relatively recent introduction of minimally invasive techniques (robotic) is a valuable option to deal with these tumors. The current management of PanNETs is analysed throughout the many available published guidelines and evidences with the aim of helping clinicians in the difficult decision-making process.

Risk-stratified clinical pathways decrease the duration of hospitalization and costs of perioperative care after pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND

Postoperative pancreatic fistula is associated with adverse events, increased duration of stay and hospital costs. We developed perioperative care pathways stratified by postoperative pancreatic fistula risk with the aims of minimizing variations in care, improving quality, and decreasing costs.

STUDY DESIGN

Three unique risk-stratified pancreatectomy clinical pathways-low-risk pancreatoduodenectomy, high-risk pancreatoduodenectomy, and distal pancreatectomy were developed and implemented. Consecutive patients treated after implementation of the risk-stratified pancreatectomy clinical pathways were compared with patients treated immediately prior. Duration of stay, rates of perioperative adverse effects, discharge disposition, and hospital readmission, as well as the associated costs of care, were evaluated.

RESULTS

The median hospital stay after pancreatectomy decreased from 10 to 6 days after implementation of the risk-stratified pancreatectomy clinical pathways (P < .001), and the median cost of index hospitalization decreased by 22%. Decreased changes in median hospital stay and costs of hospitalization were observed in association with low-risk pancreatoduodenectomy (P < .05) and distal pancreatectomy (P < .05), but not high-risk pancreatoduodenectomy. The rates of 90-day adverse events, grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula, discharge to a facility other than home, or readmission did not change after implementation.

CONCLUSION

Implementation of risk-stratified pancreatectomy clinical pathways decreased median stay and cost of index hospitalization after pancreatectomy without unfavorably affecting rates of perioperative adverse events or readmission, or discharge disposition. Outcomes were most favorably improved for low-risk pancreatoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy. Additional work is necessary to decrease the rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula, minimize variability, and improve outcomes after high-risk pancreatoduodenectomy.

Initial experience with robotic pancreatic surgery in Singapore: single institution experience with 30 consecutive cases

BACKGROUND

Presently, the worldwide experience with robotic pancreatic surgery (RPS) is increasing although widespread adoption remains limited. In this study, we report our initial experience with RPS.

METHODS

This is a retrospective review of a single institution prospective database of 72 consecutive robotic hepatopancreatobiliary surgeries performed between 2013 and 2017. Of these, 30 patients who underwent RPS were included in this study of which 25 were performed by a single surgeon.

RESULTS

The most common procedure was robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) which was performed in 20 patients. This included eight subtotal pancreatectomies, two extended pancreatecto-splenectomies (en bloc gastric resection) and 10 spleen-saving-RDP. Splenic preservation was successful in 10/11 attempted spleen-saving-RDP. Eight patients underwent pancreaticoduodenectomies (five hybrid with open reconstruction), one patient underwent a modified Puestow procedure and one enucleation of uncinate tumour. Four patients had extended resections including two RDP with gastric resection and two pancreaticoduodenectomies with vascular resection. There was one (3.3%) open conversion and seven (23.3%) major (>Grade II) morbidities. Overall, there were four (13.3%) clinically significant (Grade B) pancreatic fistulas of which three required percutaneous drainage. These occurred after three RDP and one robotic enucleation. There was one reoperation for port-site hernia and no 30-day/in-hospital mortalities. The median post-operative stay was 6.5 (range: 3-36) days and there were six (20%) 30-day readmissions.

CONCLUSION

Our initial experience showed that RPS can be adopted safely with a low open conversion rate for a wide variety of procedures including pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Application of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery: an Italian survey

The value of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery (MIPS) is still debated. To assess the diffusion of MIPS in Italy and identify the barriers preventing wider implementation, a questionnaire was developed under the auspices of three Scientific Societies (AISP, It-IHPBA, SICE) and was sent to the largest possible number of Italian surgeons also using the mailing list of the two main Italian Surgical Societies (SIC and ACOI). The questionnaire consisted of 25 questions assessing: centre characteristics, facilities and technologies, type of MIPS performed, surgical techniques employed and opinions on the present and future value of MIPS. Only one reply per unit was considered. Fifty-five units answered the questionnaire. While 54 units (98.2%) declared to perform MIPS, the majority of responders were not dedicated to pancreatic surgery. Twenty-five units (45.5%) performed < 20 pancreatic resections/year and 39 (70.9%) < 10 MIPS per year. Forty-nine units (89.1%) performed at least one minimally invasive (MI) distal pancreatectomy (DP), and 10 (18.2%) at least one MI pancreatoduodenectomy (PD). Robotic assistance was used in 18 units (31.7%) (14 DP, 7 PD). The major constraints limiting the diffusion of MIPS were the intrinsic difficulty of the technique and the lack of specific training. The overall value of MIPS was highly rated. Our survey illustrates the current diffusion of MIPS in Italy and underlines the great interest for this approach. Further diffusion of MIPS requires the implementation of standardized protocols of training. Creation of a prospective National Registry should also be considered.

Perioperative and Long-term Oncological Results of Minimally Invasive Pancreatoduodenectomy as Hybrid Technique - A Matched Pair Analysis of 120 Cases

Background Laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy is a highly challenging procedure. The aim of this study was to analyse post-operative morbidity and mortality as well as long term overall survival in patients undergoing hybrid LPD, as compared to open pancreaticoduodenecomy (OPD) in a single surgeon series.

Methods Patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) in the period from 2000 to 2015 were identified from a prospectively maintained database. All LPD procedures were performed by one specialised pancreatic surgeon (TK). Patients were matched 1 : 1 for age, sex, BMI, ASA, histological diagnosis, pancreatic texture and portal venous resection (PVR). All LPD procedures were performed as hybrid LPD – combining laparoscopic resection and open reconstruction via mini laparotomy.

Results A total of 549 patients were identified, including 489 patients in the OPD group and 60 patients in the LPD group. 60 patients were identified who underwent LPD between 2010 and 2015 versus 60 OPD patients operated in the same period. Median overall operation time was shorter in the LPD group than with OPD patients (LPD 352 vs. OPD 397 min; p = 0.002). Overall transfusion units were lower in the LPD group (LPD range 0 – 4 vs. OPD range 0 – 11; p = 0.032). Intensive care unit stay (LPD 1 vs. OPD 6 d; p = 0.008) and overall hospital stay (OHS: LPD 14 vs. OPD 18 d; p = 0.012) were shorter in the LPD groups than in the OPD group. As regards postoperative complications, LPD was associated with reduced rates of clinically relevant grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula (LPD 15 vs. OPD 36%; p = 0.036) and grade B/C delayed gastric emptying (LPD 8 vs. OPD 20%; p = 0.049). A total of 56 patients were diagnosed with malignant disease. The number of harvested lymph nodes and R0-resection rates were equal for LPD and OPD patients. LPD patients showed a trend to improved median overall survival (LPD mean 56 months vs. OPD mean 48 months; p = 0.056).

Conclusion Hybrid LPD is a safe procedure associated with a reduction in clinically relevant postoperative complications and allows faster recovery. Long term oncological outcome of hybrid LPD for malignant disease is equal to that with the standard open approach.

Total robotic surgery for pancreaticoduodenectomy combined with rectal cancer anterior resection: A case report and literature review

RATIONALE

Synchronous double malignancies, including carcinoma of the ampulla of Vater and rectal carcinoma, are generally uncommon occurrences in the gastrointestinal tract.

PATIENT CONCERNS

The present study report a case of a 37-year-old man who was incidentally found to suffer from carcinoma of the ampulla of Vater and rectal carcinoma.

DIAGNOSES

The duodenoscopy was performed and revealed an ulcerated and bulky ampulla of Vater, the biopsy from which revealed a moderate-differentiated adenocarcinoma, A local hospital colonoscopy confirmed a tumor located in rectal 7 cm from the anal margin and biopsy-confirmed poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma.

INTERVENTIONS

About such patient treatment, both open and laparoscopic surgery are restricted because of operation complexity, large injury, and poor cosmetic effect. surgery performed using Da Vinci robotic surgical system (DVSS).

OUTCOMES

No evidence of recurrence or relapses was found in the first year after surgery.

LESSONS

Although sporadic double malignancies are uncommon, they should be considered when evaluating cancer patients. Complex surgery performed by robotic surgery may became surgeon's preferred treatment modality.

Robotics in HPB surgery

Some major procedures and an assessment of their impact in the field

Internal Hernia Following Robotic Assisted Pancreaticoduodenectomy

Background

Robotic assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) is reported to be safe and feasible. Internal hernia (IH) after RPD is a serious but rarely reported complication.

Material/Methods

We retrospectively reviewed data of 231 patients who underwent RPD from October 2010 to December 2016. The incidence, symptoms, time of presentation, and outcome were investigated.

Results

Five patients (2.6%) were diagnosed with IH. Significant correlation (P<0.001) between IH and transverse mesocolon defect was confirmed. In patients without defect closure, the incidence of IH was 62.5%, while patients who received defect closure experienced no IH. The median time between initial surgery and occurrence of IH was 76 days. The main symptoms were abdominal pain, nausea, and vomiting. All patients received abdominal computed tomography (CT) and were suspected to have IH according to imaging and symptoms. All patients underwent reoperation (2 laparoscopic and 3 open surgery). The median length of hospital stay was 13 days. No patient experienced a relapse after treatment.

Conclusions

Abdominal pain, nausea, and vomiting were common symptoms in our study patients who underwent RPD. IH should be suspected if there is a positive finding on CT. Timely reoperation is necessary because IH may cause intestinal ischemia. Meticulous closure of the mesenteric defect is vital to avoid IH.

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.

Application of a commercial single-port device for robotic single-incision distal pancreatectomy: initial experience

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy has proven to be feasible and safe. Moreover, robotic surgery provides unique advantages for pancreatic procedures, although single-incision robotic pancreatic surgery is rarely discussed. We applied the single-port modified platform to accomplish robotic distal pancreatectomy in a series of patients.

METHODS

The subjects of this study were ten patients who underwent robotic distal pancreatectomy in our hospital between July 1, 2015 and Dec 31, 2016. All patients were placed supine in the reverse Trendelenburg position with the legs abducted. Surgery was performed via a trans-umbilical 5.0-cm incision, using a modified single-port platform (LAGIPORT^®) combined with the da Vinci Si Surgical System. The three arms and scope (30-degree up) were inserted through the LAGIPORT^® and positioned in a triangle. Endoscopic ultrasound was used to localize the tumor and plan the resection margin. We recorded the surgical time, operation time, blood loss, postoperative pain score, hospital stay, and complications.

RESULTS

The surgical time was 236 ± 32 min, the operation time was 172 ± 30 min, and the blood loss was 149 ± 65 ml. All patients underwent robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy without conversion. The average pain score on postoperative day (POD) 3 was 4.5 ± 1. Complications included subsplenic hematoma (n = 1) and minor pancreatic leakage (n = 2). There was no surgical mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results demonstrate the safety and efficiency of robotic single-incision distal pancreatectomy via the modified platform (LAGIPORT^®).

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy for PNETs: laparoscopic or robotic approach?

Background

The most effective and radical treatment for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNETs) is surgical resection. Minimally invasive surgery has been increasingly used in pancreatectomy. Initial results in robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) have been encouraging. Nonetheless, data comparing outcomes of RDP with those of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) in treating PNETs are rare. The aim of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of RDP and LDP for PNETs.

Methods

From September 2010 to January 2017, operative parameters and perioperative outcomes in an initial experience with 43 consecutive patients undergoing RDP were collected and compared with those in 31 patients undergoing LDP.

Results

Patients undergoing RDP and LDP demonstrated equivalent age, sex, ASA score, tumor location and tumor size. Operating time, length of resected pancreas, postoperative length of hospital stay and rates of conversion to open, pancreatic fistula, transfusion and reoperation were not statistically different. Patients in the RDP group were associated with significantly higher overall (79.1 vs. 48.4 %, P = 0.006) and Kimura spleen preservation rates (72.1 vs. 16.1%, P < 0.001) and had reduced risk of excessive blood loss (50 vs. 200mL, P < 0.001). Oncological outcomes in this series were superior for the RDP group with more lymph node harvest for G2 and G3 PNETs (3.5 vs. 2, P = 0.034).

Conclusions

Both RDP and LDP are efficacious and safe methods in treating PNETs located in the body or tail of pancreas. Robotic approach offers advantages with less intraoperative blood loss, higher spleen preservation rate and more lymph node harvest. It may be sensible to choose RDP for patients who fit indications for scheduled spleen preservation.