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

Pancreatectomy Induces Cancer-Promoting Neutrophil Extracellular Traps

BACKGROUND

Neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs) occur when neutrophil chromatin is decondensed and extruded into the extracellular space in a web-like structure. Originally described as an anti-microbial function, this process has been implicated in the pathogenesis of pancreatic disease. In addition, NETs are upregulated during physiologic wound-healing and coagulation. This study evaluated how the inflammatory response to pancreatic surgery influences NET formation.

METHODS

For this study, 126 patients undergoing pancreatectomy gave consent before participation. Plasma was collected at several time points (preoperatively and through the postoperative outpatient visit). Plasma levels of NET markers, including cell-free DNA (cfDNA), citrullinated histone H3 (CitH3), interleukin (IL)-8, IL-6, and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) were measured using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Patient clinical data were retrospectively collected from a prospectively maintained database.

RESULTS

After pancreatic resection, NET markers (cfDNA and CitH3) were elevated, peaking on postoperative days 3 and 4. This increase in NETs was due to an inherent change in neutrophil biology. Postoperatively, NET-inducing cytokines (IL-8, IL-6, and G-CSF) were increased, peaking early in the postoperative course. The patients undergoing the robotic approach had a reduction in NETs during the postoperative period compared with those who underwent the open approach. The patients who experienced a pancreatic leak had an increase in NET markers during the postoperative period.

CONCLUSIONS

Pancreatectomy induces cancer-promoting NET formation. The minimally invasive robotic approach may induce fewer NETs, although the current analysis was limited by selection bias. Pancreatic leak resulted in increased NETs. Further study into the potential for NET inhibition during the perioperative period is warranted.

Parathyroidectomy for solitary parathyroid adenoma via trans-areola single site endoscopic approach: Results of a case-match study

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to establish the standardized procedure of trans-areola single site endoscopic parathyroidectomy (TASSEP), and to compare the performance of TASSEP with that of conventional open parathyroidectomy (COP).

METHODS

This study enrolled 40 patients with primary hyperparathyroidism (PHPT) who underwent TASSEP, and included 40 of 176 PHPT patients who underwent COP based on propensity score matching. The retrospective analysis was conducted based on prospectively collected data. Perioperative outcomes, including surgical profile, surgical burden and cosmetic results and follow-up were reported. The learning curve was described using a cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis.

RESULTS

40 TASSEPs were completed successfully without conversions or severe complications. There was no statistically significant difference in operation time between TASSEP and COP groups (80.83 ± 11.95 vs. 76.95 ± 7.30 min, p = 0.084). Experience of 17 cases was necessitated to reach the learning curve of TASSEP. Postoperative pain score and traumatic index (C-reactive protein and erythrocyte sedimentation rate) in TASSEP were apparently lower than those in COP group (p < 0.05). During the proliferation and stabilization phases, TASSEP was associated with significantly better incision recovery and cosmetic scores. Postoperative serum calcium and PTH levels throughout the follow-up period indicated satisfactory surgical qualities in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Based on precise preoperative localization and intraoperative planning facilitated by three-dimensional (3D) virtual modeling, TASSEP can be feasibly performed on selected patients with satisfactory success rates and low complication rates, providing preferable cosmetic results and alleviating the surgical burden to a certain extent.

What are the true benefits of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy for patients with pancreatic cancer?

INTRODUCTION

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is a devastating disease, and multimodal treatment including high-quality surgery can improve survival outcomes. Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) has evolved with minimally invasive approaches including the implementation of robotic PD (RPD). In this special report, we review the literature whilst evaluating the 'true benefits' of RPD compared to open approach for the treatment of PDAC.

AREAS COVERED

We have performed a mini-review of studies assessing PD approaches and compared intraoperative characteristics, perioperative outcomes, post-operative complications and oncological outcomes.

EXPERT OPINION

RPD was associated with similar or longer operative times, and reduced intra-operative blood loss. Perioperative pain scores were significantly lower with shorter lengths of stay with the robotic approach. With regards to post-operative complications, post-operative pancreatic fistula rates were similar, with lower rates of clinically relevant fistulas after RPD. Oncological outcomes were comparable or superior in terms of margin status, lymph node harvest, time to chemotherapy and survival between RPD and OPD. In conclusion, RPD allows safe implementation of minimally invasive PD. The current literature shows that RPD is either equivalent, or superior in certain aspects to OPD. Once more centers gain sufficient experience, RPD is likely to demonstrate clear superiority over alternative approaches.

Short-term Outcomes of Robotic Versus Open Pancreatoduodenectomy: Propensity Score-matched Analysis

OBJECTIVE

The goal of the current study was to investigate the perioperative outcomes of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) in a high-volume center.

BACKGROUND

Despite RPDs prospective advantages over OPD, current evidence comparing the 2 has been limited and has prompted further investigation. The aim of this study was to compare both approaches while including the learning curve phase for RPD.

METHODS

A 1:1 propensity score-matched analysis of a prospective database of RPD with OPD (2017-2022) at a high-volume center was performed. The main outcomes were overall- and pancreas-specific complications.

RESULTS

Of 375 patients who underwent PD (OPD n=276; RPD n=99), 180 were included in propensity score-matched analysis (90 per group). RPD was associated with less blood loss [500 (300-800) vs 750 (400-1000) mL; P =0.006] and more patients without a complication (50% vs 19%; P <0.001). Operative time was longer [453 (408-529) vs 306 (247-362) min; P <0.001]; in patients with ductal adenocarcinoma, fewer lymph nodes were harvested [24 (18-27) vs 33 (27-39); P <0.001] with RPD versus OPD. There were no significant differences for major complications (38% vs 47%; P =0.291), reoperation rate (14% vs 10%; P =0.495), postoperative pancreatic fistula (21% vs 23%; P =0.858), and patients with the textbook outcome (62% vs 55%; P =0.452).

CONCLUSIONS

Including the learning phase, RPD can be safely implemented in high-volume settings and shows potential for improved perioperative outcomes versus OPD. Pancreas-specific morbidity was unaffected by the robotic approach. Randomized trials with specifically trained pancreatic surgeons and expanded indications for the robotic approach are needed.

Safety and feasibility of instituting a robotic pancreas program in the Australian setting: a case series and narrative review

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive pancreatic resection has been gathering interest over the last decade due to the technical demands and high morbidity associated with these typically open procedures. We report our experience with robotic pancreatectomy within an Australian context.

METHODS

All patients undergoing robotic distal pancreatectomy (DP) and pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) at two Australian tertiary academic hospitals between May 2014 and December 2020 were included.

RESULTS

Sixty-two patients underwent robotic pancreatectomy during the study period. Thirty-four patients with a median age of 68 years (range 42-84) were in the PD group whilst the DP group included 28 patients with a median age of 60 years (range 18-78). Thirteen patients (46.4%) in the DP group had spleen-preserving procedures. There were 13 conversions (38.2%) in the PD group whilst 0 conversions occurred in the DP group. The Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III complication rate was 26.4% and 17.9% in the PD and DP groups, respectively. Two deaths (5.9%) occurred within 90-days in the PD group whilst none were observed in the DP group. The median length of hospital stay was 11.5 days (range 4-56) in the PD group and 6 days (range 2-22) in the DP group.

CONCLUSION

Robotic pancreatectomy outcomes at our institution are comparable with international literature demonstrating it is both safe and feasible to perform. With improved access to this platform, robotic pancreas surgery may prove to be the turning point for patients with regards to post-operative complications as more experience is obtained.

Defining the operative time threshold for safety in patients undergoing robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) is a safe and efficacious procedure in appropriately selected patients, though frequently with increased operative times compared to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD).

METHODS

From 2014 to 2019, patients who underwent elective, low-risk, RPDs and OPDs in the NSQIP database were isolated. The operative time threshold (OTT) for safety in RPD patients was estimated by identifying the operative time at which complication rates for RPD patients exceeded the complication rate of the benchmark OPD control.

RESULTS

Of 6270 patients identified, 939 (15%) underwent RPD and 5331 (85%) underwent OPD. The incidence of major morbidity or mortality for the OPD cohort was 35.1%. The OTT was identified as 7.7 h. Patients whose RPDs were above the OTT experienced a higher incidence of major morbidity (42.5% vs. 35.0%, p < 0.01) and 30-day mortality (2.7% vs. 1.2%, p = 0.03) than the OPD cohort. Preoperative obstructive jaundice (OR: 1.47, [95% CI: 1.08-2.01]) and pancreatic duct size <3 mm (OR: 2.44, [95% CI: 1.47-4.06]) and 3-6 mm (OR: 2.15, [95% CI: 1.31-3.52]) were risk factors for prolonged RPDs on multivariable regression.

CONCLUSION

The operative time threshold for safety, identified at 7.7 h, should be used to improve patient selection for RPDs and as a competency-based quality benchmark.

Trends in access to minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancers

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD), including robotic (RPD) and laparoscopy (LPD), is becoming more frequently employed in the management of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), though the majority of operations are still performed via open approach (OPD). Access to technologic advances often neglect the underserved. Whether disparities in access to MIPD exist, remain unclear.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was queried (2010-2020) for patients who underwent pancreatoduodenectomy for PDAC. Cochran-Armitage tests assessed for trends over time. Social determinants of health (SDH) were compared between approaches. Multinomial logistic models identified predictors of MIPD.

RESULTS

Of 16,468 patients, 80.03 % underwent OPD and 19.97 % underwent MIPD (22.60 % robotic; 77.40 % laparoscopic). Black race negatively predicted LPD (vs white (OR 0.822; 95 % CI 0.701-0.964)). Predictors of RPD included Medicare/other government insurance (vs uninsured or Medicaid (OR 1.660; 95 % CI 1.123-2.454)) and private insurance (vs uninsured or Medicaid (OR 1.597; 95 % CI 1.090-2.340)). Early (2010-2014) vs late (2015-2020) diagnosis, stratified by race, demonstrated an increase in Non-White patients undergoing OPD (13.15 % vs 14.63 %; p = 0.016), but not LPD (11.41 % vs 13.57 %;p = 0.125) or RPD (14.15 % vs 15.23 %; p = 0.774).

CONCLUSION

SDH predict surgical approach more than clinical stage, facility type, or comorbidity status. Disparities in race and insurance coverage are different between surgical approaches.

Safety and learning curve analysis of robotic-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy: experience of a single surgeon

Although prior studies have discussed learning curves (LC) of robotic-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD), a recognized definition is lacking. This study analyzed the clinical outcomes of 85 consecutive RPD cases performed by a single surgeon to evaluate the safety and learning curve of RPD using the da Vinci Xi robotic system. There were 51 male and 34 female patients, with a median age of 64 (20-87) years. The average preoperative body weight and BMI were 64.15 ± 11.43 kg and 23.36 ± 3.33 kg/m2, respectively. The clinical outcomes of each patient were analyzed using the textbook outcome(TO), and the learning curve of the RPD was evaluated by calculating the TO rate of patients using the cumulative sum analysis method (CUSUM).The operation time (OT) was 288.92 ± 44.41 min, and the postoperative hospital stay was 10 (1-134) days. In total, 23.52% (20/85), 5.88% (5/85), 2.35% (2/85), and 5.9% (5/85) experienced grade IIIa, IIIb, IV, and V complications. A total of 46 patients achieved TO outcomes (TO group), while 39 did not (non-TO group). The smoking rate in the TO group was lower (P < 0.05) and the albumin level was higher (P < 0.05) than that in the non-TO group. The TO rate became positive after the 56th case, all patients were divided into a learning improvement group (56 cases) and a proficient group (29 cases). The total bilirubin level in the learning improvement group was lower (P < 0.05) and the bleeding volume was higher (P < 0.05).RPD is safe and effective for carefully selected patients. The learning curve was completed after 56 patients.

Robotic versus open pancreatoduodenectomy in patients with pancreatic duct adenocarcinoma after the learning curve: a propensity score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Studies have demonstrated that the learning curve plays an important role in robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD). Although improved short-term outcomes of RPD after the learning curve have been reported compared to open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD), there is a lack of long-term survival analyses.

METHODS

Patients who underwent curative intended RPD and OPD for pancreatic duct adenocarcinoma (PDAC) between January 2017 and June 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. A 1:2 propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed to balance the baseline characteristics between the RPD and OPD groups.

RESULTS

Of the 548 patients (108 RPD and 440 OPD), 103 RPD patients were matched with 206 OPD patients after PSM. There were 194 (62.8%) men and 115 (37.2%) women, with a median age of 64 (58-69) years. The median overall survival (OS) in the RPD group was 33.2 months compared with 25.7 months in the OPD group (p = 0.058, log-rank). The median disease-free survival (DFS) following RPD was longer than the OPD (18.5 vs. 14.0 months, p = 0.011, log-rank). The RPD group has a lower incidence of local recurrence compared the OPD group (36.9% vs. 51.2%, p = 0.071). Multivariate Cox analysis demonstrated that RPD was independently associated with improved OS (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.52-0.94, p = 0.019) and DFS (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.50-0.88, p = 0.005).

CONCLUSION

After the learning curve, RPD had improved oncologic outcomes in PDAC patients compared to OPD. Future prospective randomized clinical trials will be required to validate these findings.

Epidemiology of healthcare-associated infections and outcomes among open and robotic pancreatoduodenectomy: A retrospective study from 2013 to 2022

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) are one of the common postoperative complications. This study aims to investigate the epidemiology of postoperative HAIs in patients with open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD).

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study described the trend of HAIs in patients undergoing PD from January 2013 to December 2022 at a tertiary hospital. Patients were divided into OPD and RPD, and the HAIs and outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

Among 2632 patients who underwent PD, 230 (8.7%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 7.7-9.9%) were diagnosed with HAIs, with a decreasing trend from 2013 to 2022 (P < 0.001 for trend). The incidence of postoperative HAIs was significantly higher in patients with OPD than RPD (9.6% vs 5.8%; P = 0.003). The incidence of HAIs for patients with OPD showed a decreasing trend (P = 0.001 for trend), and the trend for RPD was not significant (P = 0.554 for trend). Logistic regression showed that RPD was significantly associated with postoperative HAIs after adjusting for covariates (adjusted odds ratio = 0.654; 95% CI 0.443-0.965; P = 0.032), especially in the subgroup of patients without preoperative biliary drainage (adjusted odds ratio = 0.486; 95% CI 0.292-0.809; P = 0.006). Regarding clinical outcomes, RPD has a shorter length of stay and a more expensive charge than OPD (all P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Postoperative HAIs in patients with PD showed a decreasing trend in recent years, especially in OPD. RPD was significantly associated with reduced postoperative HAIs and length of stay, although the charge is more expensive. Attention should be paid to postoperative HAIs in OPD, and it is imperative to continue reducing the costs of RPD.

Delayed gastric emptying after pylorus-preserving pancreatoduodenectomy: Comparison between traditional open surgery and full-robotic approach with da Vinci Xi

INTRODUCTION

Delayed gastric emptying (DGE) is a frequent complication after pancreatoduodenectomy, especially after pylorus preservation (Pp). We evaluated the effect of a fully robotic approach with da Vinci Xi on DGE after PpPD.

METHODS

Open and robotic PDs were performed in 353 and 50 cases, respectively, from January 2009 to March 2022. We compared the clinical outcomes and incidence of clinically relevant DGE between robotic PpPD (R-PpPD) and open PpPD after one-to-one case-control matching.

RESULTS

Each group consisted of 30 patients. Clinically relevant DGE was less common after R-PpPD (3/30 [10%] vs. 10/30 cases [33.3%], p = 0.028). The median length of hospital stay (LoS) was significantly lower in the R-PpPD group (10 vs. 15 days, p = 0.013).

CONCLUSION

The reduced tissue trauma by the minimally invasive robotic approach is associated with a lower incidence of DGE, reducing the LoS and encouraging PpPD performed using the fully robotic approach.

Prospective minimally invasive pancreatic resections from the IGOMIPS registry: a snapshot of daily practice in Italy on 1191 between 2019 and 2022

This retrospective analysis of the prospective IGOMIPS registry reports on 1191 minimally invasive pancreatic resections (MIPR) performed in Italy between 2019 and 2022, including 668 distal pancreatectomies (DP) (55.7%), 435 pancreatoduodenectomies (PD) (36.3%), 44 total pancreatectomies (3.7%), 36 tumor enucleations (3.0%), and 8 central pancreatectomies (0.7%). Spleen-preserving DP was performed in 109 patients (16.3%). Overall incidence of severe complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3) was 17.6% with a 90-day mortality of 1.9%. This registry analysis provided some important information. First, robotic assistance was preferred for all MIPR but DP with splenectomy. Second, robotic assistance reduced conversion to open surgery and blood loss in comparison to laparoscopy. Robotic PD was also associated with lower incidence of severe postoperative complications and a trend toward lower mortality. Fourth, the annual cut-off of ≥ 20 MIPR and ≥ 20 MIPD improved selected outcome measures. Fifth, most MIPR were performed by a single surgeon. Sixth, only two-thirds of the centers performed spleen-preserving DP. Seventh, DP with splenectomy was associated with higher conversion rate when compared to spleen-preserving DP. Eighth, the use of pancreatojejunostomy was the prevalent reconstruction in PD. Ninth, final histology was similar for MIPR performed at high- and low-volume centers, but neoadjuvant chemotherapy was used more frequently at high-volume centers. Finally, this registry analysis raises important concerns about the reliability of R1 assessment underscoring the importance of standardized pathology of pancreatic specimens. In conclusion, MIPR can be safely implemented on a national scale. Further analyses are required to understand nuances of implementation of MIPR in Italy.

Learning curves of resection and reconstruction procedures in robotic-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy by a single surgeon: a retrospective cohort study of 160 consecutive cases

Background

Robotic-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) has been routinely performed in a few of centers worldwide. This study aimed to evaluate the perioperative outcomes and the learning curves of resection and reconstruction procedures in RPD by one single surgeon.

Methods

Consecutive patients undergoing RPD by a single surgeon at the First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University (Guangzhou, China) between July 2016 and October 2022 were included. The perioperative outcomes and learning curves were retrospectively analysed by using cumulative sum (CUSUM) analyses.

Results

One-hundred and sixty patients were included. According to the CUSUM curve, the times of resection and reconstruction procedures were shortened significantly after 30 cases (median, 284 vs 195 min; P < 0.001) and 45 cases (median, 138 vs 120 min; P < 0.001), respectively. The estimated intraoperative blood loss (median, 100 vs 50 mL; P < 0.001) and the incidence of clinically relevant post-operative pancreatic fistula (29.2% vs 12.5%; P = 0.035) decreased significantly after 20 and 120 cases, respectively. There were no significant differences in the total number of lymph nodes examined, post-operative major complications, or post-operative length-of-stay between the two groups.

Conclusions

Optimization of the resection procedure and the acquisition of visual feedback facilitated the performance of RPD. RPD was a safe and feasible procedure in the selected patients.

Innovative suture technique for robotic hepaticojejunostomy: double-layer interrupted sutures

PURPOSE

Biliary reconstruction remains a technically demanding and complicated procedure in minimally invasive hepatopancreatobiliary surgeries. No optimal hepaticojejunostomy (HJ) technique has been demonstrated to be superior for preventing biliary complications. This study aimed to investigate the feasibility of our unique technique of posterior double-layer interrupted sutures in robotic HJ.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database. Forty-two patients who underwent robotic pancreatoduodenectomy using this technique between September 2020 and November 2022 at our center were reviewed. In the posterior double-layer interrupted technique, sutures were placed to bite the bile duct, posterior seromuscular layer of the jejunum, and full thickness of the jejunum.

RESULTS

The median operative time was 410 (interquartile range [IQR], 388-478) min, and the median HJ time was 30 (IQR, 28-39) min. The median bile duct diameter was 7 (IQR, 6-10) mm. Of the 42 patients, one patient (2.4%) had grade B bile leakage. During the median follow-up of 12.6 months, one patient (2.4%) with bile leakage developed anastomotic stenosis. Perioperative mortality was not observed. A surgical video showing the posterior double-layer interrupted sutures in the robotic HJ is included.

CONCLUSIONS

Posterior double-layer interrupted sutures in robotic HJ provided a simple and feasible method for biliary reconstruction with a low risk of biliary complications.

Short-term outcomes between robot-assisted and open pancreaticoduodenectomy in patients with high body mass index: A propensity score matched study

BACKGROUND

High body mass index was considered as a risk factor for minimally invasive surgery. The short-term outcomes of robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) remain controversial. This study aims to investigate the feasibility and advantage of RPD in patients with high body mass index compared to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD).

METHODS

Clinical data of 304 patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy from January 2016 to December 2019 in Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine was collected. Patients with BMI >25 kg/m2 were included and divided into RPD and OPD group. After PSM at a 1:1 ratio, 75 patients of OPD and 75 patients of RPD were recorded and analyzed.

RESULTS

The RPD group showed advantages in the estimated blood loss (EBL) (323.3 mL vs. 480.7 mL, p = 0.010), the postoperative abdominal infection rate (24% vs. 44%, p = 0.010), the incidence of Clavien-Dindo III-V complications (14.7% vs. 28.0%, p = 0.042) over OPD group.

CONCLUSION

RPD shows advantages in less EBL, lower incidence rate of Clavien-Dindo III-V complications over OPD in overweight and obese patients. RPD was confirmed as a safe and feasible surgical approach for overweight or obsess patients.

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy and laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy with robotic reconstruction: single-surgeon experience and technical notes

Purpose

Despite the increasing number of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomies, laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) and LPD with robotic reconstruction (LPD-RR) are still valuable surgical options for minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD). This study introduces the surgical techniques, tips, and outcomes of our experience with LPD and LPD-RR.

Methods

Between March 2014 and July 2021, 122 and 48 patients underwent LPD and LPD-RR respectively, at CHA Bundang Medical Center in Korea. The operative settings, procedures, and trocar placements were identical in both approaches; however, different trocars were used. We introduced our techniques of retraction methods for Kocherization and uncinate process dissection, pancreatic reconstruction, pancreatic division, and protection using the round ligament. The perioperative surgical outcomes of LPD and LPD-RR were compared.

Results

Baseline demographics of patients in the LPD and LPD-RR groups were comparable, but the LPD group had older age (65.5 ± 11.6 years vs. 60.0 ± 14.1 years, p = 0.009) and lesser preoperative chemotherapy (15.6% vs. 35.4%, p = 0.008). The proportion of malignant disease was similar (LPD group, 86.1% vs. LPD-RR group, 83.3%; p = 0.759). Perioperative outcomes were also comparable, including operative time, estimated blood loss, clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (LPD group, 9.0% vs. LPD-RR group, 10.4%; p = 0.684), and major postoperative complication rates (LPD group, 14.8% vs. LPD-RR group, 6.2%; p = 0.082).

Conclusion

Both LPD and LPR-RR can be safely performed by experienced surgeons with acceptable surgical outcomes. Further investigations are required to evaluate the objective benefits of robotic surgical systems in MIPD and establish widely acceptable standardized MIPD techniques.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Pancreatoduodenectomy in Patients With Periampullary Tumors: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials compared laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) versus open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) in patients with periampullary tumors.

BACKGROUND

LPD has gained attention; however, its safety and efficacy versus OPD remain debatable.

METHODS

We searched PubMed and Embase. Primary outcomes were the length of hospital stay (LOS) (day), Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III complications, and 90-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were blood loss (milliliter), blood transfusion, duration of operation (minute), readmission, reoperation, comprehensive complication index score, bile leak, gastrojejunostomy or duodenojejunostomy leak, postoperative pancreatic fistula, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage, delayed gastric emptying, surgical site infection, intra-abdominal infection, number of harvested lymph nodes, and R0 resection. Pooled odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD) of data was calculated using the random-effect model. The grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluation approach was used for grading the level of evidence.

RESULTS

Four randomized controlled trials yielding 818 patients were included, of which 411 and 407 patients underwent LPD and OPD, respectively. The meta-analysis concluded that 2 approaches were similar, except in the LPD group, the LOS tended to be shorter [MD=-2.54 (-5.17, 0.09), P =0.06], LOS in ICU was shorter [MD=-1 (-1.8, -0.2), P =0.01], duration of operation was longer [MD=75.16 (23.29, 127.03), P =0.005], blood loss was lower [MD=-115.40 (-152.13, -78.68), P <0.00001], blood transfusion was lower [OR=0.66 (0.47, 0.92), P =0.01], and surgical site infection was lower [OR=0.35 (0.12, 0.96), P =0.04]. The overall certainty of the evidence was moderate.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the hands of highly skilled surgeons in high-volume centers, LPD is feasible and as safe and efficient as OPD.

Perioperative and Oncological Outcomes of Robotic Versus Open Pancreaticoduodenectomy in Low-Risk Surgical Candidates: A Multicenter Propensity Score-Matched Study

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to perform a multicenter comparison between robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD).

BACKGROUND

Previous comparisons of RPD versus OPD have only been carried out in small, single-center studies of variable quality.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent RPD (n = 1032) or OPD (n = 1154) at 7 centers in China between July 2012 and July 2020 were included. A 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) was performed.

RESULTS

After PSM, 982 patients in each group were enrolled. The RPD group had significantly lower estimated blood loss (EBL) (190.0 vs 260.0 mL; P < 0.001), and a shorter postoperative 1length of hospital stay (LOS) (12.0 (9.0-16.0) days vs 14.5 (11.0-19.0) days; P < 0.001) than the OPD group. There were no significant differences in operative time, major morbidity including clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF), bile leakage, delayed gastric emptying, postoperative pancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), reoperation, readmission or 90-day mortality rates. Multivariable analysis showed R0 resection, CR-POPF, PPH and reoperation to be independent risk factors for 90-day mortality. Subgroup analysis on patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) (n = 326 in each subgroup) showed RPD had advantages over OPD in EBL and postoperative LOS. There were no significant differences in median disease-free survival (15.2 vs 14.3 months, P = 0.94) or median overall survival (24.2 vs 24.1 months, P = 0.88) between the 2 subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

RPD was comparable to OPD in feasibility and safety. For patients with PDAC, RPD resulted in similar oncologic and survival outcomes as OPD.

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: Analysis of surgical outcomes and long-term prognosis in a high-volume center

BACKGROUND

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) has been reported to be safe and feasible for patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) of the pancreatic head. This study aimed to analyze the surgical outcomes and risk factors for poor long-term prognosis of these patients.

METHODS

Data from patients who underwent RPD for PDAC of pancreatic head were retrospectively analyzed. Multivariate Cox regression analysis was used to seek the independent prognostic factors for overall survival (OS), and an online nomogram calculator was developed based on the independent prognostic factors.

RESULTS

Of the 273 patients who met the inclusion criteria, the median operative time was 280.0 minutes, the estimated blood loss was 100.0 mL, the median OS was 23.6 months, and the median recurrence-free survival (RFS) was 14.4 months. Multivariate analysis showed that preoperative carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9) [hazard ratio (HR) = 2.607, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.560-4.354, P < 0.001], lymph node metastasis (HR = 1.429, 95% CI: 1.005-2.034, P = 0.047), tumor moderately (HR = 3.190, 95% CI: 1.813-5.614, P < 0.001) or poorly differentiated (HR = 5.114, 95% CI: 2.839-9.212, P < 0.001), and Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ III (HR = 1.657, 95% CI: 1.079-2.546, P = 0.021) were independent prognostic factors for OS. The concordance index (C-index) of the nomogram constructed based on the above four independent prognostic factors was 0.685 (95% CI: 0.640-0.729), which was significantly higher than that of the AJCC staging (8th edition): 0.541 (95% CI: 0.493-0.589) (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This large-scale study indicated that RPD was feasible for PDAC of pancreatic head. Preoperative CA19-9, lymph node metastasis, tumor poorly differentiated, and Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ III were independent prognostic factors for OS. The online nomogram calculator could predict the OS of these patients in a simple and convenient manner.

The PD-ROBOSCORE: A difficulty score for robotic pancreatoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

Difficulty scoring systems are important for the safe, stepwise implementation of new procedures. We designed a retrospective observational study for building a difficulty score for robotic pancreatoduodenectomy.

METHODS

The difficulty score (PD-ROBOSCORE) aims at predicting severe postoperative complications after robotic pancreatoduodenectomy. The PD-ROBOSCORE was developed in a training cohort of 198 robotic pancreatoduodenectomies and was validated in an international multicenter cohort of 686 robotic pancreatoduodenectomies. Finally, all centers tested the model during the early learning curve (n = 300). Growing difficulty levels (low, intermediate, high) were defined using cut-off values set at the 33rd and 66th percentile (NCT04662346).

RESULTS

Factors included in the final multivariate model were a body mass index of ≥25 kg/m² for males and ≥30 kg/m² for females (odds ratio:2.39; P < .0001), borderline resectable tumor (odd ratio:1.98; P < .0001), uncinate process tumor (odds ratio:1.69; P < .0001), pancreatic duct size <4 mm (odds ratio:1.59; P < .0001), American Society of Anesthesiologists class ≥3 (odds ratio:1.59; P < .0001), and hepatic artery originating from the superior mesenteric artery (odds ratio:1.43; P < .0001). In the training cohort, the absolute score value (odds ratio = 1.13; P = .0089) and difficulty groups (odds ratio = 2.35; P = .041) predicted severe postoperative complications. In the multicenter validation cohort, the absolute score value predicted severe postoperative complications (odds ratio = 1.16, P < .001), whereas the difficulty groups did not (odds ratio = 1.94, P = .082). In the learning curve cohort, both absolute score value (odds ratio:1.078, P = .04) and difficulty groups (odds ratio: 2.25, P = .017) predicted severe postoperative complications. Across all cohorts, a PD-ROBOSCORE of ≥12.51 doubled the risk of severe postoperative complications. The PD-ROBOSCORE score also predicted operative time, estimated blood loss, and vein resection. The PD-ROBOSCORE predicted postoperative pancreatic fistula, delayed gastric emptying, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage, and postoperative mortality in the learning curve cohort.

CONCLUSION

The PD-ROBOSCORE predicts severe postoperative complications after robotic pancreatoduodenectomy. The score is readily available via www.pancreascalculator.com.

Robotic versus open total pancreatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Limited data are available on postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing robotic total pancreatectomy (RTP). This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the postoperative outcomes of RTP and open total pancreatectomy (OTP). We performed a systematic review with meta-analysis according to the PRISMA 2020 and AMSTAR 2 guidelines. We included studies conducted through August 10, 2022, that systematically searched electronic databases and compared RTP with OTP. We retained four controlled clinical trials in the literature search, including 156 patients: 65 in the RTP group and 91 in the OTP group. There was no difference between the RTP group and OTP group in terms of mortality, severe complications, morbidity, bleeding, biliary leak, delayed gastric emptying, reoperation, operative time, length of stay, harvested lymph nodes, and positive resection margin. The RTP reduces the delay of the first liquid diet, first oral diet, and out of bed. RTP is feasible and safe in selected patients. Robotic surgery allows for a quicker recovery. In cases of major vessel invasion, conversion to laparotomy should be preoperatively considered.

Prospective cohort study on short-term outcomes of 3D-laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy with stented pancreaticogastrostomy

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy, either laparoscopic or robotic, is a high-risk procedure with demanding learning curve. The aim of this prospective cohort study was to evaluate short-term clinical and oncologic outcomes of 3D-laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (3dLPD) with stented pancreaticogastrostomy (sPG) and Roux-en-Y gastroenterostomy (ryGES).

METHODS

Between March 2016 and July 2021, 347 consecutive patients underwent 3dLPD for confirmed or suspected pancreatic or periampullary tumors. Pancreatic duct diameter measured 3 mm or less in 221 (64%) and pancreatic texture was soft in 191 (55%) patients. Simultaneous resection of the superior mesenteric or portal vein was performed in 52 (15%) patients.

RESULTS

Postoperative complications were observed in 189 (54%) patients, with severe complications (Clavien-Dindo grade > 2) in 68 (20%) including 4 (1.2%) deaths. Clinically relevant pancreatic fistula (cPOPF) occurred in 88 (25%), hemorrhage in 25 (7%), and bile leakage in 10 (3%) patients. Clinical pancreatic fistula was strongly associated with soft pancreatic texture and small pancreatic duct diameter (p < 0.001) and managed by endoscopic trans-gastric drainage in 34 (38.6%) patients, reoperation in 12 (13.6%), and ICU admission in 11 (12.5%). The remaining 31 (35%) patients with cPOPF were managed without invasive intervention. Median length of hospital stay after surgery was 13 (range 5-112; IQR 8-18) days. In pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) the R0-resection rate was 66/186 (36%), R1-indirect 95/186 (51%), and R1-direct 25 (13%). Median number of locoregional lymph nodes retrieved in PDAC was 21 (IQR 15-28). R0-resection rate for malignancy other than PDAC was 78/86 (91%) with a median of 16 (IQR 12-22) locoregional lymph nodes retrieved.

CONCLUSION

3dLPD with sPG and ryGES is associated with 1.2% mortality and 25% cPOPF. About two-third of patients with cPOPF were managed with some type of invasive intervention, whereas the intraoperatively placed drains sufficed in one-third of patients.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02671357.

New perspectives on robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy: An analysis of the National Cancer Database

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is a common malignancy. Despite all advancements, the prognosis remains, poor with an overall 5-year survival of only 10.8%. Recently, a robotic platform has become an attractive tool for treating pancreatic cancer (PC). While recent studies indicated improved lymph node (LN) harvest during robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD), data on long-term outcomes are insufficient.

AIM

To evaluate absolute LN harvest during PD. Secondary outcomes included evaluating the association between LN harvest and short- and long-term oncological outcomes for three different surgical approaches.

METHODS

We conducted an analysis of the National Cancer Database, including patients diagnosed with PC who underwent open, laparoscopic, or robotic PD in 2010-2018. One-way analysis of variance was used to compare continuous variables, chi-square test - for categorical. Overall survival was defined as the time between surgery and death. Median survival time was estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method, and groups were compared with the Wilcoxon test. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to assess the association of covariates with survival after controlling for patient characteristics and procedure type.

RESULTS

17169 patients were included, 8859 (52%) males; mean age 65; 14509 (85%) white. 13816 (80.5%) patients had an open PD, 2677 (15.6%) and 676 (3.9%) - laparoscopic and robotic PD respectively. Mean comorbidity index (Charlson-Deyo Score) 0.50. On average, 18.84 LNs were harvested. Mean LN harvest during open, laparoscopic and robotic PD was 18.59, 19.65 and 20.70 respectively (P < 0.001). On average 2.49 LNs were positive for cancer and did not differ by the procedure type (P = 0.26). Vascular invasion was noted in 42.6% of LNs and did differ by the approach: 42.1% for open, 44.0% for laparoscopic and 47.2% for robotic PD (P = 0.015). Median survival for open PD was 26.1 mo, laparoscopic - 27.2 mo, robotic - 29.1 mo (P = 0.064). Survival was associated with higher LN harvest, while higher number of positive LNs was associated with higher mortality.

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests that robotic PD is associated with increased intraoperative LN harvest and has comparable short-term oncological outcomes and survival compared to open and laparoscopic approaches.

Comparison of short-term efficacy and safety between total robotic and total 3D laparoscopic distal radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer in Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol: a propensity score matching study

BACKGROUND

The application of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol in gastrointestinal surgery has been widely accepted. The aim of this study was to compare the effect of ERAS in total robotic distal gastrectomy (TRDG) versus 3D total laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (3D-TLDG) for gastric cancer.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated 73 patients underwent TRDG and 163 patients who received 3D-TLDG. The propensity score was used for matching analysis according to a 1:1 ratio, so that there was no significant difference in the baseline data between the two groups. The short-term effect and safety of the two groups were compared.

RESULTS

The TRDG group had a less intraoperative bleeding (30.21 ± 13.78 vs. 41.44 ± 17.41 ml, P < 0.001), longer intraoperative preparation time (31.05 ± 4.93 vs. 15.48 ± 2.43 min, P < 0.001), shorter digestive tract reconstruction time (32.67 ± 4.41 vs. 39.78 ± 4.95 min, P < 0.001), shorter postoperative ambulation time (14.07 ± 8.97 vs. 17.49 ± 5.98 h, P = 0.007), shorter postoperative anal exhaust time (1.78 ± 0.79 vs. 2.18 ± 0.79 days, P = 0.003), shorter postoperative hospital stay (7.74 ± 3.15 vs. 9.97 ± 3.23 days, P < 0.001), lower postoperative pain score (P = 0.006) and higher hospitalization cost (89,907.15 ± 17,147.19 vs. 125,615.82 ± 11,900.80 RMB, P < 0.001) than the 3D-TLDG group.

CONCLUSION

TRDG and 3D-TLDG under ERAS protocol are safe and feasible. Compared with 3D-TLDG, the TRDG has better intraoperative bleeding control effect and greater advantages in digestive tract reconstruction. After the combination of ERAS protocol, TRDG also has certain advantages in the recovery process of patients after surgery.

Morbidity and survival after laparoscopic versus open pancreatoduodenectomy: propensity score matched comparison

PURPOSE

Technical challenges and a perceived higher risk of complications hinder a wide adoption of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy. We aim to further define the place of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy by comparison with the traditional open approach.

METHODS

A comparison of the surgical outcomes and survival after laparoscopic (LPD) versus open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) was retrospectively performed from a prospectively kept database. To reduce the effect of bias and confounding, baseline characteristics of both groups were matched using propensity score matching (NCT05110573; Nov 8, 2021; retrospectively registered).

RESULTS

From a total of 67 LPD and 105 OPD patients, propensity score matching resulted in two balanced groups of 38 patients. In both groups, 87% of surgeries were performed for cancer. In the LPD group, conversion rate was 22.4%. Mean operative time was significantly longer after LPD versus OPD (320.1 ± 53.8 vs. 277.7 ± 63.8 min; p = .008). Hospital stay was significantly shorter after LPD versus OPD (median 13.5 vs. 17.0 days; p = .039). No significant differences were observed in blood loss, total complication rate (73.7% vs. 86.8%; p = .249), major complication rate (26.5% vs. 10.5%; p = .137), postoperative pancreatic fistula rate (13.2% vs. 7.9%; p = .711), 90-day mortality rate (5.3% vs. 0%; p = .493), R0 resection rate (85.4% vs. 85.8%), or number of lymph nodes (median 10.0 vs. 8.5; p = .273). In cancer patients, no significant differences were observed in overall survival (median 27.1 vs. 23.9 months; p = .693), disease-free survival, or recurrence rate.

CONCLUSION

LPD provided acceptable short-term and oncological outcomes. Compared to OPD, we noted a higher major complication rate, without compromising surgical safety or oncological outcomes.

Surgical methods influence on the risk of anastomotic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Pancreaticoduodenectomy is the first choice surgical intervention for the radical treatment of pancreatic tumors. However, an anastomotic fistula is a common complication after pancreaticoduodenectomy with a high mortality rate. With the development of minimally invasive surgery, open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD), laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD), and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) are gaining interest. But the impact of these surgical methods on the risk of anastomosis has not been confirmed. Therefore, we aimed to integrate relevant clinical studies and explore the effects of these three surgical methods on the occurrence of anastomotic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted for studies reporting the RPD, LPD, and OPD. Network meta-analysis of postoperative anastomotic fistula (Pancreatic fistula, biliary leakage, gastrointestinal fistula) was performed.

RESULTS

Sixty-five studies including 10,026 patients were included in the network meta-analysis. The rank of risk probability of pancreatic fistula for RPD (0.00) was better than LPD (0.37) and OPD (0.62). Thus, the analysis suggests the rank of risk of the postoperative pancreatic fistula for RPD, LPD, and OPD. The rank of risk probability for biliary leakage was similar for RPD (0.15) and LPD (0.15), and both were better than OPD (0.68).

CONCLUSIONS

This network meta-analysis provided ranking for three different types of pancreaticoduodenectomy. The RPD and LPD can effectively improve the quality of surgery and are safe as well as feasible for OPD.

Figures do matter: A literature review of 4587 robotic pancreatic resections and their implications on training

BACKGROUND

The use of robotic assistance in minimally invasive pancreatic resection is quickly growing.

METHODS

We present a systematic review of the literature regarding all types of robotic pancreatic resection (RPR). Our aim is to show for which procedures there is enough experience to permit safe training and provide an estimation of how many centers could serve as teaching institutions.

RESULTS

Sixty-four studies reporting on 4587 RPRs were analyzed. A total of 2598 pancreatoduodenectomies (PD) were reported by 28 centers from Europe (6/28; 21.4%), the Americas (11/28; 39.3%), and Asia (11/28; 39.3%). Six studies reported >100 robot PD (1694/2598; 65.2%). A total of 1618 distal pancreatectomies (DP) were reported by 29 centers from Europe (10/29; 34.5%), the Americas (10/29; 34.5%), and Asia (9/29; 31%). Five studies reported >100 robotic DP (748/1618; 46.2%). A total of 154 central pancreatectomies were reported by six centers from Europe (1/6; 16.7%), the Americas (2/6; 33.3%), and Asia (3/6; 50%). Only 49 total pancreatectomies were reported. Finally, 168 enucleations were reported in seven studies (with a mean of 15.4 cases per study). A single center reported on 60 enucleations (35.7%). Results of each type of robotic procedure are also presented.

CONCLUSIONS

Experience with RPR is still quite limited. Despite high case volume not being sufficient to warrant optimal training opportunities, it is certainly a key component of every successful training program and is a major criterion for fellowship accreditation. From this review, it appears that only PD and DP can currently be taught at few institutions worldwide.

Outcomes of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy using a modified technique：346 cases from a single center

PURPOSE

To study the outcomes of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) using a modified technique.

METHODS

Our center used priority approach of uncinate process and artery in the pancreatectomy and duct to mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy with a single stitch in the pancreaticojejunostomy. Herein, we retrospectively reviewed 346 cases of LPD using modified techniques. Basic characteristics, preoperative outcomes, factors associated with unfavorable postoperative outcome, and mortality of patients undergoing LPD were collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

The average operative time was 259.31 (35-425) min. The mean duration of pancreaticojejunostomy anastomosis was 31.97 (16-90) min. The mean intraoperative blood loss was 101.76 (0-1200) ml by estimation. Postoperative complications included 14 cases (4.1%) of bile leakage, 9 cases (2.6%) of delayed gastric emptying, 26 cases (7.5%) of postoperative bleeding, 34 cases (9.9%) of organ space infection, 17 cases (4.9%) of pulmonary infection, and 50 cases (14.5%) of POPF. Three factors including postoperative bleeding (OR = 3.502; P = 0.033), positive lymph node (OR = 3.296; P < 0.001), and postoperative chemotherapy (OR = 0.241; P = 0.008) were significantly associated with death of LPD.

CONCLUSIONS

The modified technique for LPD presents safety and reliability. Postoperative bleeding and positive lymph node may be associated with worse overall survival, and postoperative chemotherapy may be associated with better overall survival.

Impact of the transection plan on postoperative pancreatic fistulas occurring after robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy for nonmalignant pancreatic neoplasms

OBJECTIVES

Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is the main complication of distal pancreatectomy (DP) and affects the prognosis of patients. The impact of several clinical factors mentioned in recent studies on POPF remains controversial. This study aimed to investigate the impact of a remnant pancreas and other perioperative factors on POPFs occurring after robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RDP) for nonmalignant pancreatic neoplasms.

METHODS

A total of 197 patients who received robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RDP) for nonmalignant pancreatic neoplasms at the Pancreatic Disease Center, Ruijin Hospital Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine from January 2018 to December 2020 were included in this retrospective study. According to the intraoperative transection plan, patients were divided into an RDP body group and an RDP tail group. Clinical and pathological features and perioperative factors affecting POPF were analyzed and compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

The results showed that a transection plan involving the tail of the pancreas (OR = 2.133, 95% CI 1.109-4.103, p = 0.023) and spleen preservation (OR = 2.588, 95% CI 1.435-4.665, p = 0.001) independently increased the incidence of POPF in patients with nonmalignant pancreatic neoplasms treated by RDP. A transection plan involving the tail of the pancreas was also an independent risk factor (OR = 3.464, 95% CI 1.270-9.450, p = 0.015) for grade B/C POPF. Length of remnant pancreas > 6.23 cm was an independent risk factor for POPF (OR = 3.116, 95% CI 1.364-7.121, p = 0.007). Length of remnant pancreas > 9.82 cm was an independent risk factor for grade B/C POPF (OR = 3.340, 95% CI 1.386-8.051, p = 0.007).

CONCLUSION

This retrospective study suggests that a transection plan involving the tail of the pancreas is an independent risk factor for POPF in patients with nonmalignant neoplasms treated by RDP. We also propose that the postoperative length of the remnant pancreas evaluated by computed tomography scans can be used to identify patients with a high risk of POPF in order to optimize the individualized strategy.

Association between age at diabetes onset or diabetes duration and subsequent risk of pancreatic cancer: Results from a longitudinal cohort and mendelian randomization study

BACKGROUND

The aim of the study is to estimate the incidence of pancreatic cancer among individuals with new-onset type 2 Diabetes (T2DM) and evaluate the relationship of pancreatic cancer risk with age at diabetes onset and diabetes duration.

METHODS

This longitudinal cohort study included 428,362 new-onset T2DM patients in Shanghai and Mendelian randomization (MR) in the east-Asian population were used to investigate the association. Incidence rates of pancreatic cancer in all patients and by subgroups were calculated and compared to the general population.

FINDINGS

A total of 1056 incident pancreatic cancer cases were identified during eight consecutive years of follow-up. The overall pancreatic cancer annual incidence rate was 55·28/100,000 person years in T2DM patients, higher than that in the general population, with a standardized incidence ratio (SIR) of 1·54 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1·45-1·64). The incidence of pancreatic cancer increased with age and a significantly higher incidence was observed in the older groups with T2DM. However, the relative pancreatic cancer risk was inversely related to age of T2DM onset, and a higher SIR of 5·73 (95%CI, 4·49-7·22) was observed in the 20-54 years old group. The risk of pancreatic cancer was elevated at any diabetes duration. Fasting blood glucose ≥10·0 mmol/L was associated with increased risk of pancreatic cancer. MR analysis indicated a positive association between T2DM and pancreatic cancer risk.

INTERPRETATION

Efforts toward early and close follow-up programs, especially in individuals with young-onset T2DM, and the improvement of glucose control might represent effective strategies for improving the detection and results of treatment of pancreatic cancer.

FUNDING

Chinese National Natural Science Foundation.

Outcomes in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) undergoing robotic (RPD) or open pancreaticoduodenectomies (OPD): a propensity score-weighted survival analysis

The purpose of this study was to compare the survival, recurrence, and complication rates in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) who underwent robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) or open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) and who received adjuvant therapy. The study was a single-center retrospective analysis of consecutive PDAC patients who underwent RPD/OPD. Patient characteristics, tumor findings, neoadjuvant therapy, adjuvant therapies, overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) were compared between the OPD and RPD cohorts. Cox proportional hazard regression with and without propensity score matching was used to establish the association between predictors and outcomes. One hundred PDAC patients underwent OPD (n = 36) or RPD (n = 64) from 2013 to 2019. Cox proportional hazard models showed that baseline bilirubin (HR 1.6, p = 0.0006) and operative characteristics such as the number of positive lymph nodes (HR 1.1, p = 0.002), lymph node ratio (HR 1.6, p = 0.001), tumor grade (HR 1.7, p = 0.02), and TNM classification (HR 2.3, p = 0.01) were associated with OS. The independent predictors post-intervention associated with mortality were adjuvant therapy (HR 0.4, p = 0.0003), ISGPS complications (HR 2.8, p = 0.02), and 90-day readmission (HR 2, p = 0.004). After adjustment for these predictors, adjuvant therapy, baseline bilirubin, lymph node ratio, and tumor grade remained the main predictors of mortality. Baseline bilirubin, adjuvant therapy, lymph node ratio, and tumor grade were the main determinants of mortality after OPD or RPD. There was no significant difference in OS and RFS after RPD or OPD in PC patients who received adjuvant therapy.

Risk factors for delayed gastric emptying in pancreaticoduodenectomy

The study of robotic pancreaticouodenectomy (RPD) focusing on delayed gastric emptying (DGE) is seldom reported. This study explored the incidence of DGE in RPD with extracorporeal hand-sewn gastrojejunostomy involving downward positioning of the stomach. Patients with periampullary lesions undergoing RPD or open pancreaticouodenectomy (OPD) were included for comparison. A variety of clinical factors were evaluated for the risk of developing DGE. There were 409 (68.2%) RPD and 191 (31.8%) OPD in this study. DGE occurred in 7.7% of patients after pancreaticoduodenectomy, with 4.4% in RPD and 14.7% in OPD, p < 0.001. Nausea/vomiting (12.6% vs. 6.3%) and jaundice (9.9% vs. 5.2%) were significant preoperative risk factors for DGE, while malignancy (8.7% vs. 2.2%) and lymph node involvement (9.8% vs. 5.6%) were significant pathological risk factors. Intraoperative blood loss > 200 c.c. was the other factor related to DGE (11.2% vs. 4.4% in those with blood loss ≤ 200 c.c.). None of the postoperative complications was significantly associated with DGE. Hospital stay was significantly longer in the group with DGE (median, 37 vs. 20 days in the group without DGE). After multivariate analysis by binary logistic regression, compared with OPD, RPD was the only independent factor associated with a lower incidence of DGE. RPD with extracorporeal hand-sewn antecolic, antiperistaltic, and inframesocolic gastrojejunostomy via a small umbilical wound involving careful downward positioning of the stomach was associated with a low incidence of DGE and presented as the most powerful independent predictor of this condition.

Robotic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for distal cholangiocarcinoma: a multicenter propensity score-matched study

BACKGROUND

Pancreatoduodenectomy is the only potentially curative treatment for distal cholangiocarcinoma (DCC). In this study, we sought to compare the perioperative and oncological outcomes of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) based on a multicenter propensity score-matched study.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with DCC who underwent RPD or OPD from five centers in China between January 2014 and June 2019 were included. A 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) was performed. Univariable and multivariable Cox regression analyses were used to identify independent prognosis factors for overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) of these patients.

RESULTS

A total of 217 patients and 228 patients underwent RPD and OPD, respectively. After PSM, 180 patients in each group were enrolled. There were no significant differences in operative time, lymph node harvest, intraoperative transfusion, vascular resection, R0 resection, postoperative major morbidity, reoperation, 90-day mortality, and long-term survival between the two groups before and after PSM. Whereas, compared with the OPD group, the RPD group had significantly lower estimated blood loss (150.0 ml vs. 250.0 ml; P < 0.001), and a shorter postoperative length of stay (LOS) (12.0 days vs. 15.0 days; P < 0.001). Multivariable analysis showed carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9), R0 resection, N stage, perineural invasion, and tumor differentiation significantly associated with OS and RFS of these patients.

CONCLUSIONS

RPD was comparable to OPD in feasibility and safety. For patients with DCC, RPD resulted in similar oncologic and survival outcomes as OPD.

Meta-analysis of robotic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy in all patients and pancreatic cancer patients

Purposes

To compare perioperative outcomes of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) using evidence from cohort studies.

Methods

Outcomes of interest include operative time, blood loss, R0 resection rate, lymph nodes harvested, overall complication rate, pancreatic fistula rate, delayed gastric emptying rate and 90-day mortality.

Results

6 prospective studies and 15 retrospective studies were included. Five of these studies were limited to patients with pancreatic cancer. Operative time was significantly longer in RPD (WMD: 64.60 min; 95% CI: 26.89 to 102.21; p = 0.001). Estimated blood loss was lower in RPD (WMD: −185.44 ml; 95% CI: −239.66 to −131.21; p < 0.001). Overall complication rates (OR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.44 to 0.97; p < 0.001) and pancreatic fistula rate (OR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.55 to 0.82; p < 0.001) were both lower in RPD. Length of hospital stay was longer in OPD (WMD: −1.90; 95% CI: −2.47 to −1.33). 90-day mortality was lower in RPD [odds ratio (OR): 0.77; 95% CI: 0.45 to 0.95; p = 0.025].

Conclusion

At current level of evidence, RPD is a safer alternative than OPD with regard to post-operative outcomes and blood loss. However, in terms of oncological outcomes RPD show no advantage over OPD, and the cost of RPD was higher. In general, RPD is now considered a reliable technology, but high-quality randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies are still needed to support this conclusion.

Pancreatic cancer - the past, the present, and the future

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic cancer has been and still is associated with a very poor prognosis. This is due to a lack of major breakthroughs with respect to early diagnosis, prognostication, prediction, as well as novel, targeted therapies. The benefits of surgery and chemotherapy are evident, but the fact that only some 10% of all patients have early, localized disease highlights the unmet need for new early detection methods. An improved understanding of tumor biology and the development of molecular markers detectable both in the circulation and in cancer tissues may underlie the development of new tools for optimizing both diagnosis and treatment.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Review of the literature.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

If we do not improve precision oncology for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, the prognosis will still remain dismal and the" burden" on society will increase substantially.

Outcomes of double-layer continuous suture hepaticojejunostomy in pancreatoduodenectomy and total pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND

This study aims to describe the technique and the results of double-layer continuous suture hepaticojejunostomy (HJ) following pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) and total pancreatectomy (TP).

METHODS

A prospectively maintained database was analyzed retrospectively to identify incidence and severity of biliary leaks (BL) (ISGLS definition), as well as of HJ stenosis (HJS), cholangitis, and need for redo-HJ (in patients with a follow-up ≥3 years) in a consecutive series of 800 procedures (PD = 603; TP = 197). Predictors of biliary complications were also identified.

RESULTS

BLs occurred in 5 patients (0.6%), including 2 (0.3%) combined pancreatic and biliary leaks. Rates of HJS, cholangitis, and need for redo-HJ were 6.1%, 5.4%, and 2.0%, respectively. Incidence of BL was 0.6% in open procedures (4/587) and 0.4% in robotic operations (1/213). Incidence of late biliary complications was also equivalent in open and robotic procedures. Occurrence of BL was predicted by ASA IV status and duodenal cancer, HJS by any associated vascular procedure and hepatic duct size < 8 mm, cholangitis by any associated vascular procedure and normal bilirubin/hepatic enzymes, and redo HJ by history of cholecystectomy and neuroendocrine tumor/cancer.

DISCUSSION

Double layer continuous suture HJ is associated with low BL rates, and an acceptable incidence of late complications.

Comparison of surgical outcomes among open, laparoscopic, and robotic pancreatoduodenectomy: a single-center retrospective study

Background

There is no general consensus on the feasibility and safety of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) and whether it increases surgical risks. The purpose of this study was to assess the safety, feasibility, and rationality of RPD by comparing perioperative data among open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD), laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD), and RPD performed in our center in recent years.

Methods

Clinical data of patients had undergone RPD (n = 32), LPD (n = 21), and OPD (n = 86) in The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University between January 2016 and June 2020 were retrospectively collected and analyzed.

Results

RPD required more time for operation (537.2 min vs. 441.5 min, p < 0.001) than OPD did, but less time to remove abdominal drainage tube (12.5 d vs. 17.3 d, p = 0.001). The differences between the RPD group and LPD group were interesting, as the two groups had similar operation time (537.2 min vs. 592.9 min, p = 1.000) and blood loss (482.8 ml vs. 559.5 ml, p > 0.05), but the RPD group had a higher activity of daily living score on postoperative day 3 (35.8 vs. 25.7, p = 0.0017) and a lower rate of conversion to OPD (6.5% vs. 38.1%, p = 0.011). Regarding complications, such as the postoperative pancreatic fistula, abdominal hemorrhage, intra-abdominal infection, bile leakage, reoperation, and perioperative mortality, there were no significant differences among the three groups.

Conclusions

Not only is RPD feasible and reliable, it also offers significant advantages in that it improves postoperative recovery of skills needed for everyday life, has a low conversion rate to open surgery, and does not increase surgical risks.

Which one is better? Laparoscopic versus robotic reconstruction in the remnant soft pancreas with a small pancreatic duct following pancreaticoduodenectomy: a multicenter study with propensity score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

Evidence of the advantages of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) over laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) is limited. Thus, this study aimed to compare the surgical outcomes of laparoscopic reconstruction L-recon) versus robotic reconstruction (R-recon) in patients with soft pancreas and small pancreatic duct.

METHOD

Among 429 patients treated with minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) between October 2012 and June 2020 by three surgeons at three institutions, 201 patients with a soft pancreas and a small pancreatic duct (< 3 mm) were included in this study.

RESULTS

Sixty pairs of patients who underwent L-recon and R-recon were selected after propensity score matching. The perioperative outcomes were comparable between the reconstruction approaches, with comparable clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) rates (15.0% [L-recon] vs. 13.3% [R-recon]). The sub-analysis according to the type of MIPD procedure also showed comparable outcomes, but only a significant difference in postoperative hospital stay was identified. During the learning curve analysis using the cumulative summation by operation time (CUSUM_OT), two surgeons who performed both L-recon and R-recon procedures reached their first peak in the CUSUM_OT graph earlier for the R-recon group than for the L-recon group (i.e., 20th L-recon case and third R-recon case of surgeon A and 43rd L-recon case and seventh R-recon case of surgeon B). Surgeon C, who only performed R-recon, demonstrated the first peak in the 22nd case. The multivariate regression analysis for risk factors of CR-POPF showed that the MIPD procedure type, as well as other factors, did not have any significant effect.

CONCLUSION

Postoperative pancreatic fistula rates and the overall perioperative outcomes of L-recon and R-recon were comparable in patients with soft-textured pancreas and small pancreatic duct treated by experienced surgeons.

One hundred most cited article related to pancreaticoduodenectomy surgery: A bibliometric analysis

BACKGROUND

In light of the challenges associated with pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) and recent key improvements, this bibliometric analysis aimed to analyze the 100 top-cited (T100) articles related to PD surgery to widen the awareness of relevant research on this procedure.

METHODS

The term "pancreaticoduodenectomy" was used to retrieve articles from the Web of Science Core Collection database. The 100 most cited manuscripts in the English language were identified and further analyzed by their countries of origin, publication journals, authors, and themes.

RESULTS

A thorough literature search was performed on the Web of Science until April 2020. The total number of citations for the T100 articles ranged from 227 to 3029. The T100 articles came from 18 different countries, with the USA accounting for the plurality (n = 72). Professor J.L. Cameron from Johns Hopkins Medicine USA published the most articles (n = 22), including one as the first author and two as a co-author. Furthermore, Johns Hopkins Medicine, USA, published the most articles on PD surgery (n = 24), with a total citation count of 14,151. The journal Annals of Surgery published 40 of the T100 articles, with 15,847 citations and an average citation count of 396. Among the T100 articles, the citation frequency following the year of publication showed a parabolic trend, with citations peaking in the 9th year following publication.

CONCLUSION

Our study identified and analyzed the T100 articles in PD surgery. The USA was the dominant country regarding articles, researchers, and institutions. The citations of the articles peaked in the 9th year after publication.

Robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy with the da Vinci Xi: can the costs of advanced technology be offset by clinical advantages? A case-matched cost analysis versus open approach

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) has shown some advantages over open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) but few studies have reported a cost analysis between the two techniques. We conducted a structured cost-analysis comparing pancreatoduodenectomy performed with the use of the da Vinci Xi, and the traditional open approach, and considering healthcare direct costs associated with the intervention and the short-term post-operative course.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty RPD and 194 OPD performed between January 2011 and December 2020 by the same operator at our high-volume multidisciplinary center for robot-assisted surgery and for pancreatic surgery, were retrospectively analyzed. Two comparable groups of 20 patients (Xi-RPD-group) and 40 patients (OPD-group) were obtained matching 1:2 the RPD-group with the OPD-group. Perioperative data and overall costs, including overall variable costs (OVCs) and fixed costs, were compared.

RESULTS

No difference was reported in mean operative time: 428 min for Xi-RPD-group versus 404 min for OPD, p = 0.212. The median overall length of hospital stay was significantly lower in the Xi-RPD-group: 10 days versus 16 days, p = 0.001. In the Xi-RPD-group, consumable costs were significantly higher (€6149.2 versus €1267.4, p < 0.001), while hospital stay costs were significantly lower: €5231.6 versus €8180 (p = 0.001). No significant differences were found in terms of OVCs: €13,483.4 in Xi-RPD-group versus €11,879.8 in OPD-group (p = 0.076).

CONCLUSIONS

Robot-assisted surgery is more expensive because of higher acquisition and maintenance costs. However, although RPD is associated to higher material costs, the advantages of the robotic system associated to lower hospital stay costs and the absence of difference in terms of personnel costs thanks to the similar operative time with respect to OPD, make the OVCs of the two techniques no longer different. Hence, the higher costs of advanced technology can be partially compensated by clinical advantages, particularly within a high-volume multidisciplinary center for both robot-assisted and pancreatic surgery. These preliminary data need confirmation by further studies.

Robotic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy, comparing therapeutic indexes; a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is a challenging procedure with peri-operative complications. Robotic surgery offers improved dexterity, visibility, and accessibility. Recently, many centres have reported improved clinical outcomes for robotic PD. We reviewed the safety and efficacy of robotic PD in comparison to open PD using 'Therapeutic Index' (TI).

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was conducted in various databases. Articles published between January 2010 and March 2021 reporting totally-robotic and open PD were included, according to the PRISMA and AMSTAR-2 guidelines. The Cochrane tool was used for risk of bias assessment. We compared 30-day mortality rates (MR₃₀), lymphadenectomy rates (LR), R0 resection rates (R₀RR) and therapeutic index (TI). STATA 16.1 was used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

The four studies that met inclusion criteria included 5090 PDs, out of which 617 were totally-robotic (RPD) and 4473 were open (OPD). Variance ratio tests demonstrated a)Higher TI for RPD versus OPD (1807.42 vs 1723.37, p = 0.86), b)Significantly smaller MR₃₀ (2.50 vs 19.00, p = 0.0004), c)Significantly lower R₀RR (130.50 vs 939.25, p = 0.00) and d)No significant difference in LR between RPD and OPD (35.63 vs 38.25, p = 0.81). Meta-regression analysis showed a significantly higher TI coefficient of RPD than OPD (0.66 vs -0.40, p = 0.08, α = 0.1).

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests that robotic PD is safe and not inferior to open PD and our analysis RPD demonstrated a higher therapeutic index than OPD. Randomised controlled trials are required to establish the efficacy of robotic PD. Also, standardisation of reporting mortality, survival and oncological outcomes is needed for the effective calculation of TI.

Robotische Pankreaschirurgie – Lernkurve und Etablierung

Minimalinvasive Resektionstechniken zur Behandlung verschiedener Pathologien des Pankreas sind potenziell vorteilhaft für die behandelten Patienten in Bezug auf Rekonvaleszenzzeit und postoperative Morbidität, stellen jedoch eine besondere technische Herausforderung für den behandelnden Chirurgen dar. Der Einzug der robotischen Technik in die Viszeralchirurgie bietet eine prinzipielle Möglichkeit zur weitreichenden Verbreitung minimalinvasiver Verfahren in der Pankreaschirurgie.

Ziel dieser Arbeit war es, die Entwicklungsmöglichkeiten der robotischen Pankreaschirurgie in Deutschland zu überprüfen. Datengrundlage sind die Qualitätsberichte der Krankenhäuser der Jahre 2015–2019 kombiniert mit einer selektiven Literaturrecherche.

Die Anzahl der vorliegenden Qualitätsberichte reduzierte sich von 2015 bis 2019 von 1635 auf 1594. Im Median führten 96 Kliniken 11–20, 56 Kliniken 21–50 und 15 Kliniken mehr als 50 Pankreaskopfresektionen jährlich durch. Bei den Linksresektionen waren es 35 Kliniken mit 11–20, 14 Kliniken mit 21–50 und 2 Kliniken mit mehr als 50 Eingriffen. Unter Berücksichtigung aller Kliniken, die 5 oder mehr Linksresektionen pro Jahr durchführen, wurden an nur 29 Kliniken minimalinvasive Verfahren eingesetzt. Der Anteil an laparoskopischen Linksresektionen über 50% wurde an nur 7 Kliniken beschrieben.

Nach Datenlage in der Literatur divergieren die Lernkurven für die robotische Pankreaslinks- und Pankreaskopfresektion. Während die Lernkurve für die robotische Pankreaslinksresektion nach etwa 20 Eingriffen durchlaufen ist, hat die Lernkurve für die robotische Pankreaskopfresektion mehrere Plateaus, die etwa nach 30, 100 und 250 Eingriffen erreicht werden.

Aufgrund der dezentralen Struktur der Pankreaschirurgie in Deutschland scheint ein flächendeckendes Angebot robotischer Verfahren aktuell in weiter Ferne. Insbesondere die Etablierung der robotischen Pankreaskopfresektion wird zunächst Zentren mit entsprechend hoher Fallzahl vorbehalten bleiben.

A Novel Multi-Port Containment System for Laparoscopic Power Morcellation to Prevent Tumoral Spread: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Objective

To report a novel multi-port containment (NMC) system for laparoscopic power morcellation to prevent tumoral spread and to evaluate its safety, validity, and feasibility.

Methods

This retrospective study included women who underwent laparoscopic myomectomy (LM) between January 2014 and August 2020 at a single academic institution. The NMC system was used in the study group (n = 193); the control group underwent unprotected LM (n = 1753).

Results

After 1:1 propensity score matching, no significant differences in the baseline characteristics were observed between 193 matched pairs. Bag damages were detected in two cases in the study group before morcellation, and the NMC systems were replaced. There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of the complications, total operative time, estimated blood loss, or postoperative hospitalization duration. In the study group, all operations were completed and no system rupture or leakage was observed. The median follow-up times were 21 and 54 months in the study and control groups, respectively. There was no peritoneal tissue spread in the study group. However, three (3/5, 0.6%) and six (6/1,753, 0.3%) patients in the control group experienced malignant and benign peritoneal tissue spread, respectively.

Conclusion

The NMC system for laparoscopic power morcellation is valid, safe, and feasible for preventing a tumor spread.

Robotic versus Open Pancreatoduodenectomy for Pancreatic and Periampullary Tumors (PORTAL): a study protocol for a multicenter phase III non-inferiority randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Pancreatoduodenectomy is a complex and challenging procedure that requires meticulous tissue dissection and proficient suturing skills. Minimally invasive surgery with the utilization of robotic platforms has demonstrated advantages in perioperative patient outcomes in retrospective studies. The development of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) in specific has progressed significantly, since first reported in 2003, and high-volume centers in pancreatic surgery are reporting large patient series with improved pain management and reduced length of stay. However, prospective studies to assess objectively the feasibility and safety of RPD compared to open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) are currently lacking.

METHODS/DESIGN

The PORTAL trial is a multicenter randomized controlled, patient-blinded, parallel-group, phase III non-inferiority trial performed in seven high-volume centers for pancreatic and robotic surgery in China (> 20 RPD and > 100 OPD annually in each participating center). The trial is designed to enroll and randomly assign 244 patients with an indication for elective pancreatoduodenectomy for malignant periampullary and pancreatic lesions, as well as premalignant and symptomatic benign periampullary and pancreatic disease. The primary outcome is time to functional recovery postoperatively, measured in days. Secondary outcomes include postoperative morbidity and mortality, as well as perioperative costs. A sub-cohort of 128 patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) will also be compared to assess the percentage of patients who undergo postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy within 8 weeks, in each arm. Secondary outcomes in this cohort will include patterns of disease recurrence, recurrence-free survival, and overall survival.

DISCUSSION

The PORTAL trial is designed to assess the feasibility and safety of RPD compared to OPD, in terms of functional recovery as described previously. Additionally, this trial will explore whether RPD allows increased access to postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy, in a sub-cohort of patients with PDAC.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04400357 . Registered on May 22, 2020.

Multicenter comparison of totally laparoscopic and totally robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy: Propensity score and learning curve-matching analyses

BACKGROUND

Few studies have compared laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) despite emerging use of minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD). The present study therefore compares perioperative outcomes of LPD and RPD patients, and evaluates safety and feasibility of MIPD.

METHODS

This retrospective multicenter analysis evaluated MIPD patients through June 2020 performed by three experienced pancreatic surgeons at three different institutions. Perioperative outcomes were compared before and after propensity score-matching analyses, and learning curves based on operation time were used for additional matching analysis.

RESULTS

Of 362 patients, 282 underwent LPD and 80 underwent RPD. Open conversion rate was significantly higher in LPD (P = .001). There were no significant differences in rates of major complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥III) and clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF). After matching, operation time (P = .001) and hospital stay (P = .027) were significantly shorter in RPD, but there were no differences in major complications and CR-POPF. Propensity score-matched comparison after learning curve attainment showed shorter operation time (P = .037) and hospital stay (P = .014) in RPD, and no differences in major complications and CR-POPF.

CONCLUSION

RPD had several advantages compared with LPD, including shorter operative time and hospital stay, and lower open conversion rate. Postoperative complications including CR-POPF showed comparable results in two groups. Both LPD and RPD seemed to be feasible and safe approaches in experienced hands.