The current status and future directions of robotic pancreatectomy

Clinical significance of postoperative complications after pancreatic surgery in time-to-complication and length of postoperative hospital stay: a retrospective study

PURPOSE

We retrospectively analyzed pancreatectomy patients and examined the occurrence rate and timing of postoperative complications (time-to-complication; TTC) and their impact on the length of postoperative hospital stay (POHS) to clarify their characteristics, provide appropriate postoperative management, and improve short-term outcomes in the future.

METHODS

A total of 227 patients, composed of 118 pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) and 109 distal pancreatectomy (DP) cases, were analyzed. We examined the frequency of occurrence, TTC, and POHS of each type of postoperative complication, and these were analyzed for each surgical procedure. Complications of the Clavien-Dindo (CD) classification Grade II or higher were considered clinically significant.

RESULTS

Clinically significant complications were observed in 70.3% and 36.7% of the patients with PD and DP, respectively. Complications occurred at a median of 10 days in patients with PD and 6 days in patients with DP. Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) occurred approximately 7 days postoperatively in both groups. For the POHS, in cases without significant postoperative complications (CD ≤ I), it was approximately 22 days for PD and 11 days for DP. In contrast, when any complications occurred, POHS increased to 30 days for PD and 19 days for DP (each with additional 8 days), respectively. In particular, POPF prolonged the hospital stay by approximately 11 days for both procedures.

CONCLUSION

Each postoperative complication after pancreatectomy has its own characteristics in terms of the frequency of occurrence, TTC, and impact on POHS. A correct understanding of these factors will enable timely therapeutic intervention and improve short-term outcomes after pancreatectomy.

Introduction of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy following phase 2a IDEAL guidelines

BACKGROUND

Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) is a newly introduced procedure, which is still evolving and lacks standardization. An objective assessment is essential to investigate the feasibility of RPD. The current study aimed to assess our initial ten cases of RPD based on IDEAL (Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, and Long-term study) guidelines.

METHODS

This was a prospective phase 2a study following the IDEAL framework. Ten consecutive cases of RPD performed by two surgeons with expertise in open procedures at a single center were assigned to the study. With objective evaluation, each case was classified into four grades according to the achievements of the procedures. Errors observed in the previous case were used to inform the procedure in the next case. The surgical outcomes of the ten cases were reviewed.

RESULTS

The median total operation time was 634 min (interquartile range [IQR], 594-668) with a median resection time of 363 min (IQR, 323-428) and reconstruction time of 123 min (IQR, 107-131). The achievement of the whole procedure was graded as A, "successful", in two patients. In two patients, reconstruction was performed with a mini-laparotomy due to extensive pneumoperitoneum, probably caused by insertion of a liver retractor from the xyphoid. Major postoperative complications occurred in two patients. One patient, in whom the jejunal limb was elevated through the Treitz ligament, had a bowel obstruction and needed to undergo re-laparotomy.

CONCLUSIONS

RPD is feasible when performed by surgeons experienced in open procedures. Specific considerations are needed to safely introduce RPD.

Role of minimally invasive surgery in the management of localized pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a review

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains a highly lethal malignancy with a minority of patients eligible for curative-intent surgical intervention. Pancreatic resections are technically demanding operations associated with considerable morbidity and mortality. Minimally invasive pancreatic resections (MIPRs), which include laparoscopic and robotic approaches, may enhance postoperative outcomes by lessening physiological impact of open surgery. A limited number of randomized-controlled trials as well as numerous retrospective reports have focused on MIPR outcomes and role in management of a variety of tumors, including PDAC. Today, MIPRs are generally considered acceptable alternatives to open surgery as a trend towards improved short-term metrics is observed. However, several questions remain regarding the oncological adequacy of MIPR's as long-term experience is less extensive compared to open techniques. This review aims to summarize existing evidence on MIPRs with a focus on PDAC.

Early experience with robotic pancreatoduodenectomy versus open pancreatoduodenectomy: nationwide propensity-score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Although robotic pancreatoduodenectomy has shown promising outcomes in experienced high-volume centres, it is unclear whether implementation on a nationwide scale is safe and beneficial. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of the early experience with robotic pancreatoduodenectomy versus open pancreatoduodenectomy in the Netherlands.

METHODS

This was a nationwide retrospective cohort study of all consecutive patients who underwent robotic pancreatoduodenectomy or open pancreatoduodenectomy who were registered in the mandatory Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit (18 centres, 2014-2021), starting from the first robotic pancreatoduodenectomy procedure per centre. The main endpoints were major complications (Clavien-Dindo grade greater than or equal to III) and in-hospital/30-day mortality. Propensity-score matching (1 : 1) was used to minimize selection bias.

RESULTS

Overall, 701 patients who underwent robotic pancreatoduodenectomy and 4447 patients who underwent open pancreatoduodenectomy were included. Among the eight centres that performed robotic pancreatoduodenectomy, the median robotic pancreatoduodenectomy experience was 86 (range 48-149), with a 7.3% conversion rate. After matching (698 robotic pancreatoduodenectomy patients versus 698 open pancreatoduodenectomy control patients), no significant differences were found in major complications (40.3% versus 36.2% respectively; P = 0.186), in-hospital/30-day mortality (4.0% versus 3.1% respectively; P = 0.326), and postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C (24.9% versus 23.5% respectively; P = 0.578). Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with a longer operating time (359 min versus 301 min; P < 0.001), less intraoperative blood loss (200 ml versus 500 ml; P < 0.001), fewer wound infections (7.4% versus 12.2%; P = 0.008), and a shorter hospital stay (11 days versus 12 days; P < 0.001). Centres performing greater than or equal to 20 robotic pancreatoduodenectomies annually had a lower mortality rate (2.9% versus 7.3%; P = 0.009) and a lower conversion rate (6.3% versus 11.2%; P = 0.032).

CONCLUSION

This study indicates that robotic pancreatoduodenectomy was safely implemented nationwide, without significant differences in major morbidity and mortality compared with matched open pancreatoduodenectomy patients. Randomized trials should be carried out to verify these findings and confirm the observed benefits of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy versus open pancreatoduodenectomy.

Surgical Outcomes of Robotic Distal Pancreatectomy Versus Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy at a Hospital in a Sparsely Populated Area

Background

Robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) has a better or comparable surgical outcome when compared with laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP). However, whether the surgical outcome for these procedures in local, low-volume hospitals are comparable with those of the typically larger centers described in published reports remains unclear.

Methods

This study enrolled 48 patients who underwent either RDP or LDP between August 2012 and April 2023. Data were retrospectively analyzed to evaluate the short-term surgical outcomes of RDP versus LDP in our hospital, which is a low-volume center.

Results

The use of stapling with reinforcement in RDP was significantly higher than in LDP, and the postoperative hospital stay for RDP was significantly shorter than for LDP. Except for these two variables, there were no statistically significant differences between RDP and LDP in preoperative, intraoperative, or postoperative patient characteristics.

Conclusion

RDP can be performed as safely and effectively as LDP in a low-volume hospital located in a sparsely populated area.

Robotic instruments outside the surgical field can cause problems: A case of critical bleeding during robotic distal pancreatectomy

Robotic surgery has technical advantages including high optical magnification and articulation of forceps. However, the surgical field tends to be narrow due to the high magnification, and the forceps have no tactile sensation. A case of severe intraoperative bleeding from the splenic artery during robotic distal pancreatectomy is presented, with a video. A man in his 80s with a cystic tumor located at the pancreatic tail underwent robotic distal pancreatectomy. During mobilization of the pancreatic tail by an inferior approach, the root of the splenic artery was injured by the joints of the robotic instruments located outside the surgical field and the bleeding became uncontrollable under the robotic operation. It is important to always be aware of what the forceps are in contact with outside the surgical field. While dissecting the left subdiaphragmatic area in robotic distal pancreatectomy, the root area of splenic artery tends to be outside the surgical field. More attention should be paid to the positional relationship between the forceps trajectory and the major blood vessels by checking the surgical field from a distant view on a regular basis.

Frailty and surgical outcomes in gastrointestinal cancer: Integration of geriatric assessment and prehabilitation into surgical practice for vulnerable patients

As life expectancy increases, the older population continues to grow rapidly, resulting in increased requirement for surgery for older patients with gastrointestinal cancer. Older individuals represent a heterogeneous group in terms of physiological reserves, co-morbidity, cognitive impairment, and disability. Owing to the lack of treatment guidelines for vulnerable patients with gastrointestinal cancer, these patients are more likely to be at risk of undertreatment or overtreatment. Hence, the identification of frail patients with gastrointestinal cancer would improve cancer treatment outcomes. Although there is no standardized geriatric assessment tool, a growing body of research has shown associations of frailty with adverse postoperative outcomes and poor prognosis after resection of gastrointestinal tract and hepatobiliary-pancreatic cancers. Emerging evidence suggests that prehabilitation, which includes exercise and nutritional support, can improve preoperative functional capacity, postoperative recovery, and surgical outcomes, particularly in frail patients with gastrointestinal cancer. We reviewed major geriatric assessment tools for identification of frail patients and summarized clinical studies on frailty and surgical outcomes, as well as prehabilitation or rehabilitation in gastrointestinal tract and hepatobiliary-pancreatic cancers. The integration of preoperative geriatric assessment and prehabilitation of frail patients in clinical practice may improve surgical outcomes. In addition, improving preoperative vulnerability and preventing functional decline after surgery is important in providing favorable long-term survival in patients with gastrointestinal cancer. Further clinical trials are needed to examine the effects of minimally invasive surgery, and chemotherapy in frail patients with gastrointestinal cancer.