Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic head cancer and periampullary lesions

Case Report: Robotic pylorus-preserving pancreatoduodenectomy for periampullary rhabdomyosarcoma in a 3-year-old patient

Periampullary neoplasm is rare in pediatric patients and has constituted a strict indication for pancreatoduodenectomy (PD), which is a procedure sporadically reported in the literature among children. Robotic PD has been routinely performed for periampullary neoplasm in periampullary neoplasm, but only a few cases in pediatric patients have been reported. Here, we report the case of a 3-year-old patient with periampullary rhabdomyosarcoma treated with robotic pylorus-preserving PD and share our experience with this procedure in pediatric patients. A 3-year-old patient presented with obstructive jaundice and a mass in the pancreatic head revealed by imaging. A laparoscopic biopsy was performed. Jaundice progressed with abdominal pain and elevated alpha-amylase leading to urgent robotic exploration in which a periampullary neoplasm was revealed and pathologically diagnosed as rhabdomyosarcoma by frozen section examination. After pylorus-preserving PD, we performed a conventional jejunal loop following a child reconstruction, including an end-to-end pancreaticojejunostomy, followed by end-to-side hepaticojejunostomy and duodenojejunostomy. Delayed gastric emptying (DGE) presented with increasing drain from the nasogastric tube (NGT) a week after the surgery and improved spontaneously within 10 days. In a 13-month follow-up until the present, our case patient recovered well without potentially fatal complications, such as pancreatic fistula. Robotic PD in pediatric patients was safe and effective without intra- or postoperative complications.

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.

Comparison of robotic and open central pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND

Central pancreatectomy (CP) is an ideal parenchyma-sparing procedure. The experience of r robotic central pancreatectomy (RCP) is very limited.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients undergoing CP were included. Comparisons were made between RCP and open central pancreatectomy (OCP) groups.

RESULTS

The most common lesion in patients undergoing CP was serous cystadenoma (35.5%). The median operation time was 4.2 h for RCP versus 5.5 h for OCP. The median blood loss was significantly lower in RCP, 20 c.c. versus 170 c.c., p = 0.001. Postoperative pancreatic fistula occurred in 19.4% of all patients, with 22.1% in RCP and 15.4% in OCP. There was no significant difference regarding other surgical complications between the RCP and OCP groups. Only one patient in the OCP group developed de novo diabetes mellitus (DM), and no steatorrhoea/diarrhoea occurred after either RCP or OCP.

CONCLUSIONS

RCP is feasible and safe without compromising surgical outcomes and pancreatic functions.

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.

Machine learning models for predicting survival in patients with ampullary adenocarcinoma

Objective

The aim of this study was to predict the long-term survival probability of patients with ampullary adenocarcinoma (AAC), which would provide a theoretical basis for the long-term care of these patients.

Methods

Data on patients with AAC during 2004–2015 were obtained from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database, which were split at a 7:3 ratio into two independent cohorts: training and testing cohorts. Differences in survival between the two groups were tested using the Kaplan–Meier estimator and log-rank test methods. We constructed six survival analysis methods: the American Joint Committee on Cancer TNM stage, Cox Proportional Hazards regression, CoxTime, DeepSurv, XGBoost Survival Embeddings, and Random Survival Forest. The performances of these models were evaluated using the C-index, receiver operating characteristic (ROC), and calibration curves.

Results

This study included 2,935 patients with AAC. Univariate Cox regression analyses of the training cohort indicated that race, marital status at diagnosis, scope of regional lymph node surgery, tumor grade, summary stage, American Joint Committee on Cancer stage, TNM stage T, and TNM stage N were important factors affecting survival (P ​< ​0.05). The results of the C-index indicated that DeepSurv performed the best among the six models, with the highest C-index of 0.731. The areas under the ROC curves of the DeepSurv model at the 1-year, 3-year, 5-year, and 10-year time points were 0.823, 0.786, 0.803, and 0.813, respectively. The calibration curve indicated that DeepSurv performed well, with good calibration.

Conclusions

Machine learning models such as DeepSurv have a stronger performance in the survival analysis of patients with AAC.

Current status of robotic surgery for hepato-pancreato-biliary malignancies

INTRODUCTION

Robotic surgery is an emerging aspect of gastrointestinal surgery. Hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery is currently being explored for a broad spectrum of indications, entities, and postoperative outcomes. Noninferiority and financial aspects are the focus of studies. In this review, the impact on oncological therapies is assessed.

AREAS COVERED

An extensive literature review was conducted, and relevant studies and articles and reviews for robotic surgery in the field of hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery were examined. Special attention was given to the oncological aspects of robotic surgery and its possible impact on the therapy of malignant neoplasms.

EXPERT OPINION

Robotic-assisted surgery for oncological indications is promising, in part, an established technique that has already shown its advantages in the last decade, although high-quality studies are missing. Upcoming experience must consider the oncological benefit and putative new indications in a rapidly changing field of anti-neoplastic regimens. Also, robotic surgery may possess the ability to accelerate digitalization and AI-based augmentation in this context.