Robotic single-port plus one-port splenic vessel-conserving spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy: a case report

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy is a safe and effective surgical approach for the treatment of distal pancreatic tumors. Recently, the da Vinci single-port (SP) system (Intuitive Surgical, Inc.) was introduced to overcome the previously known limitations of this approach. Here, we report our experience with robotic SP plus one-port splenic vessel-conserving spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (RSP + 1 SVc-SpDP). A 38-year-old male patient was incidentally found to have a pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor. On May 12, 2023, RSP + 1 SVc-SpDP was performed. The robotic SP was placed at the transumbilical site, and an additional 12-mm port was placed on the left side of the patient's abdomen. The surgical procedure was based on splenic vessel-conserving, spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy. The operative time was 350 minutes, and the patient was discharged on postoperative day 8 without any complications. The initial experience of RSP + 1 SVc-SpDP using the da Vinci SP system showed the possibility of an alternative operation for distal pancreatectomy.

Spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy from multi-port to reduced-port surgery approach

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive pancreatic surgery via the multi-port approach has become a primary surgical method for distal pancreatectomy (DP) due to its advantages of lower wound pain and superior cosmetic results. Some studies have applied reduced-port techniques for DP in an attempt to enhance cosmetic outcomes due to the minimally invasive effects. Numerous recent review studies have compared multi-port laparoscopic DP (LDP) and multi-port robotic DP (RDP); most of these studies concluded multi-port RDP is more beneficial than multi-port LDP for spleen preservation. However, there have been no comprehensive reviews of the value of reduced-port LDP and reduced-port RDP.

AIM

To search for and review the studies on spleen preservation and the clinical outcomes of minimally invasive DP that compared reduced-port DP surgery with multi-port DP surgery.

METHODS

The PubMed medical database was searched for articles published between 2013 and 2022. The search terms were implemented using the following Boolean search algorithm: ("distal pancreatectomy" OR "left pancreatectomy" OR "peripheral pancreatic resection") AND ("reduced-port" OR "single-site" OR "single-port" OR "dual-incision" OR "single-incision") AND ("spleen-preserving" OR "spleen preservation" OR "splenic preservation"). A literature review was conducted to identify studies that compared the perioperative outcomes of reduced-port LDP and reduced-port RDP.

RESULTS

Fifteen articles published in the period from 2013 to 2022 were retrieved using three groups of search terms. Two studies were added after manually searching the related papers. Finally, 10 papers were selected after removing case reports (n = 3), non-English language papers (n = 1), technique papers (n = 1), reviews (n = 1), and animal studies (n = 1). The common items were defined as items reported in more than five papers, and data on these common items were extracted from all papers. The ten studies included a total of 337 patients (females/males: 231/106) who underwent DP. In total, 166 patients (females/males, 106/60) received multi-port LDP, 126 (females/males, 90/36) received reduced-port LDP, and 45 (females/males, 35/10) received reduced-port RDP.

CONCLUSION

Reduced-port RDP leads to a lower intraoperative blood loss, a lower postoperative pancreatic fistula rate, and shorter hospital stay and follow-up duration, but has a lower spleen preservation rate.

Single-port laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

Performing a single-port laparoscopic pancreatectomy is technically challenging. Single-port laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (SPLPD) is rarely reported in English literature.

METHODS

Eighty-seven cases of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) were performed by a single surgical team in the Department of Pancreatic Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University between February 2020 and December 2020. Among these, 13 cases of LPD (group 1) were performed using a single-port device. Basing on the same inclusion and exclusion criteria, 68 cases of LPD performed using traditional 5-trocar were included as a control group (group 2). The patient's demographic characteristics, intraoperative, and postoperative variables were prospectively collected and retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

Five men and eight women were included in the SPLPD group. The median age of these patients was 57 years. The patients who underwent SPLPD required a longer operative time (332.7 ± 38.1 min vs. 305.8 ± 64.7 min; p = 0.03) than those in the LPD group. The estimated blood loss, conversion rate, blood transfusion rate, time to oral intake, postoperative hospital stays, and perioperative complications were comparable between the two groups. The short-term oncological outcomes, such as R0 rate and lymph node harvested, were comparable between the two groups. The 90-day mortality of all patients was zero.

CONCLUSIONS

SPLPD is a safe and feasible procedure for well-selected patients in an experienced minimally invasive pancreatic surgery team. SPLPD may provide several potential advantages, such as the requirement of fewer trocars, fewer abdominal complications, and reduced participation of assistants than conventional LPD.

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery to treat hepatopancreatobiliary cancer: A technical review

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS), or laparoendoscopic single-site surgery, was launched to minimize incisional traumatic effects in the 1990s. Minor SILS, such as cholecystectomies, have been gaining in popularity over the past few decades. Its application in complicated hepatopancreatobiliary (HPB) surgeries, however, has made slow progress due to instrumental and technical limitations, costs, and safety concerns. While minimally invasive abdominal surgery is pushing the boundaries, advanced laparoscopic HPB surgeries have been shown to be comparable to open operations in terms of patient and oncologic safety, including hepatectomies, distal pancreatectomies (DP), and pancreaticoduodenectomies (PD). In contrast, advanced SILS for HPB malignancy has only been reported in a few small case series. Most of the procedures involved minor liver resections and DP; major hepatectomies were rarely described. Single-incision laparoscopic PD has not yet been reported. We herein review the published SILS for HPB cancer in the literature and our three-year experience focusing on the technical aspects.

Safety and Feasibility of Single-incision Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND

Comparative studies regarding single-incision laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (SILS-DP) are limited. This study aimed to compare the short-term outcomes of SILS-DP with conventional laparoscopic DP (C-LDP) under strict indication criteria.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the patient characteristics and surgical outcomes of those who underwent either SILS-DP or C-LDP at National Taiwan University (NTU) and C-LDP at Nara Medical University (NMU) between 2009 and 2019. SILS-DP was indicated for benign or low-grade malignant pancreatic tail tumors and was performed along with splenectomy.

RESULTS

We compared 12 cases of SILS-DP with 31 of C-LDP from NTU and 17 of C-LDP from NMU. Patients in the SILS-DP group had significantly less blood loss than the C-LDP group at NTU (P=0.028). Postoperative outcomes, including the postoperative hospital stay and clinically relevant pancreatic fistula, were not significantly different between the 2 groups. Although SILS-DP was performed by a surgeon who was well-experienced with laparoscopic surgeries, the first few cases had a larger amount of blood loss, longer operation time, and a higher rate of complications. Such unfavorable outcomes were likely to be resolved shortly. No reoperations and deaths were noted.

CONCLUSION

SILS-DP is feasible when performed by an experienced surgeon and in carefully selected patients.

Long-Term Outcomes of Single-Incision Distal Gastrectomy Compared with Conventional Laparoscopic Distal Gastrectomy: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery is gaining more attention due to advancements in surgical devices and techniques. Ten years have passed since the first report of single-incision distal gastrectomy. This study aims to analyze the long-term oncological safety of single-incision distal gastrectomy by comparing it with multiport distal gastrectomy.

STUDY DESIGN

Patients diagnosed with gastric cancer who underwent laparoscopic distal gastrectomy from January 2010 to December 2017 were enrolled. Palliative surgery, history of other malignancy, preoperative chemotherapy, and distant metastasis were excluded. The 5-year overall survival and 5-year disease-free survival were set as coprimary endpoints. Operative time, blood loss, postoperative outcome, and risk factors for survival were secondary endpoints. Propensity score matching of 1:1 ratio was performed to adjust for age, sex, body mass index, comorbidities, tumor size, operation history, and clinical stage.

RESULTS

A total of 3,097 patients were enrolled. After propensity score matching, 378 patients were allocated to each group. There was no difference in patient demographics after matching. Operation time was faster (170.8 ± 65.3 minutes vs 147.2 ± 44.1 minutes, p < 0.001), with less blood loss in the single-port group (84.1 ± 87.6 mL vs 34.9 ± 49.9 mL, p < 0.001). Administration of additional intravenous analgesics was less frequent in the single-port group (p = 0.043). There was no difference in long-term survival (5-year overall survival: multiport 94.2%, single-port 95.8%, p = 0.43; 5-year disease-free survival: multiport 94.1%, single-port 95.8%, p = 0.32).

CONCLUSIONS

Single-incision distal gastrectomy is safe and feasible with good long-term outcomes and less use of additional analgesics for patients diagnosed with early gastric cancer.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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