Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy: comparison of complications and cost to the open approach

Open versus Robotic-Assisted Pancreaticoduodenectomy, Cost-effectiveness, and Long-term Oncologic Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Whipple pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is a complex gastrointestinal surgery that is performed increasingly via minimally invasive approach through robotic platforms. We sought to provide a comparative review of available data regarding robot-assisted versus open PD in terms of cost-effectiveness, overall survival, and other perioperative and long-term oncologic outcomes.

METHODS

Utilizing PRISMA criteria, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched from 1980 to April 2024 using designated keywords. English-language studies comparing costs and oncologic outcomes of robotic versus open PDs were considered for inclusion. Reviews, abstracts, case reports, letters to the editor, and non-English articles were excluded.

RESULTS

A total of 1,733 studies were initially identified throughout the literature search. Following the removal of duplicates and title and abstract screening, 16 studies were included in the review. No statistically significant differences were detected in terms of short-term complications (95% CI; [0.805, 1.096], p=0.42), mortality (95% CI; [0.599,1.123], p=0.21), and readmission (95% CI; [0.959,1.211], p=0.20) among patients undergoing open versus robotic PD. Robotic PDs was associated with a slightly better overall survival (95% CI; [1.020, 1.233]) and higher costs (95% CI; [0.134,1.139], p=0.013). Mean length of stay (LOS) was higher in the open PD group (95% CI; [-0.353, 0.189], p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Robotic-assisted PD had a slightly shorter LOS and improved overall survival. There were no differences in short-term complications, mortality, or readmission. The use of cohort studies and residual potential selection bias necessitate randomized controlled trials to define the benefit of robotic PD.

Market Factors, Not Quality, Influence Reimbursement for Pancreaticoduodenectomy in an Era of Price Transparency

BACKGROUND

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) price transparency rule tries to facilitate cost-conscious decision-making. For surgical services, such as pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD), factors mediating transparency and real-world reimbursement are not well described.

METHODS

The Leapfrog Survey was used to identify United States hospitals performing PD. Financial and operational data were obtained from Turquoise Health and CMS Cost Reports. Chi-square tests and modified Poisson regression evaluated associations with reimbursement disclosure. Two-part logistic and gamma regression models estimated effects of hospital factors on commercial, Medicare, and self-pay reimbursements for PD.

RESULTS

Of 452 Leapfrog hospitals, 295 (65%) disclosed PD hospital or procedure reimbursements. Disclosing hospitals were larger (beds > 200: 81.0% vs. 71.3%, p = 0.04), reported higher net margins (0.7% vs. - 2.1%, p = 0.04), more likely for-profit (26.1% vs. 6.4%, p < 0.001), and teaching-affiliated (82.0% vs. 65.6%, p < 0.001). Nonprofit status conferred hospitalization reimbursement increases of $8683-$12,329, while moderate market concentration predicted savings up to $5066. Teaching affiliation conferred reimbursement increases of $4589-$16,393 for hospitalizations and $644 for procedures. Top Leapfrog volume ratings predicted an increase of up to $7795 for only Medicare hospitalization reimbursement.

CONCLUSIONS

Nondisclosure of hospital and procedural reimbursements for PD remains a major issue. Transparency was noted in hospitals with higher margins, size, and academic affiliation. Factors associated with higher reimbursement were non-profit status, academic affiliation, and more equitable market share. Reimbursement inconsistently tracked with PD quality or volume measures. Policy changes may be required to incentivize reimbursement disclosure and translate transparency into increased value for patients.

Perioperative and oncologic outcomes of robot-assisted versus open surgery for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare perioperative and oncologic outcomes in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) treated with robotic-assisted surgery versus open laparotomy. The study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies up to June 15, 2024, were identified using PubMed, EMBASE, and Google Scholar. Additionally, reference lists of included studies, relevant review articles, and clinical guidelines were manually searched. The primary outcomes evaluated were length of stay, 90-day mortality, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), and Post-pancreatectomy haemorrhage (PPH). Secondary outcomes included estimated blood loss, reoperation rate, lymph node yield, and operative time. The final analysis included 10 retrospective cohort studies involving 23,272 patients (2,179 robotic-assisted and 21,093 open surgery). There were no significant differences between the two procedures in terms of postoperative pancreatic fistula, Post-pancreatectomy haemorrhage, lymph node yield, and operative time. However, patients undergoing robotic-assisted surgery had shorter lengths of stay, lower 90-day mortality, and less estimated blood loss compared to those undergoing open surgery. The reoperation rate was higher for the robotic-assisted group. Robotic-assisted surgery for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is safe and feasible. Compared to open surgery, it offers better perioperative and short-term oncologic outcomes, but with a higher risk of reoperation.

Innovations in surgery for gallbladder cancer: A review of robotic surgery as a feasible and safe option

BACKGROUND

This study evaluates the efficacy and safety of robotic-assisted surgical techniques in the treatment of gallbladder cancer, comparing it with traditional open and laparoscopic methods.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature searched for comparative analyses of patient outcomes following robotic, open, and laparoscopic surgeries, focusing on oncological results and perioperative benefits.

RESULTS

Five total studies published between 2019 and 2023 were identified. Findings indicate that robotic-assisted surgery for gallbladder cancer is as effective as traditional methods in terms of oncological outcomes, with potential advantages in precision and perioperative recovery.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic surgery offers a viable and potentially advantageous alternative for gallbladder cancer treatment, warranting further research to confirm its benefits and establish comprehensive surgical guidelines.

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.

Current progress in robotic hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery at a high-volume center

There has been steady growth in the adoption of robotic HPB procedures world-wide over the past 20 years, but most of this increase has occurred only recently. Not surprisingly, the vast majority of robotics has been in the United States, with very few, select centers of adoption in Italy, South Korea, and Brazil, to name a few. We began our robotic HPB program in 2008, well before almost all other centers in the world, with the most notable exception of Giullianotti and colleagues. Our program began gradually, with smaller cases carefully selected to optimize the strengths of the original robotic platform and included complex biliary and pancreatic resections. We performed the first reported series of choledochojejunostomy for benign biliary strictures and first series of completion cholecystectomies. We began performing robotic distal pancreatectomies and longitudinal pancreaticojejunostomies, reporting our early experience for each of these procedures. Over time we progressed to robotic pancreaticoduodenectomies. Initially, these were performed with planned conversions until we were able to optimize efficiency. Now we have performed over 200 robotic whipples, reaching a 100% robotic completion rate by 2020. Finally, we have added robotic major hepatectomies, including resections for hilar cholangiocarcinoma to our repertoire. Since the program began, we have performed over 1600 robotic HPB cases. Outcomes from our program have shown superior lymph node harvest, lower DGE rates, shorter hospitalizations, and fewer rehab admissions with similar overall complications to open and laparoscopic procedures, signifying that over time a robotic HPB program is not only feasible but advantageous as well.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive versus open pancreatic resections

BACKGROUND

The systematic review is aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and open distal pancreatectomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy.

METHOD

The MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, and clinical trial registries were systematically searched using the PRISMA framework. Studies of adults aged ≥ 18 year comparing laparoscopic and/or robotic versus open DP and/or PD that reported cost of operation or index admission, and cost-effectiveness outcomes were included. The risk of bias of non-randomised studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, while the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB2) tool was used for randomised studies. Standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for continuous variables.

RESULTS

Twenty-two studies (152,651 patients) were included in the systematic review and 15 studies in the meta-analysis (3 RCTs; 3 case-controlled; 9 retrospective studies). Of these, 1845 patients underwent MIS (1686 laparoscopic and 159 robotic) and 150,806 patients open surgery. The cost of surgical procedure (SMD 0.89; 95% CI 0.35 to 1.43; I2 = 91%; P = 0.001), equipment (SMD 3.73; 95% CI 1.55 to 5.91; I2 = 98%; P = 0.0008), and operating room occupation (SMD 1.17, 95% CI 0.11 to 2.24; I2 = 95%; P = 0.03) was higher with MIS. However, overall index hospitalisation costs trended lower with MIS (SMD - 0.13; 95% CI - 0.35 to 0.06; I2 = 80%; P = 0.17). There was significant heterogeneity among the studies.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive major pancreatic surgery entailed higher intraoperative but similar overall index hospitalisation costs.

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 approach mitigates the effect of major complications on survival after pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary cancer

BACKGROUND

Major complications (MCs) after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) are a known independent predictor of worse oncologic outcomes. There are limited data on the effect of major complications on long-term outcomes after robotic PD (RPD). The aim of this study is to compare the effect of MC on overall (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) after RPD and open PD (OPD).

METHODS

This is a single-center, retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database of all patients undergoing PD for periampullary cancer including ampullary adenocarcinoma, distal cholangiocarcinoma, and duodenal carcinoma. Univariate analysis was performed on all clinical, pathologic, and treatment factors. MCs were defined as Clavien-Dindo ≥ grade 3. Kaplan-Maier survival analysis was performed with log-rank test for group comparison. Multivariable Cox regression analysis was used to identify factors associated with overall survival (OS) in both the OPD and RPD groups.

RESULTS

A total of 190 patients with ampullary carcinoma (n = 98), cholangiocarcinoma (n = 55), and duodenal adenocarcinoma (n = 37) were examined over the study period with 61.1% (n = 116) undergoing RPD and 38.9% (n = 74) undergoing OPD. There was no significant difference in patient demographics between the RPD and OPD cohorts. Furthermore, R0 resection rates, tumor size, and lymph node involvement were similar between the RPD and OPD cohorts. OPD had higher rate of MC (40.5% vs 28.3% in RPD, p = 0.011) including clinically relevant pancreatic fistula (25.7% vs 8.6%, p = 0.001) and wound infection (34.5% vs 13.8%, p < 0.001). MCs were associated with a lower OS in the OPD cohort (HR = 2.18, 95%CI 1.0-4.55, p = 0.038). MCs were not associated with OS in the RPD cohort (HR = 1.55, 95%CI 0.87-2.76, p = 0.14).

CONCLUSION

MCs are associated with worse patient outcomes after OPD but not after RPD. Robotic approach mitigates and possibly abrogates the negative effects of MCs on patient outcomes after PD for malignancy and is associated with improved adjuvant chemotherapy completion rates.

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.

Minimally Invasive Pancreatoduodenectomy: Contemporary Practice, Evidence, and Knowledge Gaps

Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy has gained popularity throughout the last decade. For laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy, some high-level evidence exists, but with conflicting results. There are currently no published randomized controlled trials comparing robotic and open pancreatoduodenectomy. Comparative long-term data for patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is lacking to date. Based on the existing evidence, current observed benefits of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy over open pancreatoduodenectomy seem scarce, but retrospective data indicate the safety of these procedures in selected patients. As familiarity with the robotic platform increases, studies have shown an expansion in indications, also including patients with vascular involvement and even indicating favorable results in patients with obesity and high-risk morphometric features. Several ongoing randomized controlled trials aim to investigate potential differences in short- and long-term outcomes between minimally invasive and open pancreatoduodenectomy. Their results are much awaited.

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 pancreatic surgery: a propensity score-matched cost-effectiveness analysis

Background

Robotic pancreatic surgery (RPS) is associated with high intraoperative costs compared to open pancreatic surgery (OPS). However, it remains unclear whether several advantages of RPS such as reduced surgical trauma and a shorter postoperative recovery time could lead to a reduction in total costs outweighing the intraoperative costs. The study aimed to compare patients undergoing OPS and RPS with regards to cost-effectiveness in a propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis.

Methods

Patients undergoing OPS and RPS between 2017 and 2019 were included in this monocentric, retrospective analysis. The controlling department provided financial data (costs and revenues, net loss/profit). A propensity score-matched analysis was performed or OPS and RPS (matching criteria: age, American society of anesthesiologists (ASA) score, gender, body mass index (BMI), and type of pancreatic resection) with a caliper 0.2.

Results

In total, 272 eligible OPS cases were identified, of which 252 met all inclusion criteria and were thus included in the further analysis. The RPS group contained 92 patients. The matched cohorts contained 41 patients in each group. Length of hospital stay (LOS) was significantly shorter in the RPS group (12 vs. 19 days, p = 0.003). Major postoperative morbidity (Dindo/Clavien ≥ 3a) and 90-day mortality did not differ significantly between OPS and RPS (p > 0.05). Intraoperative costs were significantly higher in the RPS group than in the OPS group (7334€ vs. 5115€, p < 0.001). This was, however, balanced by other financial categories. The overall cost-effectiveness tended to be better when comparing RPS to OPS (net profit—RPS: 57€ vs. OPS: − 2894€, p = 0.328). Binary logistic regression analysis revealed major postoperative complications, longer hospital stay, and ASA scores < 3 were linked to the risk of net loss (i.e., costs > revenue).

Conclusions

Surgical outcomes of RPS were similar to those of OPS. Higher intraoperative costs of RPS are outweighed by advantages in other categories of cost-effectiveness such as decreased lengths of hospital stay.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy: An Up-To-Date System Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Although minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy has gained worldwide interest, there are limited comparative studies between two minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy techniques. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of robotic and laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD), especially the difference in the perioperative and short-term oncological outcomes.

Methods

PubMed, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Data, Web of Science, and EMBASE were searched based on a defined search strategy to identify eligible studies before July 2021. Data on operative times, blood loss, overall morbidity, major complications, vascular resection, blood transfusion, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), delayed gastric emptying (DGE), conversion rate, reoperation, length of hospital stay (LOS), and lymph node dissection were subjected to meta-analysis.

Results

Overall, the final analysis included 9 retrospective studies comprising 3,732 patients; 1,149 (30.79%) underwent robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD), and 2,583 (69.21%) underwent LPD. The present meta-analysis revealed nonsignificant differences in operative times, overall morbidity, major complications, blood transfusion, POPF, DGE, reoperation, and LOS. Alternatively, compared with LPD, RPD was associated with less blood loss (p = 0.002), less conversion rate (p < 0.00001), less vascular resection (p = 0.0006), and more retrieved lymph nodes (p = 0.01).

Conclusion

RPD is at least equivalent to LPD with respect to the incidence of complication, incidence and severity of DGE, and reoperation and length of hospital stay. Compared with LPD, RPD seems to be associated with less blood loss, lower conversion rate, less vascular resection, and more retrieved lymph nodes.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#recordDetails, identifier CRD2021274057

Reduced-port robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: a single-surgeon experience

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Multiple-port robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) has been increasingly used as an alternative to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) in pancreatic cancer. However, the comparative safety and efficacy of reduced-port RPD versus OPD are unknown.

METHODS

This was a prospective cohort study comprising adult patients who underwent reduced-port RPD (single-port or single-site plus one port) or OPD for malignant tumors of the pancreas and periampullary region from July 2015 to October 2020 at a single center. We collected data on the patient demographics, perioperative results, oncologic outcomes, and one-year survival.

RESULTS

Forty-five patients underwent reduced-port RPD, and 13 underwent OPD. There were no significant differences in the age, sex, body mass index, ASA score, tumor location, or occurrences of postoperative complications between the two groups. Compared with OPD, reduced-port RPD was associated with less blood loss (300 ml [95% confidence interval {CI} 155-700] vs. 650 ml [95% CI 300-850], p value = 0.11) but a longer operative time (325 min [95% CI 290-370] vs. 215 min [95% CI 180-270], p value < 0.001). Compared with patients who underwent OPD, patients who underwent reduced-port RPD had a higher 1-year survival rate (68% [95% CI 49-81] vs. 22% [95% CI 3-51], log-rank, p value = 0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

Reduced-port RPD can be safely performed in experienced surgeons and is associated with better perioperative and oncologic outcomes than OPD.

Performance with robotic surgery versus 3D- and 2D-laparoscopy during pancreatic and biliary anastomoses in a biotissue model: pooled analysis of two randomized trials

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery may improve surgical performance during minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy as compared to 3D- and 2D-laparoscopy but comparative studies are lacking. This study assessed the impact of robotic surgery versus 3D- and 2D-laparoscopy on surgical performance and operative time using a standardized biotissue model for pancreatico- and hepatico-jejunostomy using pooled data from two randomized controlled crossover trials (RCTs).

METHODS

Pooled analysis of data from two RCTs with 60 participants (36 surgeons, 24 residents) from 11 countries (December 2017-July 2019) was conducted. Each included participant completed two pancreatico- and two hepatico-jejunostomies in biotissue using 3D-robotic surgery, 3D-laparoscopy, or 2D-laparoscopy. Primary outcomes were the objective structured assessment of technical skills (OSATS: 12-60) rating, scored by observers blinded for 3D/2D and the operative time required to complete both anastomoses. Sensitivity analysis excluded participants with excess experience compared to others.

RESULTS

A total of 220 anastomoses were completed (robotic 80, 3D-laparoscopy 70, 2D-laparoscopy 70). Participants in the robotic group had less surgical experience [median 1 (0-2) versus 6 years (4-12), p < 0.001], as compared to the laparoscopic group. Robotic surgery resulted in higher OSATS ratings (50, 43, 39 points, p = .021 and p < .001) and shorter operative time (56.5, 65.0, 81.5 min, p = .055 and p < .001), as compared to 3D- and 2D-laparoscopy, respectively, which remained in the sensitivity analysis.

CONCLUSION

In a pooled analysis of two RCTs in a biotissue model, robotic surgery resulted in better surgical performance scores and shorter operative time for biotissue pancreatic and biliary anastomoses, as compared to 3D- and 2D-laparoscopy.

Robotic Resection of Gallbladder Cancer: A Single-Center Retrospective Comparative Study to Open Resection

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery is gaining support for resection of gallbladder cancer (GBC). This study aims to compare operative and early outcomes of robotic resection (RR) to open resection (OR) from a single institution performing a high volume of robotic HPB surgery.

METHODS

Twenty patients with GBC underwent RR from January 2013 to August 2019. Outcomes were compared to a historical control of 23 patients with OR. Radical cholecystectomy for suspected GBC and completion operations for incidental GBC after routine cholecystectomy were both included.

RESULTS

Robotic resection had lower blood loss compared to OR (150 vs 350 mL, P = .002) and shorter postoperative length of stay (2.5 vs 6 days, P < .001), while median operative time was similar (193 vs 208 min, P = .604). There were no statistical differences in 30-day major complications or readmissions. No 30-day mortalities occurred. There was no statistical difference in survival trend (P = .438) or median lymph node harvest (5 vs 3, P = .189) for RR compared to OR.

CONCLUSION

Robotic resection of GBC is safe and efficient, with lower length of hospital stay and blood loss compared to OR. Technical benefits of robotic-assisted surgery may prove advantageous though larger studies are still needed.

Robotic pancreas surgery: an overview of history and update on technique, outcomes, and financials

The use robotics in surgery is gaining momentum. This approach holds substantial promise in pancreas surgery. Robotic surgery for pancreatic lesions and malignancies has become well accepted and is expanding to more and more center annually. The number of centers using robotics in pancreatic surgery is rapidly increasing. The most studied robotic pancreas surgeries are pancreaticoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy. Most studies are in their early phases, but they report that robotic pancreas surgery is safe feasible. Robotic pancreas surgery offers several advantages over open and laparoscopic techniques. Data regarding costs of robotics versus conventional techniques is still lacking. Robotic pancreas surgery is still in its early stages. It holds promise to become the new surgical standard for pancreatic resections in the future, however, more research is still needed to establish its safety, cost effectiveness and efficacy in providing the best outcomes.

The current status and future directions of robotic pancreatectomy

Robotic surgery has emerged as an alternative to laparoscopic surgery and it has also been applied to pancreatectomy. With the increase in the number of robotic pancreatectomies, several studies comparing robotic pancreatectomy and conventional open or laparoscopic pancreatectomy have been published. However, the use of robotic pancreatectomy remains controversial. In this review, we aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of the current status of robotic pancreatectomy. Various aspects of robotic pancreatectomy and conventional open or laparoscopic pancreatectomy are compared, including the benefits, limitations, oncological efficacy, learning curves, and costs. Both robotic pancreatoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy have favorable or comparable outcomes to conventional procedures, and robotic pancreatectomy has the potential to be an alternative to open or laparoscopic procedures. However, there are still several disadvantages to robotic platforms, such as prolonged operative duration and the high cost of the procedure. These disadvantages will be improved by developing instruments, overcoming the learning curve, and increasing the number of robotic pancreatectomies. In addition, robotic pancreatectomy is still in the introductory period in most centers and should only be used in accordance with strict indications.

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy provides better histopathological outcomes as compared to its open counterpart: a meta-analysis

The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate whether robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) may provide better clinical and pathologic outcomes compared to its open counterpart. The Pubmed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were systematically searched. Overall postoperative morbidity and resection margin involvement rate were the primary endpoints. Secondary endpoints included operating time, estimated blood loss (EBL), incisional surgical site infection (SSI) rate, length of hospital stay (LOS), and number of lymph nodes harvested. Twenty-four studies totaling 12,579 patients (2,175 robotic PD and 10,404 open PD were included. Overall postoperative mortality did not significantly differ [OR (95%CI) = 0.86 (0.74, 1.01); p = 0.06]. Resection margin involvement rate was significantly lower in robotic PD [15.6% vs. 19.9%; OR (95%CI) = 0.64 (0.41, 1.00); p = 0.05; NNT = 23]. Operating time was significantly longer in robotic PD [MD (95%CI) = 75.17 (48.05, 102.28); p < 0.00001]. EBL was significantly decreased in robotic PD [MD (95%CI) = - 191.35 (- 238.12, - 144.59); p < 0.00001]. Number of lymph nodes harvested was significantly higher in robotic PD [MD (95%CI) = 2.88 (1.12, 4.65); p = 0.001]. This meta-analysis found that robotic PD provides better histopathological outcomes as compared to open PD at the cost of longer operating time. Furthermore, robotic PD did not have any detrimental impact on clinical outcomes, with lower wound infection rates.

Evaluation of robotic versus open partial pancreatoduodenectomy-study protocol for a randomised controlled pilot trial (EUROPA, DRKS00020407)

Background

Partial pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) is the indicated surgical procedure for a wide range of benign and malignant diseases of the pancreatic head and distal bile duct and offers the only potential cure for pancreatic head cancer. The current gold standard, open PD (OPD) performed via laparotomy, is associated with morbidity in around 40% of cases, even at specialised centres. Robotic PD (RPD) might offer a viable alternative to OPD and has been shown to be feasible. Encouraging perioperative results have been reported for RPD in a number of small, non-randomised studies. However, since those studies showed a considerable risk of bias, a thorough comparison of RPD with OPD is warranted.

Methods

The EUROPA (EvalUation of RObotic partial PAncreatoduodenectomy) trial is designed as a randomised controlled unblinded exploratory surgical trial with two parallel study groups. A total of 80 patients scheduled for elective PD will be randomised after giving written informed consent. Patients with borderline or non-resectable carcinoma of the pancreatic head as defined by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, distant metastases or an American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) score > III will be excluded. The experimental intervention, RPD, will be compared with the control intervention, OPD. An intraoperative dropout of approximately eight patients per group is expected because they may receive another type of surgical procedure than planned. Overall, 64 patients need to be analysed. The primary endpoint of the trial is overall postoperative morbidity within 90 days after index operation, measured using the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI). The secondary endpoints include the feasibility of recruitment and assessment of clinical, oncological and safety parameters and quality of life and cost-effectiveness.

Discussion

The EUROPA trial is the first randomised controlled trial comparing RPD with OPD. Differences in postoperative morbidity will be evaluated to design a future multicentre confirmatory efficacy trial.

Trial registration

German Clinical Trial Register DRKS00020407. Registered on 9 March 2020

Systematic review and updated network meta-analysis comparing open, laparoscopic, and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy

The treatment of periampullary and pancreatic head neoplasms is evolving. While minimally invasive Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) has gained worldwide interest, there has been a debate on its related outcomes. The purpose of this paper was to provide an updated evidence comparing short-term surgical and oncologic outcomes within Open Pancreaticoduodenectomy (OpenPD), Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy (LapPD), and Robotic Pancreaticoduodenectomy (RobPD). MEDLINE, Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane Central Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were referred for systematic search. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was executed. Forty-one articles (56,440 patients) were included; 48,382 (85.7%) underwent OpenPD, 5570 (9.8%) LapPD, and 2488 (4.5%) RobPD. Compared to OpenPD, LapPD and RobPD had similar postoperative mortality [Risk Ratio (RR) = 1.26; 95%CrI 0.91–1.61 and RR = 0.78; 95%CrI 0.54–1.12)], clinically relevant (grade B/C) postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) (RR = 1.12; 95%CrI 0.82–1.43 and RR = 0.87; 95%CrI 0.64–1.14, respectively), and severe (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3) postoperative complications (RR = 1.03; 95%CrI 0.80–1.46 and RR = 0.93; 95%CrI 0.65–1.14, respectively). Compared to OpenPD, both LapPD and RobPD had significantly reduced hospital length-of-stay, estimated blood loss, infectious, pulmonary, overall complications, postoperative bleeding, and hospital readmission. No differences were found in the number of retrieved lymph nodes and R0. OpenPD, LapPD, and RobPD seem to be comparable across clinically relevant POPF, severe complications, postoperative mortality, retrieved lymphnodes, and R0. LapPD and RobPD appears to be safer in terms of infectious, pulmonary, and overall complications with reduced hospital readmission We advocate surgeons to choose their preferred surgical approach according to their expertise, however, the adoption of minimally invasive techniques may possibly improve patients’ outcomes.

Safety and efficacy of robot-assisted versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: a meta-analysis of multiple worldwide centers

The objective of the study is to compare the safety and efficacy of robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) with open PD. The PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases were searched for the literature available from their respective inception dates up to May 2020 to find studies comparing robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) with open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD). The RevMan 5.3 statistical software was used for analysis to evaluate surgical outcome and oncology safety. The combination ratio (RR) and weighted mean difference (WMD) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using fixed-effect or random effect models. 18 cohort studies from 16 medical centers were eligible with a total of 5795 patients including 1420 RPD group patients and 4375 OPD group patients. The RPD group fared better than the OPD group in terms of estimated blood loss (EBL) (WMD = - 175.65, 95% CI (- 251.85, - 99.44), P < 0.00001), wound infection rate (RR = 0.60, 95% CI (0.44, 0.81), P = 0.001), reoperation rate (RR = 0.61, 95% CI (0.41, 0.91), P = 0.02), hospital day (WMD = - 2.95, 95% CI (- 5.33, - 0.56), P = 0.02), intraoperative blood transfusion (RR = 0.56, 95% CI (0.42, 0.76), P = 0.0001), overall complications (RR = 0.78, 95% CI (0.64, 0.95), P = 0.01), and clinical postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) (RR = 0.54, 95% CI (0.41, 0.70), P < 0.0001). In terms of lymph node clearance (WMD = 0.48, 95% CI (- 2.05, 3.02), P = 0.71), R0 rate (RR = 1.05, 95% CI (1.00, 1.11), P = 0.05), postoperative pancreatic fistula (RR = 1, 95% CI (0.85, 1.19), P = 0.97), bile leakage (RR = 0.99, 95% CI (0.54, 1.83), P = 0.98), delayed gastric emptying (DGE) (RR = 0.79, 95% CI (0.60, 1.03), P = 0.08), 90-day mortality (RR = 0.82, 95% CI (0.62, 1.10), P = 0.19), and severe complications (RR = 0.98, 95% CI (0.71, 1.36), P = 0.91), and there were no significant differences between the two groups. Robotic surgery was inferior to open surgery in terms of operational time (WMD = 80.85, 95% CI (16.09, 145.61), P = 0.01). RPD is not inferior to OPD, and it is even more advantageous for EBL, wound infection rate, reoperation rate, hospital stay, intraoperative transfusion, overall complications and clinical POPF. However, these findings need to be further verified by high-quality randomized controlled trials.

Readmission and Resource Use After Robotic-Assisted versus Open Pancreaticoduodenectomy: 2010-2017

BACKGROUND

Unplanned rehospitalization is considered an adverse quality of care indicator. Minimally invasive operations carry the potential to reduce resource use while enhancing recovery. Robotic-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (RAPD) has been used to improve outcomes of its morbid open counterpart. We sought to identify factors associated with readmission between RAPD and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We used the 2010-17 National Readmissions Database to identify adults who underwent RAPD or OPD. The primary outcome was 30-day readmission. Secondary outcomes included readmission diagnosis: index, readmission, and total (index + readmission) length of stay, costs, and mortality.

RESULTS

Of an estimated 84,036 patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy, 96.9% survived index hospitalization. Frequency of both RAPD and OPD increased during the study period with similar mortality (2.5% versus 3.2%, P = 0.46). Compared with OPD, RAPD was not an independent predictor of 30-day readmission (adjusted odds ratio (AOR): 1.0, P = 0.98). Disposition with home health care (AOR: 1.1, P < 0.001) or to a skilled nursing facility (AOR: 1.5, P < 0.001) was significantly associated with increased 30-day readmission.

CONCLUSIONS

Readmission after pancreaticoduodenectomy is common, regardless of surgical approach. Although RAPD saves in-patient days on index admission, readmission rates and length of stay are similar between the two modalities. Neither RAPD nor OPD is a risk factor for readmission, highlighting the complexity of pancreaticoduodenectomy, with complications that may result from factors independent of the operative approach.

The Miami International Evidence-based Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreas Resection

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to develop and externally validate the first evidence-based guidelines on minimally invasive pancreas resection (MIPR) before and during the International Evidence-based Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreas Resection (IG-MIPR) meeting in Miami (March 2019).

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

MIPR has seen rapid development in the past decade. Promising outcomes have been reported by early adopters from high-volume centers. Subsequently, multicenter series as well as randomized controlled trials were reported; however, guidelines for clinical practice were lacking.

METHODS

The Scottisch Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) methodology was used, incorporating these 4 items: systematic reviews using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases to answer clinical questions, whenever possible in PICO style, the GRADE approach for assessment of the quality of evidence, the Delphi method for establishing consensus on the developed recommendations, and the AGREE-II instrument for the assessment of guideline quality and external validation. The current guidelines are cosponsored by the International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the Americas Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the Asian-Pacific Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the European-African Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery, Pancreas Club, the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgery, the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

RESULTS

After screening 16,069 titles, 694 studies were reviewed, and 291 were included. The final 28 recommendations covered 6 topics; laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomy, central pancreatectomy, pancreatoduodenectomy, as well as patient selection, training, learning curve, and minimal annual center volume required to obtain optimal outcomes and patient safety.

CONCLUSION

The IG-MIPR using SIGN methodology give guidance to surgeons, hospital administrators, patients, and medical societies on the use and outcome of MIPR as well as the approach to be taken regarding this challenging type of surgery.

Analysis of 102 Fully Robotic Pancreaticoduodenectomies: Clinical and Financial Outcomes

OBJECTIVES

The value of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) remains undefined. The aim of this retrospective study was to compare and assess clinical outcomes and financial variables of patients undergoing RPD versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) at a single high-volume center.

METHODS

The study design is a retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database of consecutive PD patients from 2013 to 2019. Clinical variables and total hospital charges were evaluated as an unadjusted and adjusted intention-to-treat analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 156 patients (54 OPD, 102 RPD) were identified. In the RPD group, patients were significantly older (P = 0.0304) and had shorter length of stay (mean, 7 vs 11.8 days; P < 0.0001) and longer operative times (mean, 352.7 vs 211.5 minutes; P < 0.0001) compared with OPD. There was no significant difference in 90-day readmissions, bleeding, or complications between OPD and RPD. Adjusted charge analyses show no difference in total charges (P = 0.057).

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy is safe, feasible, and valid alternative to OPD. Because of comparable results within each group, randomized trials may be indicated. High-volume RPD centers should collaborate to better understand the differences and advantages over laparoscopic or OPD.

Robotic-assisted versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for patients with benign and malignant periampullary disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of short-term outcomes

BACKGROUND

Although several non-randomized studies comparing robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) recently demonstrated that the two operative techniques could be equivalent in terms of safety outcomes and short-term oncologic efficacy, no definitive answer has arrived yet to the question as to whether robotic assistance can contribute to reducing the high rate of postoperative morbidity.

METHODS

Systematic literature search was performed using MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and EMBASE databases. Prospective and retrospective studies comparing RPD and OPD as surgical treatment for periampullary benign and malignant lesions were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis with no limits of language or year of publication.

RESULTS

18 non-randomized studies were included for quantitative synthesis with 13,639 patients allocated to RPD (n = 1593) or OPD (n = 12,046). RPD and OPD showed equivalent results in terms of mortality (3.3% vs 2.8%; P = 0.84), morbidity (64.4% vs 68.1%; P = 0.12), pancreatic fistula (17.9% vs 15.9%; P = 0.81), delayed gastric emptying (16.8% vs 16.1%; P = 0.98), hemorrhage (11% vs 14.6%; P = 0.43), and bile leak (5.1% vs 3.5%; P = 0.35). Estimated intra-operative blood loss was significantly lower in the RPD group (352.1 ± 174.1 vs 588.4 ± 219.4; P = 0.0003), whereas operative time was significantly longer for RPD compared to OPD (461.1 ± 84 vs 384.2 ± 73.8; P = 0.0004). RPD and OPD showed equivalent results in terms of retrieved lymph nodes (19.1 ± 9.9 vs 17.3 ± 9.9; P = 0.22) and positive margin status (13.3% vs 16.1%; P = 0.32).

CONCLUSIONS

RPD is safe and feasible as surgical treatment for malignant or benign disease of the pancreatic head and the periampullary region. Equivalency in terms of surgical radicality including R0 curative resection and number of harvested lymph nodes between the two groups confirmed the reliability of RPD from an oncologic point of view.

Pancreatic head cancer: Open or minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy?

Pancreatic head cancer still represents an insurmountable barrier for patients and pancreatic surgeons. Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) continues to be the operative standard of care and potentially curative procedure for pancreatic head cancer. Despite the rapid development of minimally invasive techniques, whether the efficacy of minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) is noninferior or superior to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) remains unclear. In this review, we summarized the history of OPD and MIPD and the latest staging and classification information for pancreatic head cancer as well as the proposed recommendations for MIPD indications for patients with pancreatic head cancer. By reviewing the MIPD- vs. OPD-related literature, we found that MIPD shows noninferiority or superiority to OPD in terms of safety, feasibility, enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) and several short-term and long-term outcomes. In addition, we analyzed and summarized the different MIPD outcomes in the USA, Europe and China. Certain debates over MIPD have continued, however, selection bias, the large number of low-volume centers, the steep MIPD learning curve, high conversion rate and administration of neoadjuvant therapy may limit the application of MIPD for pancreatic head cancer.

Comparison Between Robotic and Laparoscopic or Open Anastomoses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Robotic surgery has been increasingly used in fashioning various surgical anastomoses. Our aim was to collect and analyze outcomes related to anastomoses performed using a robotic approach and compare them with those done using laparoscopic or open approaches through meta-analysis.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted for articles comparing robotic with laparoscopic and/or open operations (colectomy, low anterior resection, gastrectomy, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), pancreaticoduodenectomy, radical cystectomy, pyeloplasty, radical prostatectomy, renal transplant) published up to June 2019 searching Medline, Scopus, Google Scholar, Clinical Trials and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Studies containing information about outcomes related to hand-sewn anastomoses were included for meta-analysis. Studies with stapled anastomoses or without relevant information about the anastomotic technique were excluded. We also excluded studies in which the anastomoses were performed extracorporeally in laparoscopic or robotic operations.

RESULTS

We included 83 studies referring to the aforementioned operations (4 randomized controlled and 79 non-randomized, 10 prospective and 69 retrospective) apart from colectomy and low anterior resection. Anastomoses done using robotic instruments provided similar results to those done using laparoscopic or open approach in regards to anastomotic leak or stricture. However, there were lower rates of stenosis in robotic than in laparoscopic RYGB (p=0.01) and in robotic than in open radical prostatectomy (p<0.00001). Moreover, all anastomoses needed more time to be performed using the robotic rather than the open approach in renal transplant (p≤0.001).

CONCLUSION

Robotic anastomoses provide equal outcomes with laparoscopic and open ones in most operations, with a few notable exceptions.

Oncologic Resection in Laparoscopic Versus Robotic Transhiatal Esophagectomy

Background and Objectives:

As the use of robotic surgery continues to increase, little is known about robotic oncologic outcomes compared with traditional methods in esophagectomy. The aim of this study was to examine the perioperative oncologic outcomes of patients undergoing laparoscopic versus robot-assisted transhiatal esophagectomy (THE).

Methods:

Thirty-six consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic and robot-assisted THE for malignant disease over a 3-year period were identified in a retrospective database. Eighteen patients underwent robotic-assisted THE with cervical anastomosis, and 18 patients underwent laparoscopic THE. All procedures were performed by a single foregut and thoracic surgeon.

Results:

Patient demographics were similar between the 2 groups with no significant differences. Lymph node yields for both laparoscopic and robot-assisted THE were similar at 13.9 and 14.3, respectively (P = .90). Ninety-four percent of each group underwent R0 margins, but only 1 patient from each modality had microscopic positive margins. All of the robot-assisted patients underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiation, whereas 83.3% underwent neoadjuvant therapy in the laparoscopy group (P = .23). Clinical and pathologic stagings were similar in each group. There was 1 death after laparoscopic surgery in a cirrhotic patient and no mortalities among the robot-assisted THE patients (P = .99). One patient from each group experienced an anastomotic leak, but neither patient required further intervention.

Conclusions:

Laparoscopic and robot-assisted THEs yield similar perioperative oncologic results including lymph node yield and margin status. In the transition from laparoscopic surgery, robotic surgery should be considered oncologically noninferior compared with laparoscopy.

International consensus statement on robotic pancreatic surgery

The robotic surgical system has been applied to various types of pancreatic surgery. However, controversies exist regarding a variety of factors including the safety, feasibility, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of robotic surgery. This study aimed to evaluate the current status of robotic pancreatic surgery and put forth experts' consensus and recommendations to promote its development. Based on the WHO Handbook for Guideline Development, a Consensus Steering Group* and a Consensus Development Group were established to determine the topics, prepare evidence-based documents, and generate recommendations. The GRADE Grid method and Delphi vote were used to formulate the recommendations. A total of 19 topics were analyzed. The first 16 recommendations were generated by GRADE using an evidence-based method (EBM) and focused on the safety, feasibility, indication, techniques, certification of the robotic surgeon, and cost-effectiveness of robotic pancreatic surgery. The remaining three recommendations were based on literature review and expert panel opinion due to insufficient EBM results. Since the current amount of evidence was low/meager as evaluated by the GRADE method, further randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are needed in the future to validate these recommendations.

Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy is associated with lower morbidity compared to open pancreatoduodenectomy: An updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and high-quality nonrandomized studies

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) is being increasingly performed as an alternative to open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) in selected patients. Our study aimed to present a meta-analysis of the high-quality studies conducted that compared MIPD to OPD performed for pancreatic head and periampullary diseases.

METHODS

A systematic review of the available literature was performed to identify those studies conducted that compared MIPD to OPD. Here, all randomized controlled trials identified were included, while the selection of high-quality, nonrandomized comparative studies were based on a validated tool (i.e., Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies). Intraoperative outcomes, postoperative recovery, oncologic clearance, and postoperative complications were also evaluated.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies matched the selection criteria, including a total of 3168 patients (32.1% MIPD, 67.9% OPD). The pooled data showed that MIPD was associated with a longer operative time (weighted mean difference [WMD] = 80.89 minutes, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 39.74-122.05, P < .01), less blood loss (WMD = -227.62 mL, 95% CI: -305.48 to -149.75, P < .01), shorter hospital stay (WMD = -4.68 days, 95% CI: -5.52 to -3.84, P < .01), and an increase in retrieved lymph nodes (WMD = 1.85, 95% CI: 1.33-2.37, P < .01). Furthermore, the overall morbidity was significantly lower in the MIPD group (OR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.54-0.82, P < .01), as were total postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) (OR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.63-0.99, P = .04), delayed gastric emptying (DGE) (OR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.52-0.96, P = .02), and wound infection (OR = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.39-0.79, P < .01). However, there were no statistically significant differences observed in major complications, clinically significant POPFs, reoperation rate, and mortality.

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests that MIPD is a safe alternative to OPD, as it is associated with less blood loss and better postoperative recovery in terms of the overall postoperative complications as well as POPF, DGE, and wound infection. Methodologic high-quality comparative studies are required for further evaluation.

Hospitalization Burden of Biliary Strictures and Cholangitis After Pancreaticoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

Postsurgical biliary disease in Roux-en-y and cholecystectomies has been investigated, but less literature exists regarding biliary complications after Whipple procedure (pancreaticoduodenectomy [PD]). Moreover, the hospital burden incurred after this complication has not been previously examined. The aim of this study is to assess the trends in hospitalization for biliary strictures and cholangitis after PD.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The National Inpatient Sample identified all cases with a PD and a primary diagnosis of biliary complication in 2014. Cases were identified using the International Classification of Diseases, Clinical Modification codes. Primary outcomes were association of biliary complications with mortality, cost of admission, and length of stay.

RESULTS

A total of 10,145 patients in 2014 were documented with a previous PD. Mortality was 50-fold greater without biliary complications (2.7% versus 0.05%), but a 95% increased length of stay (25.8 d versus 13.2 d, P = 0.014) and 70% increased cost of admission ($293,894 versus $165,862, P = 0.092) occurred with biliary complications. Regression analysis revealed increased length of stay in all cohorts (adjusted odds ratio: 14.3, P = 0.007) and increased cost of admission with cholangitis (adjusted odds: 458283, P = 0.00). Finally, there was increased biliary strictures, cost of hospitalization, and length of stay from 2011 to 2014.

CONCLUSIONS

Biliary disease due to the PD appears to longitudinally increase length of stay and cost of hospitalization. Compared with gastrointestinal bleed and delayed gastric emptying, biliary strictures and cholangitis are still very high acuity, requiring more extensive medical resources. Minimally invasive surgeries and robotics could play a vital role in minimizing biliary complications and the ensuing hospitalization burden.

An end-to-end pancreatic anastomosis in robotic central pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND

Suturing the proximal pancreatic stump and performing pancreaticoenterostomy for the distal pancreatic stump following central pancreatectomy is a conventional procedure. This reconstruction after resection of the pathological pancreatic lesion brings changes in anatomy and physiology. In this study, an innovative one-stage robotic end-to-end pancreatic anastomosis was reported to replace the conventional pancreaticoenterostomy following central pancreatectomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The clinical data of 11 consecutive patients who underwent robotic central pancreatectomy with end-to-end pancreatic anastomosis between August 2017 and December 2017 were analyzed retrospectively.

RESULTS

All operations were completed successfully without any conversion to open surgery. Nine patients had benign tumors, one had a mass-forming chronic pancreatitis, and one had an isolated pancreatic metastasis from a renal cancer. The mean gap left after central pancreatectomy was 4.3 ± 1.0 cm. The median operative time was 121 (range, 105 to 199) min. The median blood loss was 50 (range, 20 to 100) ml. Seven (63.6%) patients developed complications which included Clavien-Dindo Grade I complications in five patients, a Grade II complication in one patient, and a Grade IIIa complication in one patient. Seven patients developed a Grade B postoperative pancreatic fistula, and two patients a biochemical leak. There was no Grade C or worse pancreatic fistula. Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography at postoperative 6 months showed no stricture in any of the main pancreatic ducts. Three patients had an asymptomatic and small pancreatic pseudocyst.

CONCLUSION

Robotic central pancreatectomy with end-to-end pancreatic anastomosis was safe and feasible. It restores the normal anatomy of the pancreas. With its good short-and long-term outcomes, it could be an alternative reconstructive method to pancreaticoenterostomy following central pancreatectomy.

Beyond surgery: clinical and economic impact of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery programs

Background

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) is a perioperative management based on multimodality and multidisciplinary work. ERAS has been shown to have important clinical and economic benefits, but its spread remains slow worldwide.

Discussion

This manuscript reviews the overall program benefits and focuses on important aspects for implementation well beyond surgery.

Summary

Implementation of ERAS pathways improves clinical outcomes and induces substantial economic gains. ERAS is the current surgical revolution.

Comprehensive comparative analysis of cost-effectiveness and perioperative outcomes between open, laparoscopic, and robotic distal pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND

NSQIP data show that half of distal pancreatectomies (DP) are performed by a minimally invasive approach (MIS). Advantages have been demonstrated for MIS DP, yet comparative cost data are limited. Outcomes and cost were compared in patients undergoing open (ODP), laparoscopic (LDP), and robotic (RDP) approaches at a single institution.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed on patients undergoing DP between 1/2010-5/2016. Analysis was intention-to-treat, and cost was available after 1/2013.

RESULTS

DP was performed in 374 patients: ODP = 85, LDP = 93, and RDP = 196. Operating time was lowest in the RDP cohort (p < 0.0001). ODP had higher estimated blood loss (p < 0.0001) and transfusions (p < 0.0001) than LDP and RDP. LDP had greater conversions to open procedures than RDP (p = 0.001). Postoperative outcomes were similar between groups. Length of stay was higher in the ODP group (p = 0.0001) than LDP and RDP. Overall cost for the ODP was higher than the RDP and LDP group (p = 0.002). On multivariate analysis, RDP reduced LOS (ODP: Odds = 6.5 [p = 0.0001] and LDP: Odds = 2.1 [p = 0.036]) and total cost (ODP: Odds = 5.7 [p = 0.002] and LDP: Odds = 2.8 [p = 0.042]) independently of all demographics and illness covariates.

CONCLUSIONS

A robotic approach is associated with reduced length of stay and cost compared to open and laparoscopic procedures.

Advances in surgery for pancreatic cancer

Over the past 135 years, the field of pancreatic surgery for treatment of pancreatic malignancies has been a challenge to the surgical community. Originally filled with unacceptably high morbidity and mortality, these obstacles have been overcome through the work of numerous great surgeons in recent decades. Today, despite the improved safety of operating on the pancreas, patients still suffer from high rates of malignant recurrence and poor overall survival. Recent advances in pancreatic surgery aim to further improve the morbidity of these operations while increasing the number of patients who are both candidates for surgical resection and those who receive complete resections. This review focuses on recent literature describing the pros and cons of minimally invasive approaches to pancreatic surgery and the risks and benefits of vascular reconstruction to improve resectability. Both topics are currently debated amongst pancreatic surgeons and this article summarizes the varied viewpoints and their impact on outcomes in pancreas cancer surgery.

Total laparoscopic versus robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy

In this study, the clinical effectiveness of the robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreatico-duodenectomy (RPD) and Total laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy LPD were retrospectively reviewed. From December 2013 to September 2017, 20 patients underwent robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy and 80 patients underwent Total laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy. The clinical data of the RPDs and the first 20 LPDs were reviewed retrospectively. There is no difference in operative time, estimated blood loss, length of stay, and rates of complications and mortality between the LPD and RPD group. The next 10 cases in the RPD group had shorter operative times (p = 0.03) than the first 10 cases. The estimated blood loss and length of stay were also lower in the next 10 cases; however, these results did not reach statistical significance. Our results show that LPD and RPD are technically safe and feasible. Comparable results were demonstrated between the two groups, while the robotic system seemed to shorten the learning curve of minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD).

Learning curves for robotic pancreatic surgery-from distal pancreatectomy to pancreaticoduodenectomy

This study sought to identify the learning curves of console time (CT) for robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) and robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP). Perioperative outcomes were compared between the early group of surgeries performed early in the learning curve and the late group of surgeries performed after the learning curve.Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is a technically demanding and challenging procedure carrying a high morbidity.Data for RDP and RPD were prospectively collected for analysis. The learning curve was assessed by cumulative sum (CUSUM). Based on CUSUM analyses, patients were divided into the early group and the late group.There were 70 RDP and 61 RPD cases. It required 37 cases to overcome the learning curve for RDP and 20 cases for RPD. The median console time was significantly shorter in the late group for both RDP (112 minutes vs 225 minutes, P < .001) and RPD (360 minuntes vs 520 minutes, P < .001). Median blood loss was significantly less in the late group for both RDP (30 cc vs 100 cc, P = .003) and RPD (100 cc vs 200 cc, P < .001). No surgical mortality occurred in either group. Clinically relevant pancreatic fistula rate was 22.9% for RDP (32.4% in the early group vs 12.1% in the late group, P = .043), and 11.5% for RPD (0 in early group vs 17.1% in late group, P = .084).This study demonstrates that the RPD learning curve is 20 cases with prior experience of RDP and confirms the safety and feasibility of both RPD and RDP. Practice and familiarity with the robotic platform are likely to contribute to significant shortening of the learning curve in robotic pancreatic surgery, while knowledge and experience, in addition to practical skills, are also essential to minimize the potential surgical risks of RPD.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Safety and efficacy for robot-assisted versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This meta-analysis was conducted to compare the clinical safety and efficacy of robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (RAPD) or robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RADP) with open surgery.

METHODS

Multiple databases (PubMed, Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane Library) were searched to identify studies comparing the outcomes of RAPD and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) or RADP and open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) (up to December 31, 2017). Fixed and random effects models were applied according to different conditions.

RESULTS

Fifteen non-randomized controlled trials (11 RAPD vs. OPD and 4 RADP vs. ODP) involving 3690 patients were included. Robot-assisted surgery had longer operative time (RAPD vs. OPD: P = 0.0005; RADP vs. ODP: P < 0.00001) but lesser blood loss than open surgery (RAPD vs. OPD: P = 0.0009; RADP vs. ODP: P = 0.0007). RAPD was associated with less wound infection, a lower positive margin rate, lower overall complications, and faster postoperative off-bed activity. There was no significant difference in the lymph node yield, the rate of pancreatic fistula, delayed gastric emptying, reoperation, length of hospital stay and mortality between the two groups. Compared with ODP, RADP was associated with less blood transfusion, fewer lymph nodes harvested, lower complications and shorter hospital stay. There was no significant difference between the two groups in the rate of spleen preservation, positive margin, pancreatic fistula, and mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Robot-assisted surgery is a safe and feasible alternative to OPD and ODP with regard to perioperative outcomes. However, due to the lack of high-quality randomized controlled trials, the evidence is still limited.

Comparison of surgical outcomes between open and robot-assisted minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

Robot surgery is a new method that maintains advantages and overcomes disadvantages of conventional methods, even in pancreatic surgery. This study aimed to evaluate safety and benefits of robot-assisted minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (robot PD).

METHODS

This study included 237 patients who underwent PD between 2015 and 2017. Demographics and surgical outcomes were evaluated.

RESULTS

Fifty-one patients underwent robot PD and 186 underwent open PD. Robot PD group had younger age (60.7 vs. 65.4 years, P = 0.006) and lower body mass index (22.7 vs. 24.0, P = 0.007). Robot PD group had lower proportion of patients with firm or hard pancreatic texture (15.7% vs. 38.2%, P = 0.004) and smaller pancreatic duct size (2.3 vs. 3.3 mm, P = 0.002). Two groups had similar operation time (robot vs. open: 335.6 vs. 330.1 min) and complications (15.7% vs. 21.0%), including postoperative pancreatic fistula rate (6.0% vs. 12.0%). Robot PD group had lower postoperative pain score (3.7 vs. 4.1 points, P = 0.008), and shorter postoperative stay (10.6 vs. 15.3 days, P = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Robot PD is comparable to open PD in early outcomes. Robot PD is safe and feasible and enables early recovery; indication for robot PD is expected to expand in the near future.

Minimally invasive surgical approach versus open procedure for pancreaticoduodenectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) remains one of the most challenging abdominal procedures. Safety and feasibility remain controversial when comparing MIPD with open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD). The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the feasibility and safety of MIPD versus OPD.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was performed to identify studies comparing MIPD and OPD. Postoperative complications, intraoperative outcomes and oncologic data, and postoperative recovery were compared.

RESULTS

There were 27 studies that matched the selection criteria. Totally 1306 cases of MIPD and 5603 cases of OPD were included. MIPD was associated with a reduction in postoperative hemorrhage (odds ratio [OR] 1.60; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-2.49; P = .04) and wound infection (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.30-0.66, P < .0001). MIPD was also associated with less estimated blood loss (mean difference [MD] -300.14 mL, 95% CI -400.11 to -200.17 mL, P < .00001), a lower transfusion rate (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.35-0.61; P < .00001) and a shorter length of hospital stay (MD -2.95 d, 95% CI -3.91 to -2.00 d, P < .00001) than OPD. Meanwhile, the MIPD group had a higher R0 resection rate (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.18-1.78, P = .0003) and more lymph nodes harvested (MD 1.34, 95% CI 0.14-2.53, P = .03). However, the minimally invasive approach proved to have much longer operative time (MD 71.00 minutes; 95% CI 27.01-115.00 minutes; P = .002) than OPD. Finally, there were no significant differences between the 2 procedures in postoperative pancreatic fistula (P = .30), delayed gastric emptying (P = .07), bile leakage (P = .98), mortality (P = .88), tumor size (P = .15), vascular resection (P = .68), or reoperation rate (P = .11).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that MIPD is currently safe, feasible, and worthwhile. Future large-volume, well-designed randomized controlled trials (RCT) with extensive follow-up are awaited to further clarify this role.

Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary disease: a comprehensive review of literature and meta-analysis of outcomes compared with open surgery

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) has been gradually attempted. However, whether MIPD is superior, equal or inferior to its conventional open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) is not clear.

METHODS

Studies published up to May 2017 were searched in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Main outcomes were comprehensively reviewed and measured including conversion to open approach, operation time (OP), estimated blood loss (EBL), transfusion, length of hospital stay (LOS), overall complications, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), delayed gastric emptying (DGE), post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), readmission, reoperation and reasons of preoperative death, number of retrieved lymph nodes (RLN), surgical margins, recurrence, and survival. The software of Review Manage version 5.1 was used for meta-analysis.

RESULTS

One hundred studies were included for systematic review and 26 out of them (totally 3402 cases, 1064 for MIPD, 2338 for OPD) were included for meta-analysis. In the early years, most articles were case reports or non-control case series studies, while in the last 6 years high-volume and comparative researches were increasing gradually. Systematic review revealed conversion rates of MIPD to OPD ranged from 0% to 40%. The mean or median OP of MIPD ranged from 276 to 657 min. The total POPF rates vary between 3.8% and 50% observed in all systematic reviewed studies. Meta-analysis demonstrated MIPD had longer OP (WMD = 99.4 min; 95%CI: 46.0 ~ 152.8, P < 0.01), lower blood loss (WMD = -0.54 ml; 95% CI, -0.88 ~ -0.20 ml; P < 0.01), lower transfusion rate (RR = 0.73, 95%CI: 0.57 ~ 0.94, P = 0.02), shorter LOS (WMD = -3.49 days; 95%CI: -4.83 ~ -2.15, P < 0.01). There was no significant difference in time to oral intake, postoperative complications, POPF, reoperation, readmission, perioperative mortality and number of retrieved lymph nodes.

CONCLUSION

Our study demonstrates MIPD is technically feasible and safety on the basis of historical studies. MIPD is associated with less blood loss, faster postoperative recovery, shorter length of hospitalization and longer operation time. These findings are waiting for being confirmed with robust prospective comparative studies and randomized clinical trials.

Minimally invasive surgical approaches offer earlier time to adjuvant chemotherapy but not improved survival in resected pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic surgery encompasses complex operations with significant potential morbidity. Greater experience in minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has allowed resections to be performed laparoscopically and robotically. This study evaluates the impact of surgical approach in resected pancreatic cancer.

METHODS

The National Cancer Data Base (2010-2012) was reviewed for patients with stages 1-3 resected pancreatic carcinoma. Open approaches were compared to MIS. A sub-analysis was then performed comparing robotic and laparoscopic approaches.

RESULTS

Of the 9047 patients evaluated, surgical approach was open in 7511 (83%), laparoscopic in 992 (11%), and robotic in 131 (1%). The laparoscopic and robotic conversion rate to open was 28% (n = 387) and 17% (n = 26), respectively. Compared to open, MIS was associated with more distal resections (13.5, 24.3%, respectively, p < 0.0001), shorter hospital length of stay (LOS) (11.3, 9.5 days, respectively, p < 0.0001), more margin-negative resections (75, 79%, p = 0.038), and quicker time to initiation of chemotherapy (TTC) (59.1, 56.3 days, respectively, p = 0.0316). There was no difference in number of lymph nodes obtained based on surgical approach (p = 0.5385). When stratified by type of resection (head, distal, or total), MIS offered significantly shorter LOS in all types. Multivariate analysis demonstrated no survival benefit for any MIS approach relative to open (all, p > 0.05). When adjusted for patient, disease, and treatment characteristics, TTC was not an independent prognostic factor (HR 1.09, p = 0.084).

CONCLUSION

MIS appears to offer comparable surgical oncologic benefit with improved LOS and shorter TTC. This effect, however, was not associated with improved survival.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy: a NSQIP Analysis

BACKGROUND

An increasing body of literature is supporting the safety of minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy compared to open pancreaticoduodenectomy, but there are limited comparative studies between laparoscopic and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. The aim of this study was to compare the rate of postoperative 30-day overall complications between laparoscopic and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy.

METHODS

Patients who underwent laparoscopic and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy were abstracted from the 2014-2015 pancreas-targeted American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. A multivariable logistic regression model was developed to determine if the type of minimally invasive approach was associated with 30-day overall complications.

RESULTS

We identified 428 minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy cases, of which 235 (55%) were performed laparoscopically and 193 (45%) robotically. Patients who underwent the robotic approach were more likely to be white compared to those who underwent the laparoscopic approach and were less likely to have pulmonary disease, undergo preoperative radiotherapy, and have vascular and multivisceral resection. On multivariable analysis, we found that the type of minimally invasive approach, whether laparoscopic or robotic, was not associated with overall complications. The predictors of 30-day overall complications were higher body mass index (odds ratio [OR], 1.05; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-1.09), vascular resection (OR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.23-3.58), and longer operative time (OR, 1.002; 95% CI, 1.001-1.004).

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy was associated with a similar 30-day overall complication rate to laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy. Further studies are needed to corroborate these findings and to establish the best approach to perform this complex operation.

Value-based assessment of robotic pancreas and liver surgery

Current healthcare economic evaluations are based only on the perspective of a single stakeholder to the healthcare delivery process. A true value-based decision incorporates all of the outcomes that could be impacted by a single episode of surgical care. We define the value proposition for robotic surgery using a stakeholder model incorporating the interests of all groups participating in the provision of healthcare services: patients, surgeons, hospitals and payers. One of the developing and expanding fields that could benefit the most from a complete value-based analysis is robotic hepatopancreaticobiliary (HPB) surgery. While initial robot purchasing costs are high, the benefits over laparoscopic surgery are considerable. Performing a literature search we found a total of 18 economic evaluations for robotic HPB surgery. We found a lack of evaluations that were carried out from a perspective that incorporates all of the impacts of a single episode of surgical care and that included a comprehensive hospital cost assessment. For distal pancreatectomies, the two most thorough examinations came to conflicting results regarding total cost savings compared to laparoscopic approaches. The most thorough pancreaticoduodenectomy evaluation found non-significant savings for total hospital costs. Robotic hepatectomies showed no cost savings over laparoscopic and only modest savings over open techniques. Lastly, robotic cholecystectomies were found to be more expensive than the gold-standard laparoscopic approach. Existing cost accounting data associated with robotic HPB surgery is incomplete and unlikely to reflect the state of this field in the future. Current data combines the learning curves for new surgical procedures being undertaken by HPB surgeons with costs derived from a market dominated by a single supplier of robotic instruments. As a result, the value proposition for stakeholders in this process cannot be defined. In order to solve this problem, future studies must incorporate (I) quality of life, survival, and return to independent function alongside data such as (II) intent-to-treat analysis of minimally-invasive surgery accounting for conversions to open, (III) surgeon and institution experience and operative time as surrogates for the learning curve; and (IV) amortization and maintenance costs as well as direct costs of disposables and instruments.