Total robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a systematic review of the literature

Robot-assisted vascular surgery: literature review, clinical applications, and future perspectives

Although robot-assisted surgical procedures using the da Vinci robotic system (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA) have been performed in more than 13 million procedures worldwide over the last two decades, the vascular surgical community has yet to fully embrace this approach (Intuitive Surgical Investor Presentation Q3 (2023) https://investor.intuitivesurgical.com/static-files/dd0f7e46-db67-4f10-90d9-d826df00554e . Accessed February 22, 2024). In the meantime, endovascular procedures revolutionized vascular care, serving as a minimally invasive alternative to traditional open surgery. In the pursuit of a percutaneous approach, shorter postoperative hospital stay, and fewer perioperative complications, the long-term durability of open surgical vascular reconstruction has been compromised (in Lancet 365:2179-2186, 2005; Patel in Lancet 388:2366-2374, 2016; Wanhainen in Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 57:8-93, 2019). The underlying question is whether the robotic-assisted laparoscopic vascular surgical approaches could deliver the robustness and longevity of open vascular surgical reconstruction, but with a minimally invasive delivery system. In the meantime, other surgical specialties have embraced robot-assisted laparoscopic technology and mastered the essential vascular skillsets along with minimally invasive robotic surgery. For example, surgical procedures such as renal transplantation, lung transplantation, and portal vein reconstruction are routinely being performed with robotic assistance that includes major vascular anastomoses (Emerson in J Heart Lung Transplant 43:158-161, 2024; Fei in J Vasc Surg Cases Innov Tech 9, 2023; Tzvetanov in Transplantation 106:479-488, 2022; Slagter in Int J Surg 99, 2022). Handling and dissection of major vascular structures come with the inherent risk of vascular injury, perhaps the most feared complication during such robotic procedures, possibly requiring emergent vascular surgical consultation. In this review article, we describe the impact of a minimally invasive, robotic approach covering the following topics: a brief history of robotic surgery, components and benefits of the robotic system as compared to laparoscopy, current literature on "vascular" applications of the robotic system, evolving training pathways and future perspectives.

Impact of hepatic artery variation on surgical and oncological outcomes in robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

In patients with hepatic artery variation (HAV), feasibility and justification of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) for periampullary lesions have been not been well established.

METHODS

A total of 600 patients with periampullary lesions receiving RPD or open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) were identified from our prospectively collected computer database. Surgical outcomes, oncological radicality, and survival outcomes after RPD in HAV ( +) and (-) patients were compared.

RESULTS

The incidence of HAV was 16%, including 12.7% in patients with RPD and 23.0% in those with OPD. In the HAV ( +) group, vascular injury rate had no statistical difference between the RPD (3.7%) and OPD (9.1%) patients, P = 0.404. Among the RPD patients, those with HAV ( +) had longer operation time (8.5 ± 2.5 vs. 7.7 ± 2.0 h, P = 0.013) and higher vascular injury (3.8% vs. 0.6%, P = 0.024) when compared with the HAV (-) patients. There was no significant difference between the HAV ( +) and (-) patients with RPD regarding blood loss, open conversion, vascular resection, and surgical mortality and morbidity. There was no survival difference between the HAV ( +) and (-) patients with pancreatic head adenocarcinoma after RPD. There was no survival difference between RPD and OPD in the HAV ( +) group.

CONCLUSIONS

When compared with OPD, RPD is feasible and justifiable without increasing vascular injury rate for patients with HAV ( +). Hepatic artery variation has no negative impact on surgical, oncological, and survival outcomes following an RPD, if it is accurately identified pre-operatively and appropriately managed intraoperatively.

Guiding post-pancreaticoduodenectomy interventions for pancreatic cancer patients utilizing decision tree models

Background

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is frequently diagnosed in advanced stages, necessitating pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) as a primary therapeutic approach. However, PD surgery can engender intricate complications. Thus, understanding the factors influencing postoperative complications documented in electronic medical records and their impact on survival rates is crucial for improving overall patient outcomes.

Methods

A total of 749 patients were divided into two groups: 598 (79.84%) chose the RPD (Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy) procedure and 151 (20.16%) chose the LPD (Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy) procedure. We used correlation analysis, survival analysis, and decision tree models to find the similarities and differences about postoperative complications and prognostic survival.

Results

Pancreatic cancer, known for its aggressiveness, often requires pancreaticoduodenectomy as an effective treatment. In predictive models, both BMI and surgery duration weigh heavily. Lower BMI correlates with longer survival, while patients with heart disease and diabetes have lower survival rates. Complications like delayed gastric emptying, pancreatic fistula, and infection are closely linked post-surgery, prompting conjectures about their causal mechanisms. Interestingly, we found no significant correlation between nasogastric tube removal timing and delayed gastric emptying, suggesting its prompt removal post-decompression.

Conclusion

This study aimed to explore predictive factors for postoperative complications and survival in PD patients. Effective predictive models enable early identification of high-risk individuals, allowing timely interventions. Higher BMI, heart disease, or diabetes significantly reduce survival rates in pancreatic cancer patients post-PD. Additionally, there's no significant correlation between DGE incidence and postoperative extubation time, necessitating further investigation into its interaction with pancreatic fistula and infection.

The Revo-i Robotic Surgical System in Advanced Pancreatic Surgery: A Second Non-Randomized Clinical Trial and Comparative Analysis to the da Vinci™ System

PURPOSE

Numerous robot-assisted pancreatic surgery are being performed worldwide. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of the Revo-i robot system (Meerecompany, Seoul, Republic of Korea) for advanced pancreatic surgery, and also compare this new system with the existing da Vinci™ robot system (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) in the context of robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study was a one-armed prospective clinical trial that assessed the Revo-i robot system for advanced pancreatic surgery. Ten patients aged 30 to 73 years were enrolled between December 2019 and August 2020. Postoperative outcomes were retrospectively compared with those of the da Vinci™ surgical system. From March 2017 to August 2020, a total of 47 patients who underwent RPD were analyzed retrospectively.

RESULTS

In the prospective clinical trial, pancreaticoduodenectomy was performed in nine patients and one patient underwent central pancreatectomy. Among the 10 study participants, the incidence of major complications was 0% in hospital stay. There were eight postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) biochemical leaks (80%). In the retrospective analysis that compared the Revo-i and da Vinci™ robotic systems, 10 patients underwent Revo-i RPD and 37 patients underwent da Vinci™ RPD, with no significant differences in complication or POPF incidence rates between the two groups (p=0.695, p=0.317).

CONCLUSION

In this single-arm prospective study with short-term follow-up at a single institution, the Revo-i robotic surgical system was safe and effective for advanced pancreatic surgery. Revo-i RPD is comparable to the da Vinci™ RPD and is expected to have wide clinical application.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

Robotic enucleation & uncinectomy of complex lesions of the proximal pancreas

BACKGROUND

Malignant tumours within the proximal pancreas traditionally require pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) for cure. For smaller lesions with borderline malignant potential the risk/benefit of PD becomes difficult to justify. Robotic approaches to these lesions allow for parenchymal preserving resection with reduced complication profile without oncological compromise.

METHODS

A review of a single surgeons prospectively collated database across two institutions of consecutive robotic enucleations or parenchyma preserving resections of the proximal pancreas was performed between July 2018 and October 2021. Standard demographic data, preoperative variables, intraoperative parameters, post-operative outcomes, morbidity and mortality were recorded.

RESULTS

Thirteen patients (8 female and 5 male) underwent robotic enucleation (EN) (8) and/or uncinectomy (UN) (5) in the proximal pancreas. Mean BMI was 32(kg/m2 ). Three patients (21%) underwent preoperative prophylactic pancreatic duct stenting. One patient required conversion to open. The median operative time in the EN group was 170 min (108-224 min) and the UN group was 160 min (110-204 min). The majority (8) of lesions were pNETs. Three lesions were IPMNs, with 1 solitary fibrous tumour and a serous cystic neoplasm (SCN) respectively. Median tumour size was 23 mm (11-58 mm) in the EN group, and 27 mm (17-38 mm) in the UN group. Ten of 13 patients had an R0 resection. There was no mortality in our series. Four (31%) patients across both groups developed clinically relevant POPF while none developed new endocrine or exocrine insufficiency. Average outpatient follow-up has been 6 months (1-18 months).

CONCLUSION

A robotic approach in proximal parenchymal preserving pancreatectomy is expanding, safe and feasible.

Distal pancreatectomy with or without radical approach, vascular resections and splenectomy: Easier does not always mean easy

Because distal pancreatectomy (DP) has no reconstructive steps and less frequent vascular involvement, it is thought to be the easier counterpart of pancreaticoduodenectomy. This procedure has a high surgical risk and the overall incidences of perioperative morbidity (mainly pancreatic fistula), and mortality are still high, in addition to the challenges that accompany delayed access to adjuvant therapies (if any) and prolonged impairment of daily activities. Moreover, surgery to remove malignancy of the body or tail of the pancreas is associated with poor long-term oncological outcomes. From this perspective, new surgical approaches, and aggressive techniques, such as radical antegrade modular pancreato-splenectomy and DP with celiac axis resection, could lead to improved survival in those affected by more locally advanced tumors. Conversely, minimally invasive approaches such as laparoscopic and robotic surgeries and the avoidance of routine concomitant splenectomy have been developed to reduce the burden of surgical stress. The purpose of ongoing surgical research has been to achieve significant reductions in perioperative complications, length of hospital stays and the time between surgery and the beginning of adjuvant chemotherapy. Because a dedicated multidisciplinary team is crucial to pancreatic surgery, hospital and surgeon volumes have been confirmed to be associated with better outcomes in patients affected by benign, borderline, and malignant diseases of the pancreas. The purpose of this review is to examine the state of the art in distal pancreatectomies, with a special focus on minimally invasive approaches and oncological-directed techniques. The widespread reproducibility, cost-effectiveness and long-term results of each oncological procedure are also taken into deep consideration.

Initial 50 consecutive full-robotic pancreatoduodenectomies without conversion by a single surgeon: a learning curve analysis from a tertiary referral high-volume center

BACKGROUND

Several studies report on a learning curve for robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (R-PD) ranging between 20 and 80 operations, with conversion rates varying between 1.1 and 35%. However, as these publications mostly refer to initial robotic experiences and do not take into account the previous surgical background in pancreatic surgery (PS) and in robotic-assisted surgery (RAS), the center's volume, as well as the platform used, we aimed to perform a surgical outcomes analysis with a particular view to these aspects.

METHODS

Intraoperative and perioperative outcomes of the first 50 consecutive R-PD performed with the da Vinci Xi by the same surgeon, within a tertiary referral high-volume center, between January 2018 and March 2022, were analyzed. The surgeon was previously experienced in both PS and RAS. Shewhart control chart and cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis were used to evaluate the learning curve of R-PD.

RESULTS

All the operations were performed with a full-robotic technique, without any conversion to open surgery. Twenty of 50 patients (40%) had a BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2, while 24/50 (48%) had undergone previous abdominal surgery. Mean console time was 276.30 ± 31.16 min. The median post-operative length of hospital stay was 10 days, while 20/50 (40%) patients were discharged within post-operative day 8. Six patients (12%) had major complications (Clavien-Dindo grade 3 or above). There was no 30-day mortality. Shewhart control chart and CUSUM analysis did not show a significant learning curve during the study period.

CONCLUSIONS

An extensive prior experience in both PS and RAS, within a tertiary referral high-volume center with availability of the da Vinci Xi platform, can significantly flatten the learning curve and, therefore, enable safe performance of challenging operations, i.e., pancreatoduodenectomies with a minimally invasive approach, with very low risk of conversion to open surgery, even in the first 50 operations.

Robotic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy in elderly patients: a propensity score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is complex procedure with high morbidity in the elderly. This retrospective study aimed to compare post-operative outcomes in patients ≥75 years of age who underwent robot-assisted (RA)PD and open PD.

METHODS

We analyzed 2502 patients ≥75 years of age who underwent PD from 2015 to 2018 in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database. RAPD and open PD patients were propensity score matched 1:5 to assess the 30-day outcomes of interest: postoperative complications, length of stay, discharge destination, and readmissions.

RESULTS

Of 725 matched patients, 110 underwent RAPD, 615 OPD, and 12 were converted to an open operation. Post-operative outcomes were largely similar between cohorts. RAPD was associated a shorter length of stay (median 8 days, interquartile range [IQR] 6 to 11) than OPD (median 8 days, IQR 7 to 13) (p = 0.003). However, RAPD was associated with more readmissions (28.1% vs. 17.7%; p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

RAPD in patients ≥75 years of age appears to be safe and has a similar complication profile to open PD. Randomized or well-designed prospective matched studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Effect of Operative Time on Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Versus Open Pancreatoduodenectomy

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate how operative time interacts with outcomes among different approaches to pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). Minimally invasive PDs (MIPD), which include laparoscopic (LPD) and robotic (RPD) approaches, are increasingly performed in the USA. MIPD are generally associated with longer operative times (OT) compared to open PD (OPD). Increased OT is associated with inferior outcomes for OPD; however, the effect of OT on MIPD is not well understood.

METHODS

National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP)-targeted pancreatectomy dataset was utilized (2014-2019). Propensity score matching, logistic regression, and mixed effect modeling were performed to determine the effect of OT on outcomes following PD. OTs were stratified by quartiles for each approach, and outcomes were subsequently compared.

RESULTS

Among 23,988 PDs, 22,185 were OPD and 1803 MIPD. Increased OT was associated with greater overall morbidity in all approaches. When comparing OT quartiles, MIPD was consistently associated with improved overall morbidity compared to OPD in matched cohorts. However, for upper quartiles, prolonged OT in MIPD was associated with significantly increased reoperation rates and mortality. The effect of OT on overall morbidity and other outcomes was comparable among LPD and RPD.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, increased OT was associated with incremental increases in overall morbidity after PD, irrespective of approach. While MIPD was associated with improved overall morbidity compared to OPD when stratified by OT quartile, higher mortality rates were observed with prolonged OT only with MIPD. Those data suggest that MIPD is a safe alternative to OPD when OT is optimized. NSQIP was used to compare the effect of operative time (OT) on outcomes following pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD), stratified by approach. Increased OT was associated with inferior outcomes following open, laparoscopic, and robotic PD. Surgeons should attempt to optimize OT, regardless of the approach to PD.

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

Purposes

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Robotic Living Donor Right Hepatectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The introduction of robotics in living donor liver transplantation has been revolutionary. We aimed to examine the safety of robotic living donor right hepatectomy (RLDRH) compared to open (ODRH) and laparoscopic (LADRH) approaches. A systematic review was carried out in Medline and six additional databases following PRISMA guidelines. Data on morbidity, postoperative liver function, and pain in donors and recipients were extracted from studies comparing RLDRH, ODRH, and LADRH published up to September 2020; PROSPERO (CRD42020214313). Dichotomous variables were pooled as risk ratios and continuous variables as weighted mean differences. Four studies with a total of 517 patients were included. In living donors, the postoperative total bilirubin level (MD: −0.7 95%CI −1.0, −0.4), length of hospital stay (MD: −0.8 95%CI −1.4, −0.3), Clavien−Dindo complications I−II (RR: 0.5 95%CI 0.2, 0.9), and pain score at day > 3 (MD: −0.6 95%CI −1.6, 0.4) were lower following RLDRH compared to ODRH. Furthermore, the pain score at day > 3 (MD: −0.4 95%CI −0.8, −0.09) was lower after RLDRH when compared to LADRH. In recipients, the postoperative AST level was lower (MD: −0.5 95%CI −0.9, −0.1) following RLDRH compared to ODRH. Moreover, the length of stay (MD: −6.4 95%CI −11.3, −1.5) was lower after RLDRH when compared to LADRH. In summary, we identified low- to unclear-quality evidence that RLDRH seems to be safe and feasible for adult living donor liver transplantation compared to the conventional approaches. No postoperative deaths were reported.

Robot-assisted radical cholecystectomy for gallbladder cancer: A review

BACKGROUND

Radical cholecystectomy (RC) is recommended for Gallbladder cancer (GbC) patients with resectable T1b or higher stage. Traditionally, open RC is preferred over minimally invasive approach. Robotic surgery is increasingly gaining popularity and there are reports of robotic RC (RRC) for GbC. RRC is still new and mostly performed in high-volume centers with access to robotic technology.

AIM

This study aims to review the current literature on the safety and feasibility of RRC for GbC.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of RRC for GbC using PubMed and Embase until December 2020. The primary endpoint was major complications, while the secondary endpoints were conversion to open, R0 resection, and early recurrence.

RESULTS

Seven studies with 74 patients were included in the study. Overall, four patients (5.41%) required open conversion. Five out of 74 patients (6.76%) experienced post-operative complications. There was no post-operative mortality. Among the patients with surgical margins reported (n = 63), 61 patients had negative margins (96.8%) and only two patients had positive margins. Two-year survival outcomes were reported as 60.5-100%.

RELEVANCE FOR PATIENTS

This is the first review that summarizes the current evidence on RRC for GbC. The endpoints suggest that RRC is feasible and safe in selected patients and when done in experienced centers. Understanding the strengths and limitations of RRC compared to other established therapeutic options may potentially aid surgeons in formulating the optimal treatment plan for GbC patients.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Quality of Life Associated with Open vs Minimally Invasive Pancreaticoduodenectomy: A Prospective Pilot Study

BACKGROUND

This prospective study was designed to compare quality of life (QoL) among patients who underwent open (O-PD) vs minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MI-PD), using a combination of validated qualitative and quantitative methodologies.

STUDY DESIGN

From 2017 to 2019, patients scheduled for pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) were enrolled and presented with Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Hepatobiliary surveys preoperatively, before discharge, at first postoperative visit and approximately 3 to 4 months after operation ("3 months"). Longitudinal plots of median QoL scores were used to illustrate change in each score over time. In a subset of patients, content analysis of semistructured interviews at postoperative time points (1.5 to 6 months after operation) was conducted.

RESULTS

Among 56 patients who underwent PD, 33 had an O-PD (58.9%). Physical and functional scores decreased in the postoperative period but returned to baseline by 3 months. No significant differences were found in any domains of QoL at baseline and in the postoperative period between patients who underwent O-PD and MI-PD. Qualitative findings were concordant with quantitative data (n = 14). Patients with O-PD and MI-PD reported similar experiences with complications, pain, and wound healing in the postoperative period. Approximately half the patients in both groups reported "returning to normal" in the 6-month postoperative period. A total of 4 patients reported significant long-term issues with physical and functional well-being.

CONCLUSIONS

Using a novel combination of qualitative and quantitative analyses in patients undergoing PD, we found no association between operative approach and QoL in patients who underwent O-PD vs MI-PD. Given the increasing use of minimally invasive techniques for PD and the steep learning curve associated with these techniques, continued assessment of patient benefit is critical.

Empiric nasogastric decompression after pancreaticoduodenectomy is not necessary

BACKGROUND

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the impact of routine NGT decompression after PD on postoperative outcomes in the era of an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective review of all patients undergoing PD between January 2015 and October 2017 at our institution was performed comparing routine post-operative NGT decompression versus omission. The incidence of delayed gastric emptying, post-operative pancreatic fistula, hospital length of stay, operative time, 30-day readmission rate as well the time to first oral intake were evaluated.

RESULTS

Out of 149 patients who underwent PD, 65 maintained post-operative NGT decompression while post-operative NGT decompression was omitted in 84 patients. No differences were noted in delayed gastric emptying rates (both p>0.05). The median length of stay (9 days for NGT group versus 8.5 days for no NGT group) and 30-day readmission rates (13.8% versus 15.5%, respectively) were similar (p=0.781). Compared with patients who had routine post-operative NGT placed, those who had omission of a post-operative NGT had a lower need for reinsertion, shorter time to PO intake, and a lower likelihood of extended length of stay.

CONCLUSIONS

In the era of ERAS protocols, we observed no association between routine post-operative NGT decompression after PD and improved postoperative outcomes.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic head cancer and periampullary lesions

Pancreaticoduodenectomy, so-called "Whipple operation," is a time-consuming and technically demanding complex operation. Traditionally, this procedure has been performed most usually by open approach, which results in a large and painful wound. With the introduction of laparoscopic and robotic surgery, minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has emerged as a worldwide trend to improve wound cosmesis and to minimize wound pain. Although MIS for pancreaticoduodenectomy has also been attempted at some centers, the role of MIS, either robotic or laparoscopic approach, has not been well-established for complex pancreaticoduodenectomy. Given that laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy has been limited by its technical complexity and the high level of advanced laparoscopic skills required for pancreatic reconstruction, a robotic surgical system is introduced to overcome several limitations related to the laparoscopic approach. Providing high-quality three-dimensional (3-D) vision, high optical magnification, articulation of robotic instruments, greater precision with suture targeting, and elimination of surgeon tremor, robotic surgical systems innovatively perform more delicate and complex procedures involving extensive dissection and suturing techniques such as pancreaticoduodenectomy. Although associated with longer operative time, robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) has been claimed to have the benefits of less delayed gastric emptying, less blood loss, shorter length of postoperative stay, and lower wound infection rate, as compared with the traditional open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD). Moreover, RPD seems to be not only technically feasible but also justified without compromising the survival outcomes for pancreatic head and ampullary adenocarcinomas. Therefore, RPD could be recommended not only to surgeons but also to patients in terms of surgical feasibility, surgical outcomes, and patient satisfaction.

Outcomes of laparoscopic, robotic, and open pancreatoduodenectomy: A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and propensity-score matched studies

BACKGROUND

This network meta-analysis was performed to determine the optimal surgical approach for pancreatoduodenectomy by comparing outcomes after laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy, robotic pancreatoduodenectomy and open pancreatoduodenectomy.

METHODS

A systematic search of the PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science databases was conducted to identify eligible randomized controlled trials and propensity-score matched studies.

RESULTS

Four randomized controlled trials and 23 propensity-score matched studies comprising a total of 4,945 patients were included for analysis. Operation time for open pancreatoduodenectomy was shorter than both laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (mean difference -57.35, 95% CI 26.25-88.46 minutes) and robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (mean difference -91.08, 95% CI 48.61-133.56 minutes), blood loss for robotic pancreatoduodenectomy was significantly less than both laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (mean difference -112.58, 95% CI 36.95-118.20 mL) and open pancreatoduodenectomy (mean difference -209.87, 95% CI 140.39-279.36 mL), both robotic pancreatoduodenectomy and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy were associated with reduced rates of delayed gastric emptying compared with open pancreatoduodenectomy (odds ratio 0.59, 95% CI 0.39-0.90 and odds ratio 0.69, 95% CI 0.50-0.95, respectively), robotic pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with fewer wound infections compared with open pancreatoduodenectomy (odds ratio 0.35, 95% CI 0.18-0.71), and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy patients enjoyed significantly shorter length of stay compared with open pancreatoduodenectomy (odds ratio 0.43, 95% CI 0.28-0.95). There were no differences in other outcomes.

CONCLUSION

This network meta-analysis of high-quality studies suggests that when laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy and robotic pancreatoduodenectomy are performed in high-volume centers, short-term perioperative and oncologic outcomes are largely comparable, if not slightly improved, compared with traditional open pancreatoduodenectomy. These findings should be corroborated in further prospective randomized studies.

Short-term and long term morbidity in robotic pancreatic surgery: a systematic review

Background

Pancreatic cancer is one of the most aggressive and lethal tumours in Western society. Pancreatic surgery can be considered a challenge for open and laparoscopic surgeons, even if the accuracy of gland dissection, due to the close relationship between pancreas, the portal vein, and mesenteric vessels, besides the reconstructive phase (in pancreaticoduodenectomy), lead to significant difficulties for laparoscopic technique. Minimally invasive pancreatic surgery changed utterly with the development of robotic surgery. However, this review aims to make more clarity on the influence of robotic surgery on long-term morbidity.

Methods

A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Scopus to identify and analyze studies published from November 2011 to September 2020 concerning robotic pancreatic surgery. The following terms were used to perform the search: "long term morbidity robotic pancreatic surgery".

Results

Eighteen articles included in the study were published between November 2011 and September 2020. The review included 2041 patients who underwent robotic pancreatic surgery, mainly for a malignant tumour. The two most common robotic surgical procedures adopted were the robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) and the robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD). In two studies, patients were divided into groups; on the one hand, those who underwent a robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD), on the other hand, those who underwent robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP). The remaining items included surgical approach such as robotic middle pancreatectomy (RMP), robotic distal pancreatectomy and splenectomy, robotic-assisted laparoscopic pancreatic dissection (RALPD), robotic enucleation of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours.

Conclusions

Comparison between robotic surgery and open surgery lead to evidence of different advantages of the robotic approach. A multidisciplinary team and a surgical centre at high volume are essential for better postoperative morbidity and mortality.

Robotic-assisted Pancreaticoduodenectomy: Technique Description and Performance Evaluation After 60 Cases

PURPOSE

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) remains one of the most challenging abdominal operations. During the implementation of new surgical technologies, safety and efficacy outcomes must be rigorously monitored and the learning curve clearly identified.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The authors investigated their experience during the adoption of RPD, analyzing the outcomes of our first 60 consecutive cases, divided into group A (1 to 30) and group B (31 to 60). The cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis was used to define the learning curve.

RESULTS

The authors observed a reduction in operative time (125 min) and estimated blood loss (185 mL) between the firsts 1 to 30 and the latest 30 cases. The overall rate of complications showed the tendency to decrease during the experience (46.7% vs. 23.3%, P=0.02), conversely, severe complications and the rate of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula did not show a significant reduction in the incidence (P=0.37 and P=0.67, respectively). The mean number of lymph nodes harvested improved significantly after 30 cases (P=0.004).

CONCLUSION

Surgical performance improved significantly after the first 30 cases.

Cost Analysis of Pancreaticoduodenectomy at a High-Volume Robotic Hepatopancreaticobiliary Surgery Program

BACKGROUND

The robotic approach to pancreaticoduodenectomy is thought by many to be associated with increased financial burden for hospitals. We undertook this study to analyze and compare the cost of "open" pancreaticoduodenectomy with that associated with the application of the robotic surgical system to pancreaticoduodenectomy in our hepatobiliary program.

STUDY DESIGN

With IRB approval, all patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy at our institution, from August 2012 to November 2019, were prospectively followed. Cost, including total, variable, fixed-direct, fixed-indirect, and profitability for robotic and "open" pancreaticoduodenectomy were analyzed and compared. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD).

RESULTS

There were 386 patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy; 205 patients underwent robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy and 181 underwent "open" pancreaticoduodenectomy. Costs are presented as mean ± SD. Overall, the cost of care for robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy was $31,389 ($36,611 ± $20,545.40) vs $23,132 ($31,323 ± $28,885.50) for "open" pancreaticoduodenectomy (p = 0.04); total variable cost was $20,355 ($22,747 ± $11,127.60) vs $11,680 ($16,032 ± $14,817.20) (p = 0.01), total fixed direct cost was $1,999 ($2,330 ± $1,363.10) vs $2,073 ($2,983 ± $3,209.00) (p = 0.01), and total indirect cost was $7,217 ($9,354 ± $6,802.40) vs $6,802 ($9,505 ± $9,307.20) (p = 0.86), for robotic vs "open" pancreaticoduodenectomy, respectively. Since 2016, profitability was achieved in 29% of patients undergoing robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy had lower estimated blood loss and shorter length of stay. Cost of care for robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy was greater across all categories, except for total indirect cost, than "open" pancreaticoduodenectomy. For our institution, profitability was accomplished in less than one-third of patients undergoing robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. The role of the robotic platform for pancreaticoduodenectomy needs to be discussed among all stakeholders.

Current state of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery

The growth in minimally invasive pancreatic surgery (MIPS) has been accompanied by a recent surge in evidence-based data available to analyze patient outcomes. A small complement of randomized control trials as well as a multitude of observational studies have demonstrated both consistent similarities and differences between MIPS and the open approach, although abundant questions remain. This review highlights the available literature and emphasizes key factors for evaluating laparoscopic and robotic pancreatic surgery.

Analysis of pancreatic fistula risk in patients with laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy: what matters

Objective

To analyse potential risk factors for postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF).

Methods

A retrospective study on risk factors for POPF was conducted in patients undergoing laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy. Basic characteristics, and preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative patient data were collected and analysed.

Results

A total of 268 patients were enrolled in this study, including 54 patients with POPF following surgery (POPF incidence, 20.15%). Univariate analysis indicated that patient’s age, body mass index (BMI), preoperative bilirubin level, pancreas texture, and drainage fluid amylase level on day 1 following surgery were associated with POPF. Multiple logistic regression analysis indicated that preoperative bilirubin level ≥170 µmol/l, soft pancreas texture, BMI ≥25, and age ≥65 years were independent risk factors associated with POPF.

Conclusions

For patients with preoperative bilirubin level ≥170 µmol/l, soft pancreas texture, BMI ≥25 and age ≥65 years, clinically relevant measures should be taken as early as possible for the prophylaxis of POPF.

Assessment of learning curve and oncologic feasibility of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy: A propensity score-based comparison with open approach

BACKGROUND

Though robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy(R-PD) is gradually adopted, learning curve and its feasibility is still controversial. We analyzed our first 70 R-PD cases, comparing surgical outcomes and feasibility to those of open pancreaticoduodenectomy (O-PD).

METHODS

Medical records of 70 patients of R-PD and 269 patients of O-PD between 2015 and 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. Cumulative sum analysis was used to determine learning curve. Surgical outcomes were compared between early(1-35) and late cases(36-70). Additional analyses with O-PD using propensity score-matching were done.

RESULTS

Learning curve of R-PD completed after 30 cases. Shorter operative time, lower estimated blood loss, and shorter length of stay were noted in later cases. Complication rate tended to decrease over time. In comparison with O-PD after matching, R-PD showed longer operation time(414.5 minutes vs 244.7 minutes; P < .001), with no differences in estimated blood loss, or length of stay. While overall complication rate was higher in R-PD(45.5% vs 21.8%; P = .010), no statistically significant difference was observed in major complication rates(23.6% vs 10.9%; P = .084). R0 rate was equivalent.

CONCLUSION

Surgical performance of R-PD improved over time. Learning curve of R-PD completed after 30 cases. R-PD is a promising modality, based on comparison of perioperative and oncologic feasibilities to those of O-PD.

Use of barbed suture without fashioning the "classical" Wirsung-jejunostomy in a modified end-to-side robotic pancreatojejunostomy

Background

The treatment of the pancreatic stump is a critical step of pancreatoduodenectomy (PD). Robot-assisted surgery (RAS) can facilitate minimally invasive challenging abdominal procedures, including pancreatojejunostomy. However, one of the major limitations of RAS stems from its lack of tactile feedback that can lead to pancreatic parenchyma laceration during knot tying or during traction on the suture. Moreover, a Wirsung-jejunostomy is not always easy to execute, especially in cases with small diameter duct. Herein, we describe and video-report the technical details of a robotic modified end-to-side invaginated robotic pancreatojejunostomy (RmPJ) with the use of barbed suture instead of the “classical” Wirsung-jejunostomy.

Methods

The RmPJ technique consists of a double layer of absorbable monofilament running barbed suture (3–0 V-Loc), the outer layer is used to invaginate the pancreatic stump. Thereafter, a small enterotomy is made in the jejunum exactly opposite to the location of the pancreatic duct for stent insertion (usually 5 Fr) inside the duct. The internal layer provides a second barbed running suture placed between the pancreatic capsule/parenchyma and the jejunal seromuscular layer.

Results

A total of 14 patients underwent robotic PD with RmPJ at our Institution. The mean console time was (281.36 ± 31.50 min), while the mean operative time for fashioning the RmPJ was 37.31 ± 7.80 min. Ten out of 14 patients were discharged within postoperative day 8. No clinically relevant pancreatic fistulas were encountered, while two patients developed biochemical leaks.

Conclusions

RmPJ is feasible and reproducible irrespective of pancreatic duct size and parenchyma, and can enhance the surgical workflow of this operation. Specifically, the use of barbed sutures allows the exploitation of the potential advantages of the RAS, while minimizing the negative effect caused by the main disadvantage of the robotic approach, its absence of tactile feedback, by ensuring uniform tension on the continuous suture lines used, especially during the reconstructive phase of the operation.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00464-020-07991-w) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Multivisceral robotic resection: a glimpse into the future of minimally invasive abdominal surgery

A 62-year-old man was referred to the Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary (HPB) surgeons with left upper quadrant discomfort. The initial investigations and CT scans revealed a tumour in the pancreatic tail with liver metastases, confirmed on MRI. It was initially thought to be an adenocarcinoma; however, further investigations found that it was a grade 1 neuroendocrine tumour with Ki 67 at 1% and it was agreed that he would undergo a total robotic surgery involving resection of the locally advanced tumour of the tail of pancreas, with the involvement of the stomach, and splenic flexure of the colon with liver metastases. The resulting procedure was a total robotic distal pancreatectomy, splenectomy, sleeve resection of stomach, cholecystectomy, atypical resection of two liver lesions and microwave ablation of multiple liver lesions. Four days post-operatively, he was discharged from hospital and commenced adjuvant chemotherapy. He currently enjoys a good quality of life.

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy in the era of minimally invasive surgery

Minimally invasive surgery has become a worldwide trend to reduce the wound and mitigate pain. However, the role of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) has not been well established in the era of minimally invasive surgery. It would be nearly impossible to apply minimally invasive surgery in the tedious and complicated Whipple operation without an experienced and dedicated pancreas team. The pancreatic team led by Shyr YM and Wang SE at Taipei Veterans General Hospital have already been highly accredited with a Copper Award of Symbol of National Quality (SNQ award), entitled with "Minimally Invasive Robotic Pancreatic Surgery-Small Wound for Major Pancreatic Surgery" in Taiwan in 2019. RPD was claimed to be associated with less blood loss, less delayed gastric emptying, shorter length of postoperative stay, and lower wound infection rate, but longer operative time, as compared with the traditional open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD). More than 99% of the patients undergoing minimally invasive RPD are satisfied with the surgical outcomes and would like to recommend RPD to those with periampullary lesions. RPD could be recommended not only to surgeons but also to patients in terms of surgical outcomes and patient satisfaction. Moreover, our study showed a survival benefit for pancreatic head adenocarcinoma in RPD group, with 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year survival of 82.9%, 45.3%, and 26.8%, respectively, as compared with 63.8%, 26.2%, and 17.4% in OPD.

Open and Minimal Approaches to Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma

Surgical options and approaches to pancreatic cancer are changing in the current era. Neoadjuvant treatment strategies for pancreatic cancer combined with the increased use of minimal access surgical techniques mean that the modern pancreatic surgeon requires mastering a number of surgical approaches with to optimally manage patients. Whilst traditional open surgery remains the most frequent approach for surgery, the specific steps during surgery may need to be modified in light of the aforementioned neoadjuvant treatments. Robotic and laparoscopic approaches to pancreatic resection are feasible, but these surgical methods remain in their infancy. In this review article, we summarise the current surgical approaches to pancreatic cancer and how these are adapted to the minimal access setting with discussion of the patient outcome data.

Robotic Whipple for pancreatic ductal and ampullary adenocarcinoma: 10 years experience of a US single-center

BACKGROUND

There is currently ample consensus about the safety and feasibility of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD). However, few studies are available on the long-term oncological outcomes of this procedure. We present a long-term survival analysis (up to 10 years) of our series of RPD carried out for ductal and ampullary adenocarcinoma.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected approved database was carried out including 39 patients who underwent RPD for pancreatic ductal and ampullary adenocarcinomas.

RESULTS

The 5-year overall survival for ductal and ampullary carcinoma was 41% with an estimated median and mean survival of 27 and 52 months. The ampullary group had significantly longer 5-year survival (68%) than the ductal group (30%).

CONCLUSION

Our data show, within the limitations of their retrospective nature, that robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy provides similar short- and long-term survival outcomes compared to open technique in the treatment of pancreatic ductal and ampullary adenocarcinoma.

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy may offer improved oncologic outcomes over open surgery: a propensity-matched single-institution study

BACKGROUND

The robotic platform in pancreatic disease has gained popularity in the hepatobiliary community due to significant advantages it technically offers over conventional open and laparoscopic techniques. Despite promising initial studies, there remains scant literature on operative and oncologic outcomes of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) for pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

METHODS

A retrospective review evaluated all RPD performed for pancreatic adenocarcinoma from 2008 to 2019 in a single tertiary institution. RPD cases were matched to open cases (OPD) by demographic and oncologic characteristics and outcomes compared using Mann-Whitney U test, log rank tests, and Kaplan-Meier methods.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight RPD cases were matched to 38 OPD. RPD had significantly higher lymph node (LN) yield (21.5 vs 13.5; p = 0.0036) and no difference in operative time or estimated blood loss (EBL). RPD had significantly lower rate of delayed gastric emptying (DGE) (3% vs 32%; p = 0.0009) but no difference in leaks, infections, hemorrhage, urinary retention ,or ileus. RPD had significantly shorter length of stay (LOS) (7.5 vs. 9; p = 0.0209). There were no differences in 30- or 90-day readmissions or 90-day mortality. There was an equivalent R0 resection rate and LN positivity ratio. There was a trend towards improved median overall survival in RPD (30.4 vs. 23.0 months; p = 0.1105) and longer time to recurrence (402 vs. 284 days; p = 0.7471). OPD had two times the local recurrent rate (16% vs. 8%) but no difference in distant recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

While the feasibility and safety of RPD has been demonstrated, the impact on oncologic outcomes had yet to be investigated. We demonstrate that RPD not only offers similar if not superior immediate post-operative benefit by decreasing DGE but more importantly may offer improved oncologic outcomes. The significantly higher LN yield and decreased inflammatory response demonstrated in robotic surgery may improve overall survival.

Robotic radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (RAMPS) versus standard retrograde pancreatosplenectomy (SRPS): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Data from meta-analysis suggest that robotic radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (RAMPS) is a safe and effective procedure for treating adenocarcinoma in the body or tail of the pancreas, and is oncologically superior to standard retrograde pancreatosplenectomy (SRPS). RAMPS is an operation that actively expands the scope of resection, and achieves a higher R0 resection rate and lymph nodes acquisition through expanded resection. However, previous studies on RAMPS were conducted under open and laparoscopic surgery. Robotic surgery, on the other hand, plays a role in ergonomics and offers several advantages, including less fatigue, tremor filtering, 7° of wrist-like motion, motion scaling, and three-dimensional vision. At present, there is still a world-wide lack of clinical studies to observe the safety and clinical efficacy of robotic RAMPS. Hence, prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing robotic RAMPS and SRPS are required. We begin an RCT to compare short-term surgical and oncological outcomes of robotic RAMPS and SRPS in patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy.

Methods

This is a randomized, single-center clinical trial. All participants are adult patients with primary pancreatic cancer, who are undergoing RAMPS or SRPS. The primary endpoints are R0 rate (resection margins are classified by a margin to tumor distance ≥ 1 mm). The secondary endpoints are the number of harvested lymph nodes, perioperative complications and perioperative indicators (duration of surgery, blood loss, blood transfusion volume, costs).

Discussion

We are undertaking a prospective RCT to evaluate the surgical and oncological outcomes of robotic RAMPS. This procedure may become a standard approach to robotic pancreatosplenectomy.

Trial registration

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry: ChiCTR1900020833, Registered on 20 January 2019.

Making the Jump: A Qualitative Analysis on the Transition From Bedside Assistant to Console Surgeon in Robotic Surgery Training

OBJECTIVE

To determine barriers associated with the transition from bedside assistant to console surgeon for general surgery residents in the era of robotic surgery in general surgery training.

DESIGN

Qualitative thematic analysis using one-on-one interviews of general surgery residents and attendings conducted between June 2018 and February 2019.

SETTING

An urban, academic, multihospital general surgery residency program with a robust robotic surgery program.

PARTICIPANTS

Convenient and purposeful sampling was performed to ensure a variety of resident graduate-years and attending subspecialties were represented. Sample size was determined by data saturation, which occurred after 20 resident and 7 attending interviews.

RESULTS

Residents identified the low volume of general surgery robotic cases, the infrequency of exposure to robotic surgery, and attending comfort with robotic surgery (and with teaching on the robot) as potential barriers in the transition from bedside assistant to console surgeon. Residents had to find a replacement bedside assistant in order to be the console surgeon, which was challenging. In addition, residents felt that the current culture surrounding robotic surgery is very hierarchal, limiting their exposure. Attendings' trust in the residents' console skills was a major determining factor in allowing residents on the console.

CONCLUSIONS

Most robotic surgery education curricula are sequential, requiring the resident to progress from bedside assistant to console surgeon. Unfortunately, there are many potential barriers for residents in the transition from bedside assistant to console surgeon. Some barriers apply to general surgery training overall, but are amplified in robotic surgery, while others are unique to robotic surgery education. Recognition of, and rectifying, these barriers may increase resident participation as the console surgeon.

First experience of pancreaticoduodenectomy using Revo-i in a patient with insulinoma

Robotic surgery systems have been developed to overcome the limitations of laparoscopic surgery. Recently, Meerecompany Inc. in Korea successfully manufactured a robotic surgical system called Revo-i. A 65-year old woman was referred for a pancreatic head tumor, detected as an incidental finding during a routine check-up. Contrast abdominopelvic CT revealed a pancreatic uncinate tumor measuring around 13 mm in diameter, with no other focal lesions. The patient underwent a robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (laparoscopic resection and robotic reconstruction) using Revo-i. The patient's recovery was uneventful and discharged on postoperative day 7. Our case showed the technical feasibility of the Korean robotic surgical system Revo-i. Further experiences are mandatory to validate this finding.

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.

Educational step-by-step surgical video about operative technique in robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) at University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC): 17 steps standardized technique-Lessons learned since the first worldwide RPD performed in the year 2001

Background

RPD (Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy) was first performed by P. C. Giulianotti in 2001 (Arch Surg 138(7):777–784, 2003). Since then, the complexity and lack of technique standardization has slowed down its widespread utilization. RPD has been increasingly adopted worldwide and in few centres is the preferred apporached approach by certain surgeons. Some large retrospective series are available and data seem to indicate that RPD is safe/feasible, and a valid alternative to the classic open Whipple. Our group has recently described a standardized 17 steps approach to RPD (Giulianotti et al. Surg Endosc 32(10): 4329–4336, 2018). Herin, we present an educational step-by-step surgical video with short technical/operative description to visually exemplify the RPD 17 steps technique.

Methods

The current project has been approved by our local Institutional Review Board (IRB). We edited a step-by-step video guidance of our RPD standardized technique. The data/video images were collected from a retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database (IRB approved). The narration and the images describe hands-on operative “tips and tricks” to facilitate the learning/teaching/evaluation process.

Results

Each of the 17 surgical steps is visually represented and explained to help the in-depth understanding of the relevant surgical anatomy and the specific operative technique.

Conclusions

Educational videos descriptions like the one herein presented are a valid learning/teaching tool to implement standardized surgical approaches. Standardization is a crucial component of the learning curve. This approach can create more objective and reproducible data which might be more reliably assessed/compared across institutions and by different surgeons. Promising results are arising from several centers about RPD. However, RPD as gold standard-approach is still a matter of debate. Randomized-controlled studies (RCT) are required to better validate the precise role of RPD.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00464-020-07383-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Robotic resection of a giant retroperitoneal leiomyosarcoma: A case report

The management of abdominal leiomyosarcoma is challenging. Surgical excision is considered the only effective treatment; however, this is associated with considerable morbidity. Robotic surgery has emerged during the past decades and has enhanced the general surgery armamentarium, allowing surgeons to carry out demanding operations in a safe manner. The surgical resection of retroperitoneal leiomyosarcoma (RPLM) can be associated with significant morbidity, which is primarily due to the origin or the close proximity of the tumor with important vascular structures, including the inferior vena cava and tributaries, the duodenum and the ureter. The present case describes the first case of robotic resection of RPLM in a high-volume robotic center. In the present case, a large RPLM was safely removed with respect to oncological principles with the use of the Da Vinci platform.

Expectations of Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Fellows; Do We Meet Them?

OBJECTIVE

There are 16 accredited hepatopancreatobiliary (HPB) fellowships in North America. The purpose of this study is to portray the expectations of the incoming HPB fellows about their training and its implication on their career.

DESIGN

A 29-questions survey was sent out to all HPB fellows starting in August 2017. The survey was divided in 3 sections depicting background, in-training and postfellowship expectations. Descriptive statistics were generated for aggregate survey responses.

SETTING

This study was performed through an online questionnaire that was sent to the participants via e-mail. The answers were processed in our offices in Methodist Richardson Medical Center, in Richardson, Texas which is a private tertiary medical center part of the Methodist Health System.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants were all incoming HPB Fellows (In HPB fellowship programs accredited by the Fellowship Council) starting their fellowship in August 2017.

RESULTS

We had a 94% response rate. Forty-six percent of fellows anticipate doing about 150 to 250 HPB cases during the fellowship, and all 15 fellows anticipate having at least 1 publication during fellowship. Despite that >90% of fellows believe that minimally invasive surgery (MIS) approaches will be more frequently utilized in HPB surgery, only 3/15 anticipate being able to apply MIS techniques and only 54% will be robotically trained. Interestingly the majority of fellows believe that the attending should be performing the case the first few months.

CONCLUSION

The trainees believe that case volume is the most important factor for choosing a fellowship and for adequate training. Most of the fellows anticipate doing adequate number of cases but only the minority feels they will be adequately trained in MIS-robotic techniques.

Operative results and patient satisfaction after robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

There are no reports available on patient satisfaction and quality-of-life after robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD). This study aimed to evaluate not only surgical outcomes but also patient satisfaction after RPD.

METHODS

Prospectively collected data for RPD were analyzed for surgical outcomes. Questionnaires were sent to patients to assess patient satisfaction regarding RPD.

RESULTS

The study included 105 patients who underwent RPD, with 44 (41.9%) patients presenting with associated surgical complications. There were no significant differences between the without and with complication groups in median console time (390 min. Vs. 373 min.), blood loss (100 mL vs. 100 mL), and harvested lymph node number (14 vs. 15). There was no surgical mortality in this study. Major complications ≥ Clavien-Dindo III occurred in 7.6% of the total 105 RPD patients. The most common complication was chyle leakage (18.1%), followed by postoperative pancreatic fistula (5.7%), intra-abdominal abscess (4.8%), delayed gastric emptying (3.8%), and post pancreatectomy hemorrhage (3.8%). Almost all of the patients responded to this RPD-related survey with "fair" to "excellent" grades for all items, except 1 (<1%) poor grade for operation service and 2 (1.9%) "not good" grades for diet tolerance.

CONCLUSIONS

RPD is a feasible procedure with acceptable surgical outcomes. This patient survey with high patient satisfaction rates indicates that RPD provides acceptable satisfaction results, and the robotic approach for a major operation such as RPD has probably a higher priority than cost concerns. RPD could be recommended not only to surgeons but also to patients in terms of surgical outcomes and patient satisfaction.

First experience with robotic pancreatoduodenectomy in Singapore

INTRODUCTION

Recent studies reported that laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) is associated with superior perioperative outcomes compared to the open approach. However, concerns have been raised about the safety of LPD, especially during the learning phase. Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) has been reported to be associated with a shorter learning curve compared to LPD. We herein present our initial experience with RPD.

METHODS

A retrospective review of a single-institution prospective robotic hepatopancreaticobiliary (HPB) surgery database of 70 patients identified seven consecutive RPDs performed by a single surgeon in 2016-2017. These were matched at a 1:2 ratio with 14 open pancreatoduodenectomies (OPDs) selected from 77 consecutive pancreatoduodenectomies performed by the same surgeon between 2011 and 2017.

RESULTS

Seven patients underwent RPD, of which five were hybrid procedures with open reconstruction. There were no open conversions. Median operative time was 710.0 (range 560.0-930.0) minutes. Two major morbidities (> Grade 2) occurred: one gastrojejunostomy bleed requiring endoscopic haemostasis and one delayed gastric emptying requiring feeding tube placement. There were no pancreatic fistulas, reoperations or 90-day/in-hospital mortalities in the RPD group. Comparison between RPD and OPD demonstrated that RPD was associated with a significantly longer operative time. Compared to open surgery, there was no significant difference in estimated blood loss, blood transfusion, postoperative stay, pancreatic fistula rates, morbidity and mortality rates, R0 resection rates, and lymph node harvest rates.

CONCLUSION

Our initial experience demonstrates that RPD is feasible and safe in selected patients. It can be safely adopted without any compromise in patient outcomes compared to the open approach.

Retrocolic versus antecolic gastrointestinal reconstruction in robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

With the advancement of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD), several reconstruction methods have been advocated to make RPD more effective and safer. In this study, we investigated the safety and effectiveness of RPD using a left retrocolic (L-port) technique and compared it with those of RPD using an antecolic technique.

METHODS

Between October 2015 and August 2016, we retrospectively reviewed consecutive cases of RPD before and after introducing the L-port technique for gastrointestinal reconstruction. The L-port technique was mainly performed for retrocolic gastrojejunal reconstruction and some cases of duodenojejunal reconstruction. The perioperative and postoperative outcomes were compared in the two groups.

RESULTS

Eighty-three cases of RPD were retrieved for statistical analysis. Compared with the antecolic group, the L-port group was significantly associated with a shorter operative time (median time [IQR] 345 [307-384] min vs. 390 [370-455] min, P < 0.001), reconstruction time (54 [48-59] min vs. 84 [75-98] min, P < 0.001) and lower incidence of delayed gastric emptying. There were no cases of re-operation due to internal herniation, colonic ischemia, or bowel volvulus in the L-port group during the 1-year follow-up period.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results demonstrated that the L-port technique of RPD is a safe and feasible technique for gastrointestinal reconstruction.

Robotic Totally Endoscopic Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: Systematic Review of Clinical Outcomes from the Past two Decades

Robotic totally endoscopic coronary artery bypass grafting (TECAB) was introduced in 1998 and has over a period of two decades gradually emerged from single-vessel revascularization to multivessel bypass grafting. Dedicated centers have continuously evolved and further developed this minimally invasive method of coronary bypass surgery. A literature review was conducted to assess intra- and postoperative outcomes of TECAB. PubMed returned 19 comprehensive articles on TECAB. Investigation was focused on perioperative outcome parameters, i.e.: operative time, conversion to larger incision, revision for bleeding, atrial fibrillation, stroke, acute renal failure, and mortality. Outcome from the analysis of 2,397 reported cases showed an average operative time of 291 ± 57 minutes (range 112 to 1,050), conversion rate to larger incisions at 11.5%, and perioperative mortality at 0.8%. Pooled data demonstrated 4.2% operative revision rate due to postoperative hemorrhage, 1.0% stroke incidence, 1.6% acute renal failure, and 13.3% de novo atrial fibrillation. The mean length of hospital stay measured 5.8 ± 1.7 days. Conversion rates and operative times decreased over time. According to data in the literature, coronary bypass surgery carried out in completely endoscopic fashion utilizing robotic assistance can require relatively extensive operative times and conversion rates are somewhat higher than in other robotic cardiac surgery. However, major postoperative events lie in an acceptable range. TECAB remains the surgical revascularization method with the least tissue trauma and represents an opportunity for coronary artery bypass grafting via port access. Rates of major complications are at least similar to conventional surgical access procedures.