Trans-gastric pancreaticogastrostomy reconstruction after pylorus-preserving robotic Whipple: a proposal for a standardized technique

Rationale and tips and tricks for transgastric robotic pancreaticogastrostomy by the double purse-string technique

Pancreaticogastrostomy (PG) is a viable option for selected patients needing a pancreatic anastomosis. The double purse-string technique can facilitate the construction of transgastric PG but in a minimally invasive approach can lead to complications due to lack of tactile feedback. We present an adaptation of double purse-string PG for the robotic surgery, with several modifications. Firstly, the inner purse-string suture is tied through the anterior gastrotomy to improve the approximation of gastric and pancreatic serosae. Secondly, all-around-the-clock intragastric interrupted mattress sutures of e-PTFE are used to secure the pancreatic remnant to the stomach, enhancing improve hemostasis. Thirdly, e-PTFE sutures precise tension calibration due to their elastic properties and resistance to robotic manipulation. Fourthly, retroperitoneal vessels are preemptively covered by passing the pancreatic remnant through a small opening in the omentum, which is rotated upward in the omental bursa. This technique was employed in 20 PGs with no grade C postoperative pancreatic fistula. It offers a viable option robotic pancreatic anastomosis.

[Anastomotic techniques in minimally invasive hepatobiliopancreatic surgery]

The established anastomotic techniques conventionally used in open surgery are increasingly being implemented in a minimally invasive approach and further developed. The aim of all innovations is to carry out a safe anastomosis with a feasible minimally invasive technique; however, there is currently no broad consensus about the role of laparoscopic and robotic surgery in performing pancreatic anastomotic techniques. Pancreatic fistulas determine the morbidity following a minimally invasive resection. The simultaneous minimally invasive resection and reconstruction of pancreatic processes and vascular structures is currently exclusively performed in specialized centers.

Challenges of single-stage pancreatoduodenectomy: how to address pancreatogastrostomies with robotic-assisted surgery

INTRODUCTION

Establishing a sufficient pancreatico-enteric anastomosis remains one of the most important challenges in open single stage pancreatoduodenectomy as they are associated with persisting morbidity and mortality. Applicability on a robotic-assisted approach, however, even increases the requirements. With this analysis we introduce a dorsal-incision-only invagination type pancreatogastrostomy (dioPG) to the field of robotic assistance having been previously proven feasible in the field of open pancreatoduodenectomy and compare initial results to the open approach by means of morbidity and mortality.

METHODS

An overall of 142 consecutive patients undergoing reconstruction via the novel dioPG, 38 of them in a robotic-assisted and 104 in an open approach, was identified and further reviewed for perioperative parameters, complications and mortality.

RESULTS

We observed a comparable R0-resection rate (p = 0.448), overall complication rate (p = 0.52) and 30-day mortality (p = 0.71) in both groups. Rates of common complications, such as postoperative pancreatic fistula (p = 0.332), postoperative pancreatic hemorrhage (p = 0.242), insufficiency of pancreatogastrostomy (p = 0.103), insufficiency of hepaticojejunostomy (p = 0.445) and the re-operation rate (p = 0.103) were comparable. The procedure time for the open approach was significantly shorter compared to the robotic-assisted approach (p = 0.024).

DISCUSSION

The provided anastomosis appeared applicable to a robotic-assisted setting resulting in comparable complication and mortality rates when compared to an open approach. Nevertheless, also in the field of robotic assistance establishing a predictable pancreatico-enteric anastomosis remains the most challenging aspect of modern single-stage pancreatoduodenectomy and requires expertise and experience.

Rate of Post-Operative Pancreatic Fistula after Robotic-Assisted Pancreaticoduodenectomy with Pancreato-Jejunostomy versus Pancreato-Gastrostomy: A Retrospective Case Matched Comparative Study

BACKGROUND

Different techniques of pancreatic anastomosis have been described, with inconclusive results in terms of pancreatic fistula reduction. Studies comparing robotic pancreaticogastrostomy (PG) and pancreaticojejunostomy (PJ) are scarcely reported.

METHODS

The present study analyzes the outcomes of two case-matched groups of patients who underwent PG (n = 20) or PJ (n = 40) after pancreaticoduodenectomy. The primary aim was to compare the rate of post-operative pancreatic fistula.

RESULTS

Operative time (375 vs. 315 min, p = 0.34), estimated blood loss (270 vs. 295 mL, p = 0.44), and rate of clinically relevant post-operative pancreatic fistula (12.5% vs. 10%, p = 0.82) were similar between the two groups. PJ was associated with a higher rate of intra-abdominal collections (7.5% vs. 0%, p = 0.002), but lower post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage (2.5% vs. 10%, p = 0.003). PG was associated with a lower rate of post-operative pancreatic fistula (POPF) (33.3% vs. 50%, p = 0.003) in the high-risk group of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The outcomes of post-operative pancreatic fistula are comparable between the two reconstruction techniques. PG may have a lower incidence of POPF in patients with high-risk of pancreatic fistula.

Implementation of Robotic Assistance in Pancreatic Surgery: Experiences from the First 101 Consecutive Cases

Robotic assisted minimally invasive surgery has been implemented to overcome typical limitations of conventional laparoscopy such as lack of angulation, especially during creation of biliary and pancreatic anastomoses. With this retrospective analysis, we provide our experience with the first 101 consecutive robotic pancreatic resection performed at our center. Distal pancreatectomies (RDP, N = 44), total pancreatectomies (RTP, N = 3) and pancreaticoduodenectomies (RPD, N = 54) were included. Malignancy was found in 45.5% (RDP), 66.7% (RTP) and 61% (RPD). Procedure times decreased from the first to the second half of the cohort for RDP (218 min vs. 128 min, p = 0.02) and RPD (378 min vs. 271 min, p < 0.001). Overall complication rate was 63%, 33% and 66% for RPD, RPT and RDP, respectively. Reintervention and reoperation rates were 41% and 17% (RPD), 33% and 0% (RTP) and 50% and 11.4% (RPD), respectively. The thirty-day mortality rate was 5.6% for RPD and nil for RTP and RDP. Overall complication rate remained stable throughout the study period. In this series, implementation of robotic pancreas surgery was safe and feasible. Final evaluation of the anastomoses through the median retrieval incision compensated for the lack of haptic feedback during reconstruction and allowed for secure minimally invasive resection and reconstruction.

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.

Robot-Assisted Pancreatic Surgery: A Structured Approach to Standardization of a Program and of the Operation

Introduction

The use of robots in minimal invasive surgery has become increasingly common in recent years. Robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy preponderates against a laparoscopic procedure especially due to the greater flexibility of instruments and therefore a better handling and a better angulation. Furthermore, there are benefits of enlarged 3-D visibility, software-based tremor control, and reduced physical exertion of the surgeon.

Methods and Results

This review delivers a point-by-point approach to the setup of a robot-assisted pancreatic program and a detailed approach to robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy.

Results

In our standardized standard operating procedure approach we use 5 trocars, i.e., 4 robotic trocars and 1 assist trocar. We prefer the position of the robot ports in a straight horizontal line with a distance of 20 cm from the operational field. The operation is dissected into 11 standardized procedural steps as follows: (1) access to the pancreas and visualization, (2) extended Kocher manoeuvre, (3) lower rim and mesentericoportal axis, (4) upper rim and hepatoduodenal ligament, (5) dissection of the pancreatic neck, (6) mesenteric root and pars IV duodeni, (7) mesopancreas, (8) pancreatic anastomosis reconstruction, (9) bilioenteric anastomosis, (10) dudenojejunal anastomosis, and (11) drainage and closure. The setup of the pancreas program and the structured approach to complex pancreatic resections are elucidated.

Summary

This review describes the approach to robot-assisted pancreatic surgery in a high-volume pancreas center on a structural and procedural level to support the establishment of such programs at other locations.

Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) offers theoretical advantages to conventional laparoscopic surgery including improved instrument dexterity, 3D visualization and better ergonomics. This review aimed to determine if these theoretical advantages translate into improved patient outcomes comparing patients having either robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy or laparoscopic (LPD) equivalent.

METHOD

A systematic literature search was conducted for studies reporting minimally invasive surgery for pancreaticoduodenectomy either robotic assisted or totally laparoscopic. Meta-analysis of intra-operative (blood loss, operating times, conversion and R0 resections) and postoperative outcomes (overall complications, pancreatic fistula, length of hospital stay) was performed using a random effects model.

RESULT

This review identified 44 studies, of which six were non-randomised comparative studies including 3462 patients (1025 robotic and 2437 laparoscopic). Intraoperatively, RPD was associated with significantly lower conversion rates (OR 0.45, p < 0.001) and transfusion rates (OR: 0.60, p = 0.002) compared to LPD. However, no significant difference in blood loss (mean: 220 vs 287 mL, p = 0.1), operating time (mean: 405 vs 418 min, p = 0.3) was noted. Postoperatively RPD was associated with a shorter hospital stay (mean: 12 vs 11 days, p < 0.001) but no significant difference was noted in postoperative complications, incidence of pancreatic fistulae and R0 resection rates.

CONCLUSION

RPD appears to offer some advantages compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery, although both approaches appear to offer equivalent clinical outcomes. Importantly, the quality of evidence is generally limited to cohort studies and a high-quality randomised trial comparing both techniques is needed.

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.

Robotic Double Purse-String Telescoped Pancreaticogastrostomy: How I Do It

INTRODUCTION

Some articles have recently shown that robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is feasible and can be a safe method. On the other hand, pancreatic fistulas (PF) remain the most dreaded complication after PD, and a secured pancreaticoenteric reconstruction may be essential in this regard. Previous articles have highlighted the usefulness of telescoped pancreaticogastrostomy (PG) in open PD to reduce the risk of postoperative PF. Additionally, in 2016, Addeo et al. described a double purse-string telescoped PG (DPS-PG), simplified from previous techniques, with favorable short-term results.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The attached video reports our standardized technique for robotic DPS-PG, which is based on Addeo's approach. The main characteristic of this technique is an easy placement of two seromuscular purse-string sutures without the need for gastric wall dissection or deep pancreatic parenchymal sutures. We modified and developed Addeo's technique to suit the robotic PD. In our robotic DPS-PG, there is no need to perform the opening of the distal gastric stump, the anterior gastrostomy, or the suture fixation of the pancreatic parenchyma to the stomach, as it could lead to a rupture of the pancreas, particularly when the parenchyma is soft.

RESULTS

We consider that our technique of robotic DPS-PG might be feasible and can be safely performed, just as a previously described technique in open surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Further evaluation with clinical trials is required to validate its real benefits.