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

Robotic Pancreatoduodenectomy: Increasing Complexity and Decreasing Complications with Experience: Single-Center Results from 150 Consecutive Patients

BACKGROUND

This report describes the authors' experience with 150 consecutive robotic pancreatoduodenectomies.

METHODS

The study enrolled 150 consecutive patients who underwent robotic pancreatoduodenectomy between 2018 and 2023. Pre- and intraoperative variables such as age, gender, indication, operation time, diagnosis, and tumor size were analyzed. The patients were divided into two groups. Group 1 comprised the first 75 patients, and group 2 comprised the last 75 cases. The median age of the patients was 62.4 years and did not differ between the two groups.

RESULTS

Morbidity was lower in group 2. The mortality rate was 0.7% at 30 days and 1.3% at 90 days, and there was no difference between the groups. There was a significant reduction (p < 0.05) in operative time, resection time, reconstruction time, and conversion to open surgery in group 2. Partial resection of the portal vein was performed in 17 patients and more common in group 2 (p < 0.01). The number of resected lymph nodes was higher in group 2. The indication for pancreatoduodenectomy did not differ between the two groups. There was no difference in tumor size or clinical characteristics of the patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The robotic platform is useful for pancreatoduodenectomy, facilitates adequate lymphadenectomy, and is helpful for digestive tract reconstruction after resection. Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy is safe and feasible for selected patients. It should be performed in specialized centers by surgeons experienced in open and minimally invasive pancreatic surgery.

Robotic versus open partial pancreatoduodenectomy (EUROPA): a randomised controlled stage 2b trial

Background

Open partial pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) represents the current gold standard of surgical treatment of a wide range of diseases of the pancreatic head but is associated with morbidity in around 40% of cases. Robotic partial pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) is being used increasingly, yet, no randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of RPD versus OPD have been published, leaving a low level of evidence to support this practice.

Methods

This investigator-initiated, exploratory RCT with two parallel study arms was conducted at a high-volume pancreatic centre in line with IDEAL recommendations (stage 2b). Patients scheduled for elective partial pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) for any indication were randomised (1:1) to RPD or OPD with a centralised web-based tool. The primary endpoint was postoperative cumulative morbidity within 90 days, assessed via the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI). Biometricians were blinded to the intervention, but patients and surgeons were not. The trial was registered prospectively (DRKS00020407).

Findings

Between June 3, 2020 and February 14, 2022, 81 patients were randomly assigned to RPD (n = 41) or OPD (n = 40), of whom 62 patients (RPD: n = 29, OPD: n = 33) were analysed in the modified intention to treat analysis. Four patients in the OPD group were randomised, but did not undergo surgery in our department and one patient was excluded in the RPD group due to other reason. Nine patients in the RPD group and 3 patients in the OPD were excluded from the primary analysis because they did not undergo PD, but rather underwent other types of surgery. The CCI after 90 days was comparable between groups (RPD: 34.02 ± 23.48 versus OPD: 36.45 ± 27.65, difference in means [95% CI]: -2.42 [-15.55; 10.71], p = 0.713). The RPD group had a higher incidence of grade B/C pancreas-specific complications compared to the OPD group (17 (58.6%) versus 11 (33.3%); difference in rates [95% CI]: 25.3% [1.2%; 49.4%], p = 0.046). The only complication that occurred significantly more often in the RPD than in the OPD group was clinically relevant delayed gastric emptying. Procedure-related and overall hospital costs were significantly higher and duration of surgery was longer in the RPD group. Blood loss did not differ significantly between groups. The intraoperative conversion rate of RPD was 23%. Overall 90-day mortality was 4.8% without significant differences between RPD and OPD.

Interpretation

In the setting of a very high-volume centre, both RPD and OPD can be considered safe techniques. Further confirmatory multicentre RCTs are warranted to uncover potential advantages of RPD in terms of perioperative and long-term outcomes.

Funding

Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF: 01KG2010).

What are the true benefits of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy for patients with pancreatic cancer?

INTRODUCTION

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is a devastating disease, and multimodal treatment including high-quality surgery can improve survival outcomes. Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) has evolved with minimally invasive approaches including the implementation of robotic PD (RPD). In this special report, we review the literature whilst evaluating the 'true benefits' of RPD compared to open approach for the treatment of PDAC.

AREAS COVERED

We have performed a mini-review of studies assessing PD approaches and compared intraoperative characteristics, perioperative outcomes, post-operative complications and oncological outcomes.

EXPERT OPINION

RPD was associated with similar or longer operative times, and reduced intra-operative blood loss. Perioperative pain scores were significantly lower with shorter lengths of stay with the robotic approach. With regards to post-operative complications, post-operative pancreatic fistula rates were similar, with lower rates of clinically relevant fistulas after RPD. Oncological outcomes were comparable or superior in terms of margin status, lymph node harvest, time to chemotherapy and survival between RPD and OPD. In conclusion, RPD allows safe implementation of minimally invasive PD. The current literature shows that RPD is either equivalent, or superior in certain aspects to OPD. Once more centers gain sufficient experience, RPD is likely to demonstrate clear superiority over alternative approaches.

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.

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

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

Reappraisal of surgical and survival outcomes of 500 consecutive cases of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

The role of the robotic approach for pancreaticoduodenectomy has not been well established with robust data. This study aimed to reappraise feasibility and justification of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) over time.

METHODS

A total of 500 patients undergoing RPD were enrolled and divided into early (first 250 patients) and late (last 250 patients) groups for a comparative study.

RESULTS

The conversion rate was 8.8% overall and was significantly lower in the late group (5.6% vs. 12.0%; p = .012). The overall median intraoperative blood loss was 130 mL. Radicality of resection was similar between early and late groups. The overall surgical mortality after RPD was 1.3%. The overall surgical morbidity and major complication was 44.1% and 13.2%, respectively, and similar between early and late groups. Chyle leakage was the most common complication after RPD (25.0%), followed by postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF). The POPF rate was 8.6% overall, with 5.9% in the early group and 11.0% in the late group, p = .051. The overall delayed gastric emptying rate was 3.5%. The late group had better survival outcomes than those of the early group after RPD for ampullary adenocarcinoma (p = .027) but not for pancreatic head adenocarcinoma.

CONCLUSIONS

Reappraisal of this study has confirmed that RPD is not only technically feasible without increasing surgical risks but also oncologically justified without compromising survival outcomes for both pancreatic head and other periampullary cancers over time. Moreover, RPD is associated with the benefits of low surgical mortality, blood loss, and delayed gastric emptying.

Prince and princesses: The current status of robotic surgery in surgical oncology

Robotic surgery has experienced a dramatic increase in utilization across general surgery over the last two decades, including in surgical oncology. Although urologists and gynecologists were the first to show that this technology could be utilized in cancer surgery, the robot is now a powerful tool in the treatment of gastrointestinal, hepato-pancreatico-biliary, colorectal, endocrine, and soft tissue malignancies. While long-term outcomes are still pending, short-term outcomes have showed promise for this technologic advancement of cancer surgery.

Expanding the utility of robotics for pancreaticoduodenectomy: a 10-year review and comparison to international benchmarks in pancreatic surgery

BACKGROUND

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) is an emerging alternative to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD). Although RPD offers various theoretical advantages, it is used in less than 10% of all pancreaticoduodenectomies. The aim of this study was to report our 10-year experience and compare RPD outcomes with international benchmarks for OPD.

METHODS

A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained institutional database was performed of consecutive patients who underwent RPD between January 2011 and December 2021. Patients were categorized into low-risk and high-risk groups according to the selection criteria set by the benchmark study. Their outcomes were compared to the international benchmark cut off values. Outcomes were then evaluated over time to identify improvements in practice and establish a learning curve.

RESULTS

Of 201 RPDs, 36 were low-risk and 165 high-risk patients. Compared to the OPD benchmarks, outcomes of low-risk patients were within the cutoff values. High-risk patients were outside the cutoff for blood transfusions (26% vs. ≤ 23%), overall complications (78% vs. ≤ 73%), grade I-II complications (68% vs. ≤ 62%), and readmissions (22% vs ≤ 21%). Oncologic outcomes for high-risk patients were within benchmark cutoffs. Cases at the end of the learning curve included more pancreatic cancer (42% from 17%) and fewer low-risk patients (10% from 24%) than those at the beginning. After 41 RPD there was a decline in conversion rates and operative time. Between 95 and 143 cases operative time, transfusion rates, and LOS declined significantly. Complications did not differ over time.

CONCLUSION

RPD yields results comparable to the established benchmarks in OPD in both low- and high-risk patients. Along the learning curve, RPD evolved with the inclusion of more high-risk cases while outcomes remained within benchmarks. Addition of a robotic HPB surgery fellowship did not compromise outcomes. These results suggest that RPD may be an option for high-risk patients at specialized centers.

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.

Comparative analysis of opioid use between robotic and open pancreatoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Risk-stratified pancreatectomy clinical pathways using regional anesthesia and multimodality analgesia have decreased overall opioid use, but the additional benefits of robotic surgery in opioid reduction for pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) are unknown. We compared the inpatient opioid use between robotic PD and open PD.

METHODS

Patients undergoing open PD within a protocol evaluating preincisional regional anesthetic block bundles were compared to consecutively-treated patients undergoing robotic PD identified from a prospectively maintained single-institutional database. Clinical characteristics, operative outcomes, pain scores and inpatient oral morphine equivalent (OME) use were compared between patients treated with robotic or open PD. Patients with a history of continuous-release opioid dependence were excluded.

RESULTS

Of 114 total patients, 25 underwent robotic PD and 89 underwent open PD. Intraoperative opioid use was not different (P = .87), nor were cumulative pain scores. Robotic PD patients used significantly fewer OMEs per day on postoperative days 1-4 (P = .039), used fewer total OMEs during hospitalization (robotic: median = 79, IQR 42.5-141; open: median = 126, IQR 61.3-203.8; P = .0036) and were discharged with fewer OMEs (robotic: median = 0, IQR 0-43.8; open: median = 25, IQR 0-75; P = .009) despite a shorter length of stay (robotic: median = 4, open: median = 5, P = .002).

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic PD patients required fewer inpatient OMEs than open PD while maintaining similar pain scores. A higher percentage of robotic PD patients tapered off of opioids prior to discharge than open surgery patients treated with a standardized opioid reduction protocol despite a shorter length of stay. These results provide a rationale for choosing robotic PD when feasible to minimize opioid use.

Pancreaticoduodenectomy for benign and premalignant pancreatic and ampullary disease: is robotic surgery the better approach?

BACKGROUND

The robotic platform is increasingly being utilized in pancreatic surgery, yet its overall merits and putative advantages remain to be adjudicated. We hypothesize that the benefits of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery are maximized in pancreatic benign and premalignant disease, in the setting of friable pancreatic tissue and small pancreatic duct.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of our prospectively maintained pancreatic database of all consecutive patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) for benign or premalignant conditions between 2010 and 2020. Peri-operative outcomes and long-term complications were compared between robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD).

RESULTS

One hundred and eighty eight (n = 188) patients met our inclusion criteria, of which 68 were OPD and 120 RPD. Malignant histologies were excluded. There were only minor differences in baseline characteristics between the two groups. Post-operative merits of the RPD included lower clinically relevant post-operative pancreatic fistula 10 (8.3%) vs 24 (35.3%), p < 0.001, fewer surgical site infections; 9 (7.5%) vs 11 (16.2%), p = 0.024, shorter operative time, greater lymph node yield; 29 (IQR 21, 38) vs 21 (IQR 13, 34), p = 0.001, and lower 90 days mortality; 1 (0.8%) vs 4 (5.9%), p = 0.039. Rates of long-term complications were similar, exception made for a higher occurrence of small bowel obstruction (SBO) 2 (1.7%) vs 4 (5.9%), p = 0.031 and need for surgical intervention for SBO 0 (0.0%) vs 2 (2.9%), p = 0.019 in the OPD group.

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests that RPD benefits include lower 90-day mortality, shorter LOS, and lower rates of selected complications compared to open pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Robotic distal pancreas-sparing duodenectomy (duodenal sleeve resection) with transmesenteric approach: robotic approach for tumors in the third and fourth parts of the duodenum

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive resection of the retroperitoneal duodenum is complicated because of its anatomical location, and the proximity of the ampulla of Vater and vascular structures. Benign or indolent pathology can add complexity to operative decision-making for these already challenging surgeries, and operations associated with lower morbidity may be considered. This study describes a novel robotic transmesenteric approach to duodenal sleeve resection for non-malignant lesions.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed on a prospectively maintained institutional database between 2011 and 2021. The Da Vinci XI or SI platform (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA) was used in all cases.

RESULTS

Critical steps in robotic sleeve duodenectomy include the following: (1) techniques for avoiding damage to the ampulla; (2) Kocherization and reverse Kocherization; and (3) A transmesenteric approach for further mobilization of the duodenum. Nineteen patients were referred by experienced gastrointestinal endoscopists after endoscopic management was deemed unsuitable or their resections were incomplete. The histological diagnoses were either symptomatic benign or indolent duodenal pathology. All 19 patients underwent robotic duodenal sleeve resection during the study period. Lesions were located in the third to fourth parts of the duodenum. The median operative time was 216 min (IQR: 199-225), and the estimated intraoperative blood loss was 50 ml (IQR: 50.0-93.7). The 90 day readmission rate was 15.7% (3/19), and no 90-day mortality was observed.

CONCLUSION

This small case series of a transmesenteric approach for robotic sleeve duodenectomy demonstrates its feasibility and safety in this potentially challenging operation.

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.

Figures do matter: A literature review of 4587 robotic pancreatic resections and their implications on training

BACKGROUND

The use of robotic assistance in minimally invasive pancreatic resection is quickly growing.

METHODS

We present a systematic review of the literature regarding all types of robotic pancreatic resection (RPR). Our aim is to show for which procedures there is enough experience to permit safe training and provide an estimation of how many centers could serve as teaching institutions.

RESULTS

Sixty-four studies reporting on 4587 RPRs were analyzed. A total of 2598 pancreatoduodenectomies (PD) were reported by 28 centers from Europe (6/28; 21.4%), the Americas (11/28; 39.3%), and Asia (11/28; 39.3%). Six studies reported >100 robot PD (1694/2598; 65.2%). A total of 1618 distal pancreatectomies (DP) were reported by 29 centers from Europe (10/29; 34.5%), the Americas (10/29; 34.5%), and Asia (9/29; 31%). Five studies reported >100 robotic DP (748/1618; 46.2%). A total of 154 central pancreatectomies were reported by six centers from Europe (1/6; 16.7%), the Americas (2/6; 33.3%), and Asia (3/6; 50%). Only 49 total pancreatectomies were reported. Finally, 168 enucleations were reported in seven studies (with a mean of 15.4 cases per study). A single center reported on 60 enucleations (35.7%). Results of each type of robotic procedure are also presented.

CONCLUSIONS

Experience with RPR is still quite limited. Despite high case volume not being sufficient to warrant optimal training opportunities, it is certainly a key component of every successful training program and is a major criterion for fellowship accreditation. From this review, it appears that only PD and DP can currently be taught at few institutions worldwide.

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 Revision of Hepaticojejunostomy for Benign Biliary Stricture

Surgical revision of biliary enteric anastomoses (BEA) can be a challenging undertaking and a robotic platform may provide advantages that address many of the technical obstacles. We present our technical approach and outcomes for patients undergoing robotic revision of BEA for benign strictures. A retrospective review was performed for robot-assisted benign BEA revision at our institution. Operative details, perioperative metrics, and outcomes are reported. Four patients underwent anastomotic revision following previously failed non-operative management. There were no intraoperative complications, mean length of stay was 4-days, and all patients experienced resolution of presenting clinical signs and symptoms. No patients required reoperation and there was no mortality. Postoperative outcomes were consistent with findings reported for other interventional modalities. Based on our experience we conclude robotic intervention in this context is safe and improves the technical feasibility of this complex procedure.

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.

Determining Hospital Volume Threshold for Safety of Minimally Invasive Pancreaticoduodenectomy: A Contemporary Cutpoint Analysis

BACKGROUND

Guidelines recommend limiting minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) to high-volume centers. However, the definition of high-volume care remains unclear. We aimed to objectively define a minimum number of MIPD performed annually per hospital associated with improved outcomes in a contemporary patient cohort.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma patients undergoing MIPD were included from the National Cancer Database (2010-2017). Multivariable modeling with restricted cubic splines was employed to identify an MIPD annual hospital volume threshold associated with lower 90-day mortality. Outcomes were compared between patients treated at low-volume (≤ model-identified cutoff) and high-volume (> cutoff) centers.

RESULTS

Among 3079 patients, 141 (5%) died within 90 days. Median hospital volume was 6 (range 1-73) cases/year. After adjustment, increasing hospital volume was associated with decreasing 90-day mortality for up to 19 (95% CI 16-25) cases/year, indicating a threshold of 20 cases/year. Most cases (82%) were done at low-volume (< 20 cases/year) centers. With adjustment, MIPD at low-volume centers was associated with increased 90-day mortality (OR 2.7; p = 0.002). Length of stay, positive surgical margins, 30-day readmission, and overall survival were similar. On analysis of the most recent two years (n = 1031), patients at low-volume centers (78.2%) were younger and had less advanced tumors but had longer length of stay (8 versus 7 days; p < 0.001) and increased 90-day mortality (7% versus 2%; p = 0.009).

CONCLUSIONS

The cutpoint analysis identified a threshold of at least 20 MIPD cases/year associated with lower postoperative mortality. This threshold should inform national guidelines and institution-level protocols aimed at facilitating the safe implementation of this complex procedure.

A Propensity-Matched Analysis of the Postoperative Venous Thromboembolism Rate After Pancreatoduodenectomy Based on Operative Approach

BACKGROUND

The use of minimally invasive approaches for pancreatoduodenectomy has increased in recent years, but the risk of postoperative VTE is undefined. We aimed to compare venous thromboembolism (VTE) rates after open and minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy using an administrative dataset.

METHODS

Patients who underwent pancreatoduodenectomy within the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program targeted pancreatectomy database (2016-2018) were identified. VTE was compared between patients who underwent open or minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy directly and after propensity score matching 1:1 for demographics, comorbidities, and peri-/intra-operative factors.

RESULTS

A total of 12,227 patients underwent pancreatoduodenectomy during the study period (open: n = 11,217; minimally invasive: n = 1010). Before matching, the VTE rate was higher among patients who underwent minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (5.2% vs. 3.8%, p = 0.033), and minimally invasive resection was independently associated with VTE (OR = 1.46, 95%CI = 1.09-2.06). After matching, there were 916 patients per group without differences in demographics or comorbidities. Patients who underwent minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy had longer median operative times (422 vs. 348 min). The VTE rate remained higher following minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy after matching (5.1% vs. 2.9%, p = 0.018), mainly driven by a higher DVT rate (3.9% vs. 1.7%, p = 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy is associated with a higher postoperative VTE rate compared to open pancreatoduodenectomy.

Mitigation of the Robotic Pancreaticoduodenectomy Learning Curve through comprehensive training

BACKGROUND

There is an associated lag in achieving competency for robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD), resulting in a learning curve. We hypothesize that the reported learning curve can be mitigated through a comprehensive graduated training protocol.

METHODS

All patients (n = 237) who underwent an open (n = 197, 83.1%) or robotic (n = 40, 16.9%) PD between 2015-2019 were identified at The Ohio State University. The learning curve for operative time and surgical failure (defined as conversion to open, blood transfusion, or Clavien-Dindo complication grade ≥3) was analyzed using a risk adjusted cumulative summation technique.

RESULTS

After 10 cases, operative time plateaued to a mean of 468.3 ± 96.3 minutes for robotic PD versus a mean of 332.5 ± 103.9 minutes for open PD (P < 0.001). There was no further apparent learning curve over time relative to rates of operative time or surgical failure. After propensity score-matching, patients undergoing robotic PD had a similar incidence of major complications, grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula, and delayed gastric emptying versus patients undergoing open PD (all P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Completion of a comprehensive procedure-specific robotic training protocol for PD mitigated the learning curve for this operative approach by shifting the curve into the training/simulation phase rather than the live operating phase. These data hold important implications for the future training and accreditation of surgeons embarking on robotic PD.

Pancreatic cancer in 2021: What you need to know to win

Pancreatic cancer is one of the solid tumors with the worst prognosis. Five-year survival rate is less than 10%. Surgical resection is the only potentially curative treatment, but the tumor is often diagnosed at an advanced stage of the disease and surgery could be performed in a very limited number of patients. Moreover, surgery is still associated with high post-operative morbidity, while other therapies still offer very disappointing results. This article reviews every aspect of pancreatic cancer, focusing on the elements that can improve prognosis. It was written with the aim of describing everything you need to know in 2021 in order to face this difficult challenge.

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.

Propensity score-matched comparison of the oncological feasibility and survival outcomes for pancreatic adenocarcinoma with robotic and open pancreatoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

This study is to clarify the feasibility of and justification for robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

METHODS

A 1-to-1 propensity score-matched comparison of RPD and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) was performed based on six covariates commonly used to predict the survival outcome for pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

RESULTS

A total of 130 patients were enrolled, with 65 in each study group after propensity score matching. The median operating time was longer for RPD (8.3 h vs. 7.0 h, P = 0.002). However, RPD was associated with less blood loss, lower overall surgical complication rate, and lower incidence of delayed gastric emptying. The resection radicality was oncologically similar between these two groups, but the median lymph node yield was higher for RPD (18 vs. 16, P = 0.038). Before propensity score matching, the 5-year survival was better in RPD (27.0% vs. 17.6%, P = 0.006). After matching, there was still a trend towards improved overall survival in the RPD group; however, the difference in 5-year survival between RPD and OPD was not significant (24.5% vs. 19.7%, P = 0.088).

CONCLUSION

RPD is not only technically feasible with no increase in surgical risk but also oncologically justifiable without compromising survival outcome. However, unlike randomized control trials, the limitations in this propensity score-matched analysis only accounted for 6 observed covariates commonly used to predict the survival outcome in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma, and confounders not included in this study could also affect our results.

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.

Essential updates 2018/2019: Current topics in the surgical treatment of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is highly malignant. While cancers in other organs have shown clear improvements in 5-year survival, the 5-year survival rate of pancreatic cancer is approximately 10%. Early relapse and metastasis are not uncommon, making it difficult to achieve an acceptable prognosis even after complete surgical resection of the pancreas. Studies have been performed on various treatments to improve the prognosis of PDAC, and multidisciplinary approaches including non-surgical treatments have led to gradual improvement. In the present literature review, we have described the significance of anatomical and biological resectability criteria, the concept of R0 resection in surgical treatment, the feasibility of minimally invasive surgery, the remarkable development of perioperative chemotherapy, the effectiveness of conversion surgery for unresectable PDAC, and ongoing challenges in PDAC treatment. We also provide an essential update on these subjects by focusing on recent trends and topics.

Perioperative outcomes of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a single surgeon's experience with 55 consecutive cases

Background

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) has been increasingly performed for patients with periampullary tumours and tumours in the pancreatic head. This method offers several technical advantages compared to open and laparoscopic surgeries. However, the surgical results often vary depending on the experience of different pancreatic centres.

Methods

A retrospective study of our first 55 cases of RPD from August 2016 to April 2020 was conducted to evaluate the perioperative outcomes of RPD and to summarize the operative experiences in a single intuition. Benign and malignant tumours in the pancreatic head or periampullary tumours without obvious vascular and adjacent organ invasion were included in this study. Perioperative characteristics and postoperative complications of the enrolled patients were retrospectively collected.

Results

The first 17 cases were robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RA-LPD) and the remaining 38 patients underwent total RPD. The RA-LPD group had a remarkably longer operative time than the total RPD group (415.3±89.2 vs. 362.4±75.6 min, P=0.047). The incidences of biliary leakage, chyle leakage, DGE, intra-abdominal infection and intra-abdominal haemorrhage were 3.6%, 0.0%, 5.5%, 9.1% and 5.5%, respectively. Two patients underwent relaparotomy due to severe intra-abdominal haemorrhage. The median length of hospital stay was 14 (11 to 19) days. There were no deaths during the perioperative period.

Conclusions

RPD is a technically feasible procedure for selected patients with periampullary tumours and tumours in the pancreatic head in experienced hands.

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.

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.

Factors Associated with Treatment and Survival of Early Stage Pancreatic Cancer in the Era of Modern Chemotherapy: An Analysis of the National Cancer Database

Background: Underutilization of operative management of early stage pancreatic cancer is associated with sociodemographic variables, including age, race, facility type, insurance, and education. It is currently unclear how these variables are associated with survival in patients who undergo surgery.

Methods: Patients with clinical stage I pancreatic adenocarcinoma were identified within the National Cancer Database (2010–2016). Utilization of surgery and nonoperative management was determined. Nonclinical factors associated with nonoperative management were identified by multivariable analysis. The association between nonclinical factors and survival was assessed in patients who received operative management.

Results: A total of 17,833 patients with clinical stage I pancreatic cancer were identified, and 41.2% underwent operative intervention. Approximately 46% of nonoperatively managed patients lacked a contraindication. Operatively managed patients had longer overall survival (OS) than those who were nonoperatively managed or untreated (25.1 months vs. 11.1 months vs. 5.1 months, p < 0.0001). Factors associated with nonoperative management included age, black/Hispanic race, nonacademic facilities, nonprivate health insurance, lower education level, and lower income. In operatively managed patients, nonclinical factors associated with lower OS included Medicaid (hazard ratio [HR] 1.27) and treatment at nonacademic facilities (HR 1.20–1.22). Patients on Medicaid received less adjuvant therapy and had higher 30- and 90-day mortality rates. Patients treated at nonacademic facilities received less neoadjuvant therapy, had worse pathologic outcomes, and had higher 30- and 90-day mortality rates.

Conclusions: Surgical management is underutilized in clinical stage I pancreatic cancer. Primary insurance payor and facility type appear to be associated with OS in patients who undergo operative management.