Oncological outcomes of robotic-assisted versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a propensity score-matched analysis

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.

Short-term Outcomes of Robotic Versus Open Pancreatoduodenectomy: Propensity Score-matched Analysis

OBJECTIVE

The goal of the current study was to investigate the perioperative outcomes of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) in a high-volume center.

BACKGROUND

Despite RPDs prospective advantages over OPD, current evidence comparing the 2 has been limited and has prompted further investigation. The aim of this study was to compare both approaches while including the learning curve phase for RPD.

METHODS

A 1:1 propensity score-matched analysis of a prospective database of RPD with OPD (2017-2022) at a high-volume center was performed. The main outcomes were overall- and pancreas-specific complications.

RESULTS

Of 375 patients who underwent PD (OPD n=276; RPD n=99), 180 were included in propensity score-matched analysis (90 per group). RPD was associated with less blood loss [500 (300-800) vs 750 (400-1000) mL; P =0.006] and more patients without a complication (50% vs 19%; P <0.001). Operative time was longer [453 (408-529) vs 306 (247-362) min; P <0.001]; in patients with ductal adenocarcinoma, fewer lymph nodes were harvested [24 (18-27) vs 33 (27-39); P <0.001] with RPD versus OPD. There were no significant differences for major complications (38% vs 47%; P =0.291), reoperation rate (14% vs 10%; P =0.495), postoperative pancreatic fistula (21% vs 23%; P =0.858), and patients with the textbook outcome (62% vs 55%; P =0.452).

CONCLUSIONS

Including the learning phase, RPD can be safely implemented in high-volume settings and shows potential for improved perioperative outcomes versus OPD. Pancreas-specific morbidity was unaffected by the robotic approach. Randomized trials with specifically trained pancreatic surgeons and expanded indications for the robotic approach are needed.

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.

International consensus guidelines on robotic pancreatic surgery in 2023

Background

With the rapid development of robotic surgery, especially for the abdominal surgery, robotic pancreatic surgery (RPS) has been applied increasingly around the world. However, evidence-based guidelines regarding its application, safety, and efficacy are still lacking. To harvest robust evidence and comprehensive clinical practice, this study aims to develop international guidelines on the use of RPS.

Methods

World Health Organization (WHO) Handbook for Guideline Development, GRADE Grid method, Delphi vote, and the AGREE-II instrument were used to establish the Guideline Steering Group, Guideline Development Group, and Guideline Secretary Group, formulate 19 clinical questions, develop the recommendations, and draft the guidelines. Three online meetings were held on 04/12/2020, 30/11/2021, and 25/01/2022 to vote on the recommendations and get advice and suggestions from all involved experts. All the experts focusing on minimally invasive surgery from America, Europe and Oceania made great contributions to this consensus guideline.

Results

After a systematic literature review 176 studies were included, 19 questions were addressed and 14 recommendations were developed through the expert assessment and comprehensive judgment of the quality and credibility of the evidence.

Conclusions

The international RPS guidelines can guide current practice for surgeons, patients, medical societies, hospital administrators, and related social communities. Further randomized trials are required to determine the added value of RPS as compared to open and laparoscopic surgery.

Robotic versus open pancreatoduodenectomy in patients with pancreatic duct adenocarcinoma after the learning curve: a propensity score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Studies have demonstrated that the learning curve plays an important role in robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD). Although improved short-term outcomes of RPD after the learning curve have been reported compared to open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD), there is a lack of long-term survival analyses.

METHODS

Patients who underwent curative intended RPD and OPD for pancreatic duct adenocarcinoma (PDAC) between January 2017 and June 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. A 1:2 propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed to balance the baseline characteristics between the RPD and OPD groups.

RESULTS

Of the 548 patients (108 RPD and 440 OPD), 103 RPD patients were matched with 206 OPD patients after PSM. There were 194 (62.8%) men and 115 (37.2%) women, with a median age of 64 (58-69) years. The median overall survival (OS) in the RPD group was 33.2 months compared with 25.7 months in the OPD group (p = 0.058, log-rank). The median disease-free survival (DFS) following RPD was longer than the OPD (18.5 vs. 14.0 months, p = 0.011, log-rank). The RPD group has a lower incidence of local recurrence compared the OPD group (36.9% vs. 51.2%, p = 0.071). Multivariate Cox analysis demonstrated that RPD was independently associated with improved OS (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.52-0.94, p = 0.019) and DFS (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.50-0.88, p = 0.005).

CONCLUSION

After the learning curve, RPD had improved oncologic outcomes in PDAC patients compared to OPD. Future prospective randomized clinical trials will be required to validate these findings.

Minimally invasive versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic and peri-ampullary neoplasm (DIPLOMA-2): study protocol for an international multicenter patient-blinded randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) aims to reduce the negative impact of surgery as compared to open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) and is increasingly becoming part of clinical practice for selected patients worldwide. However, the safety of MIPD remains a topic of debate and the potential shorter time to functional recovery needs to be confirmed. To guide safe implementation of MIPD, large-scale international randomized trials comparing MIPD and OPD in experienced high-volume centers are needed. We hypothesize that MIPD is non-inferior in terms of overall complications, but superior regarding time to functional recovery, as compared to OPD.

METHODS/DESIGN

The DIPLOMA-2 trial is an international randomized controlled, patient-blinded, non-inferiority trial performed in 14 high-volume pancreatic centers in Europe with a minimum annual volume of 30 MIPD and 30 OPD. A total of 288 patients with an indication for elective pancreatoduodenectomy for pre-malignant and malignant disease, eligible for both open and minimally invasive approach, are randomly allocated for MIPD or OPD in a 2:1 ratio. Centers perform either laparoscopic or robot-assisted MIPD based on their surgical expertise. The primary outcome is the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI®), measuring all complications graded according to the Clavien-Dindo classification up to 90 days after surgery. The sample size is calculated with the following assumptions: 2.5% one-sided significance level (α), 80% power (1-β), expected difference of the mean CCI® score of 0 points between MIPD and OPD, and a non-inferiority margin of 7.5 points. The main secondary outcome is time to functional recovery, which will be analyzed for superiority. Other secondary outcomes include post-operative 90-day Fitbit™ measured activity, operative outcomes (e.g., blood loss, operative time, conversion to open surgery, surgeon-reported outcomes), oncological findings in case of malignancy (e.g., R0-resection rate, time to adjuvant treatment, survival), postoperative outcomes (e.g., clinically relevant complications), healthcare resource utilization (length of stay, readmissions, intensive care stay), quality of life, and costs. Postoperative follow-up is up to 36 months.

DISCUSSION

The DIPLOMA-2 trial aims to establish the safety of MIPD as the new standard of care for this selected patient population undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy in high-volume centers, ultimately aiming for superior patient recovery.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN27483786. Registered on August 2, 2023.

Perioperative and Oncological Outcomes of Robotic Versus Open Pancreaticoduodenectomy in Low-Risk Surgical Candidates: A Multicenter Propensity Score-Matched Study

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to perform a multicenter comparison between robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD).

BACKGROUND

Previous comparisons of RPD versus OPD have only been carried out in small, single-center studies of variable quality.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent RPD (n = 1032) or OPD (n = 1154) at 7 centers in China between July 2012 and July 2020 were included. A 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) was performed.

RESULTS

After PSM, 982 patients in each group were enrolled. The RPD group had significantly lower estimated blood loss (EBL) (190.0 vs 260.0 mL; P < 0.001), and a shorter postoperative 1length of hospital stay (LOS) (12.0 (9.0-16.0) days vs 14.5 (11.0-19.0) days; P < 0.001) than the OPD group. There were no significant differences in operative time, major morbidity including clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF), bile leakage, delayed gastric emptying, postoperative pancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), reoperation, readmission or 90-day mortality rates. Multivariable analysis showed R0 resection, CR-POPF, PPH and reoperation to be independent risk factors for 90-day mortality. Subgroup analysis on patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) (n = 326 in each subgroup) showed RPD had advantages over OPD in EBL and postoperative LOS. There were no significant differences in median disease-free survival (15.2 vs 14.3 months, P = 0.94) or median overall survival (24.2 vs 24.1 months, P = 0.88) between the 2 subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

RPD was comparable to OPD in feasibility and safety. For patients with PDAC, RPD resulted in similar oncologic and survival outcomes as OPD.

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: Analysis of surgical outcomes and long-term prognosis in a high-volume center

BACKGROUND

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) has been reported to be safe and feasible for patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) of the pancreatic head. This study aimed to analyze the surgical outcomes and risk factors for poor long-term prognosis of these patients.

METHODS

Data from patients who underwent RPD for PDAC of pancreatic head were retrospectively analyzed. Multivariate Cox regression analysis was used to seek the independent prognostic factors for overall survival (OS), and an online nomogram calculator was developed based on the independent prognostic factors.

RESULTS

Of the 273 patients who met the inclusion criteria, the median operative time was 280.0 minutes, the estimated blood loss was 100.0 mL, the median OS was 23.6 months, and the median recurrence-free survival (RFS) was 14.4 months. Multivariate analysis showed that preoperative carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9) [hazard ratio (HR) = 2.607, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.560-4.354, P < 0.001], lymph node metastasis (HR = 1.429, 95% CI: 1.005-2.034, P = 0.047), tumor moderately (HR = 3.190, 95% CI: 1.813-5.614, P < 0.001) or poorly differentiated (HR = 5.114, 95% CI: 2.839-9.212, P < 0.001), and Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ III (HR = 1.657, 95% CI: 1.079-2.546, P = 0.021) were independent prognostic factors for OS. The concordance index (C-index) of the nomogram constructed based on the above four independent prognostic factors was 0.685 (95% CI: 0.640-0.729), which was significantly higher than that of the AJCC staging (8th edition): 0.541 (95% CI: 0.493-0.589) (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This large-scale study indicated that RPD was feasible for PDAC of pancreatic head. Preoperative CA19-9, lymph node metastasis, tumor poorly differentiated, and Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ III were independent prognostic factors for OS. The online nomogram calculator could predict the OS of these patients in a simple and convenient manner.

Comparisons of short-term and long-term results between laparoscopic between open pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic tumors: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective: The efficacy of pancreaticoduodenectomy and open pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic tumors is controversial. The study aims to compare the efficacy of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) in the treatment of pancreatic tumors through systematic evaluation and meta-analysis. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of science databases were searched for clinical studies on the treatment of pancreatic tumors with LPD and OPD. The end time for the searches was 20 July 2022. Rigorous inclusion and exclusion criteria were used to screen the articles, the Cochrane manual was used to evaluate the quality of the included articles, and the stata15.0 software was used for statistical analysis of the indicators. Results: In total, 16 articles were included, including two randomized controlled trials and 14 retrospective studies. Involving a total of 4416 patients, 1275 patients were included in the LPD group and 3141 patients in the OPD group. The results of the meta-analysis showed that: the operation time of LPD was longer than that of OPD [WMD = 56.14,95% CI (38.39,73.89), p = 0.001]; the amount of intraoperative blood loss of LPD was less than that of OPD [WMD = -120.82,95% CI (-169.33, -72.30), p = 0.001]. No significant difference was observed between LPD and OPD regarding hospitalization time [WMD = -0.5,95% CI (-1.35, 0.35), p = 0.250]. No significant difference was observed regarding postoperative complications [RR = 0.96,95% CI (0.86,1.07, p = 0.463]. And there was no significant difference regarding 1-year OS and 3-year OS: 1-year OS [RR = 1.02,95% CI (0.97,1.08), p = 0.417], 3-year OS [RR = 1.10 95% CI (0.75, 1.62), p = 0.614%]. Conclusion: In comparison with OPD, LPD leads to less blood loss but longer operation time, therefore the bleeding rate per unit time of LPD is less than that of OPD. LPD has obvious advantages. With the increase of clinical application of LPD, the usage of LPD in patients with pancreatic cancer has very good prospect. Due to the limitations of this paper, in future studies, more attention should be paid to high-quality, multi-center, randomized controlled studies.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

Survival and Robotic Approach for Pancreaticoduodenectomy: A Propensity Score-Match Study

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery is a burgeoning minimally invasive approach to pancreaticoduodenectomy. This study was undertaken to compare survival after robotic vs "open" pancreaticoduodenectomy for ductal adenocarcinoma using propensity score-matched patients.

STUDY DESIGN

With institutional review board approval, we prospectively followed 521 patients who underwent robotic (n = 311) or open (n = 210) pancreaticoduodenectomy. Patients who underwent robotic (n = 75) or open (n = 75) pancreaticoduodenectomy were propensity score-matched by age, sex, and American Joint Committee on Cancer stage. Neoadjuvant therapy was rarely administered, and adjuvant therapy was stressed (FOLFIRINOX for patients <70 years of age and gemcitabine + nab-paclitaxel for patients >70 years of age). Data are presented as median (mean ± SD).

RESULTS

Operative duration was longer and estimated blood loss and length of stay were less with robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (421 [409 ± 94.0] vs 267 [254 ± 81.2] minutes; 307 [(150 ± 605.3] vs 444 [255 ± 353.1] mL; 7 [5 ± 5.1] vs 11 [8 ± 9.5] days; p < 0.00001 for all). There were no differences in complications (Clavien-Dindo class ≥III, p = 0.30), in-hospital mortality (p = 0.61), or 30-day readmission rates (p = 0.19). Median survival after robotic vs open pancreaticoduodenectomy was 37 vs 24 months (p = 0.08). For propensity score-matched patients, operative duration for robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy was longer (442 [438 ± 117.7] vs 261 [249 ± 67.1] minutes) and estimated blood loss was less (269 [200 ± 296.1] vs 468 [300 ± 394.9] mL), as was length of stay (7 [5 ± 5.1] vs 10 [7 ± 8.6] days; p < 0.00001 for all). There were no differences in complication rates (Clavien-Dindo class ≥ III, p = 0.31) or in-hospital mortality (p = 0.40); 30-day readmissions were fewer after robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (7% vs 20%, p = 0.03). Median survival for the robotic vs the open approach was 41 vs 17 months (p = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

Patients that underwent robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy had longer operations, less estimated blood loss, shorter length of stay, and fewer 30-day readmissions; they lived much longer than patients who underwent open pancreaticoduodenectomy. We believe that robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy provides salutary and survival benefits for reasons yet unknown.

Higher body mass index indicated better overall survival in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma patients: a real-world study of 2010 patients

BACKGROUND

The association between body mass index (BMI) and the overall survival (OS) of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) patients remains controversial and unclear, METHOD: A total of 2010 patients from a high-volume center were enrolled in the study. The OS of PDAC patients was evaluated based on restricted cubic spline (RCS), propensity score (PS) and multivariable risk adjustment analyses.

RESULT

BMI was linearly related to the OS (total P = 0.004, nonlinear P = 0.124). BMI was analyzed as categorical data based on X-tile software-defined cutoffs and World Health Organization (WHO)-recommended cutoffs. Adjusted with confounding covariates, higher BMI manifested as a positive prognostic predictor. Furthermore, BMI was proven to be associated with the OS in the PS analysis. (UnderweightXtile vs. NormalXtileP = 0.003, OverweightXtile vs. NormalXtileP = 0.019; UnderweightWHO vs. NormalWHOP < 0.001, OverweightWHO vs. NormalWHOP = 0.024). It was also revealed that patients with higher BMI benefitted more from chemotherapy. (Adjusted hazard ratio (aHR): UnderweightXtile vs. NormalXtile vs. OverweightXtile: 0.565 vs. 0.474 vs. 0.409; UnderweightWHO vs. NormalWHO vs. OverweightWHO: 0.613 vs. 0.464 vs. 0.425).

CONCLUSION

Among PDAC patients, there was a positive association between BMI and the OS, especially in patients treated with chemotherapy.

ROBOT-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy in 300 consecutive cases: Annual trend analysis and propensity score-matched comparison of perioperative and long-term oncologic outcomes with the open method

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

We previously reported perioperative and oncologic outcomes of robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy (RAPD); however, the follow-up period in RAPD was relatively short, and disease-matched survival analyses were lacking. Therefore, this study investigated time trends of perioperative and long-term disease-matched outcomes of RAPD.

METHODS

Annual clinicopathologic outcomes of 328 patients with RAPD between 2015 and 2020 were analyzed and compared with 929 patients with open PD using the propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis based on postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) risk and oncologic variables in malignant patients.

RESULTS

Robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy cases increased from 10 (6.3%) in 2015 to 116 (50.2% of total PD) in 2020, with malignancy proportion increasing from 50.0% to 80.2%. POPF risk-based PSM analysis showed that compared with open PD, RAPD had younger patients (63.7 vs 65.6 years, P = .018), longer operation time (339.1 vs 290.0 min, P < .001); however, estimated blood loss (P = .275), complications (17.1% vs 18.3%, P = .702), and clinically relevant POPF (9.8% vs 11.1%, P = .584) were similar with shorter postoperative hospital stay (10.8 vs 15.6 days, P < .001). In disease and stage-matched malignant patients, R0 resection (93.9% vs 91.2%, P = .376), total retrieved lymph node (18.2 vs 19.9, P = .058), and 5-year survival rate (57.3% vs 60.6%, P = .406) were similar between RAPD and open PD, also in pancreatic cancer patients (31.6% vs 26.3%, P = .068).

CONCLUSIONS

Robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy demonstrated similar perioperative outcomes with earlier recovery and equivalent long-term survival with open PD. RAPD is safe and feasible for periampullary lesions, including pancreatic cancers, and its role will expand in the era of minimally invasive surgery.

Active smokers show ameliorated delayed gastric emptying after pancreatoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

Delayed gastric emptying (DGE) is the most common complication following pancreatoduodenectomy (PD). The data about active smoking in relation to gastric motility have been inconsistent and specifically the effect of smoking on gastric emptying after PD has not yet been investigated in detail.

METHODS

295 patients at our department underwent PD between January 2009 and December 2019. Patients were analyzed in relation to demographic factors, diagnosis, pre-existing conditions, intraoperative characteristics, hospital stay, mortality and postoperative complications with special emphasis on DGE. All complications were classified according to the definitions of the International Study Group on Pancreatic Surgery.

RESULTS

274 patients were included in the study and analyzed regarding their smoking habits (non or former smokers, n = 88, 32.1% vs. active smokers, n = 186, 68.6%). Excluded were patients for whom no information about their smoking habits was available (n = 3), patients who had had gastric resection before (n = 4) and patients with prolonged postoperative resumption to normal diet independently from DGE (long-term ventilation > 7 days, fasting due to pancreatic fistula) (n = 14). Smokers were younger than non-smokers (61 vs. 69 years, p ≤ 0.001) and mainly male (73% male vs. 27% female). Smoking patients showed significantly more pre-existing pulmonary conditions (19% vs. 8%, p = 0.002) and alcohol abuse (48% vs. 23%, p ≤ 0.001). We observe more blood loss in smokers (800 [500-1237.5] vs. 600 [400-1000], p = 0.039), however administration of erythrocyte concentrates did not differ between both groups (0 [0-2] vs. 0 [0-2], p = 0.501). 58 out of 88 smokers (66%) and 147 out of 186 of non-smokers (79%) showed malign tumors (p = 0.019). 35 out of 88 active smokers (40%) and 98 out of 188 non- or former smokers (53%) developed DGE after surgery (p = 0.046) and smokers tolerated solid food intake more quickly than non-smokers (postoperative day (POD7 vs. POD10, p = 0.004). Active smokers were less at risk to develop DGE (p = 0.051) whereas patients with pulmonary preexisting conditions were at higher risk for developing DGE (p = 0.011).

CONCLUSIONS

Our data show that DGE occurs less common in active smokers and they tolerate solid food intake more quickly than non-smokers. Further observation studies and randomized, controlled multicentre studies without the deleterious effect of smoking, for instance by administration of a nicotine patch, are needed to examine if this effect is due to nicotine administration.