The experience of the minimally invasive (MI) fellowship-trained (FT) hepatic-pancreatic and biliary (HPB) surgeon: could the outcome of MI pancreatoduodenectomy for peri-ampullary tumors be better than open?

The training pathway for residents: 'Robotic Curriculum for young Surgeons' (RoCS) does not impair patient outcome during implementation into clinical routine

The "Robotic Curriculum for young Surgeons" (RoCS) was launched 03/2020 to address the increasing importance of robotics in surgical training. It aims to provide residents with foundational robotic skills by involving them early in their training. This study evaluated the impact of RoCS' integration into clinical routine on patient outcomes. Two cohorts were compared regarding the implementation of RoCS: Cohort 1 (before RoCS) included all robot-assisted procedures between 2017 and 03/2020 (n = 174 adults) retrospectively; Cohort 2 (after RoCS) included all adults (n = 177) who underwent robotic procedures between 03/2020 and 2021 prospectively. Statistical analysis covered demographics, perioperative parameters, and follow-up data, including mortality and morbidity. Subgroup analysis for both cohorts was organ-related (upper gastrointestinal tract (UGI), colorectal (CR), hepatopancreaticobiliary system (HPB)). Sixteen procedures were excluded due to heterogeneity. In-hospital, 30-, 90-day morbidity and mortality showed no significant differences between both cohorts, including organ-related subgroups. For UGI, no significant intraoperative parameter changes were observed. Surgery duration decreased significantly in CR and HPB procedures (p = 0.018 and p < 0.001). Estimated blood loss significantly decreased for CR operations (p = 0.001). The conversion rate decreased for HPB operations (p = 0.005). Length of hospitalization decreased for CR (p = 0.015) and HPB (p = 0.006) procedures. Oncologic quality, measured by histopathologic R0-resections, showed no significant changes. RoCS can be safely integrated into clinical practice without compromising patient safety or oncologic quality. It serves as an effective training pathway to guide robotic novices through their first steps in robotic surgery, offering promising potential for skill acquisition and career advancement.

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.

Laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic and periampullary tumor: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and non-randomized comparative studies

Objective

This meta-analysis compares the perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) to those of open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) for pancreatic and periampullary tumors.

Background

LPD has been increasingly applied in the treatment of pancreatic and periampullary tumors. However, the perioperative outcomes of LPD versus OPD are still controversial.

Methods

PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized comparative trials (NRCTs) comparing LPD versus OPD for pancreatic and periampullary tumors. The main outcomes were mortality, morbidity, serious complications, and hospital stay. The secondary outcomes were operative time, blood loss, transfusion, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), bile leak (BL), delayed gastric emptying (DGE), lymph nodes harvested, R0 resection, reoperation, and readmission. RCTs were evaluated by the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. NRCTs were assessed using a modified tool from the Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies. Data were pooled as odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD). This study was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42022338832).

Results

Four RCTs and 35 NRCTs concerning a total of 40,230 patients (4,262 LPD and 35,968 OPD) were included. Meta-analyses showed no significant differences in mortality (OR 0.91, p = 0.35), serious complications (OR 0.97, p = 0.74), POPF (OR 0.93, p = 0.29), PPH (OR 1.10, p = 0.42), BL (OR 1.28, p = 0.22), harvested lymph nodes (MD 0.66, p = 0.09), reoperation (OR 1.10, p = 0.41), and readmission (OR 0.95, p = 0.46) between LPD and OPD. Operative time was significantly longer for LPD (MD 85.59 min, p < 0.00001), whereas overall morbidity (OR 0.80, p < 0.00001), hospital stay (MD -2.32 days, p < 0.00001), blood loss (MD -173.84 ml, p < 0.00001), transfusion (OR 0.62, p = 0.0002), and DGE (OR 0.78, p = 0.002) were reduced for LPD. The R0 rate was higher for LPD (OR 1.25, p = 0.001).

Conclusions

LPD is associated with non-inferior short-term surgical outcomes and oncologic adequacy compared to OPD when performed by experienced surgeons at large centers. LPD may result in reduced overall morbidity, blood loss, transfusion, and DGE, but longer operative time. Further RCTs should address the potential advantages of LPD over OPD.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO, identifier CRD42022338832.

A comparison of robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a single surgeon's robotic experience in a high-volume center

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery is the most recent advanced minimally invasive approach for distal pancreatectomy. However, its benefits over laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) remain undetermined. Previous studies were limited by their small sample size or variations in surgeon skills. This study aimed to compare robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) performed by a single surgeon with LDP performed by skilled laparoscopic surgeons in a high-volume center.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed consecutive RDP performed by a single surgeon between December 2020 and November 2021 with LDP performed by experienced surgeons during the same period in a high-volume center. Patient characteristics and perioperative variables were compared.

RESULTS

The analysis included 55 RDP and 146 LDP procedures. The operative time in the RDP group was significantly shorter than the LDP group (171 vs. 222 min, P < 0.001), both in spleen-preserved (154 vs. 212 min, P < 0.001) and spleen-removed (192 vs. 230 min, P = 0.005) procedures. The RDP group made more frequent use of the stapler technique for pancreas transection (87.3 vs. 68.5%, P = 0.007), and its estimated blood loss was lower (79 vs. 155 mL, P < 0.001) than the LDP group. The postoperative hospital stay in the RDP group was significantly shorter than the LDP group (8 vs. 12 days, P < 0.001). The groups were similar in their complication distributions.

CONCLUSION

RDP is as safe and feasible a minimally invasive approach as LDP. The advanced manipulation and visualization capabilities of the robotic approach in distal pancreatectomy could help reduce operative time and blood loss, and is related to shorter postoperative hospital stay.

RoCS: Robotic Curriculum for young Surgeons

Robotic-assisted procedures gain increasing acceptance for daily surgical routine. However, structured training programs are designed for surgeons with high expertise. Hence, a comprehensive training curriculum was established to ensure a basic competence in robotic abdominal surgery for young surgeons during their residency. The aim of the current work is to propose a feasible and effective training concept. The development process of this training curriculum is based on a comprehensive literature review which led to the concept of "robotic curriculum for young surgeons" (RoCS). It was implemented in the daily routine of a German university hospital starting in 2020. The robotic assessment questionnaire (RAQ) was used for electronic data collection. After the initial phase adjustments, it led to an improvement of the initial version of the curriculum. RoCS is a multimodal training program containing basic training through assistance at the operation table during robotic-assisted operations and basic console training. Key elements are the robotic team time-out (rTTO), perioperative process standardization including feasible personnel scheduling and useful procedure clustering into organ systems, procedural steps and procedural step complexity. Evaluation of standardized communication, performance assessment, patient factors and individual overall workload using NASA Task Load Index is realizable. Flexibility and adaptability to internal organization processes of surgical departments are the main advantages of the concept. RoCS is a strong training tool to meet the specific needs of young surgeons and evaluate their learning success of robotic procedural training. Furthermore, comparison within the different robotic systems should be considered. Further studies are needed to validate a multicenter concept design.

Robotic live donor hysterectomy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Donor hysterectomy for live donor uterus transplantation was from the start performed by laparotomy, but minimal invasive surgery has entered the scene. In particular robotic-assisted laparoscopy is used since robotics is advantageous in the complex donor hysterectomy surgery in narrow space. This review covers the development and benefits of robotics and the published robotic donor hysterectomy experiences.

RECENT FINDINGS

Robotic donor hysterectomy publications are scarce with eight cases in Sweden, five in USA, and one each in China and Spain. Robotics have been performed for either the entire donor hysterectomy or with conversion to laparotomy for the last steps of the surgical procedure. The total operative times are in line with open surgery, although a decrease is expected in the future. The estimated blood loss and hospital stays are less than at open surgery. The complication panorama includes hydronephrosis, ureteric fistula and pressure alopecia. Live births with healthy babies have been reported.

SUMMARY

In uterus transplantation, robotic live donor hysterectomy has proven to be feasible, safe and associated with successful live births. The robotic donor hysterectomy is a low-volume procedure and an international registry to gather collective information is crucial for further evaluation and development.