Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy: a NSQIP Analysis

Repeated Minimally Invasive Pancreatectomy for Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Neoplasm in the Remnant Pancreas: A Case Report

BACKGROUND Minimally invasive pancreatectomy has become the standard practice for the management of benign and malignant pancreatic tumors. Techniques such as robotic and laparoscopic approaches are known to reduce morbidity by offering benefits such as less blood loss, reduced pain, shorter hospital stays, and quicker recovery times. The indication for repeated minimally invasive pancreatectomy for recurrent or de novo pancreatic neoplasm after primary pancreatic surgery remains debated. CASE REPORT A 50-year-old woman was admitted to our hospital with a diagnosis of an intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm in the pancreatic head. In 2010, she underwent laparoscopic single-branch resection for a branch-type tumor in the pancreatic uncinate process. During a 5-year follow-up, a de novo intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm was detected, showing gradual growth and the presence of a mural nodule over the next 7 years. The patient's CEA level was elevated to 7.0 ng/mL. Considering the tumor's progression and the appearance of a mural nodule, we recommended a robot-assisted Whipple procedure. The operation began with laparoscopic adhesiolysis. After detachment of the adhesions and remobilization of the duodenum using the Kocher maneuver, the operation continued with the Da Vinci surgical system. The postoperative period was uneventful, and the patient was discharged on postoperative day 20. Pathological examination revealed intraductal papillary mucinous carcinoma in situ with negative resection margins. CONCLUSIONS This case verifies the safety and feasibility of performing a robotic Whipple procedure for a newly diagnosed pancreatic neoplasm in patients who have previously undergone minimally invasive pancreatic surgery.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy for Pancreatic Cancer: Evaluation and Analysis of Surgical Efficacy

BACKGROUND

Evidence is limited for the treatment of pancreatic cancer among minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy.

METHODS

This retrospective analysis evaluated patients who underwent robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) or laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) from April 2016 to April 2023. Their baseline and perioperative data, including operative time, R0 resection rates, and severe complications rates, were analyzed, and the follow-up data, such as disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS), were collected.

RESULTS

A total of 253 cases of LPD and RPD were performed, and 101 cases with pancreatic cancer were included, of which 54 were LPD and 47 were RPD. The conversion rate (4.3% vs. 29.6%, p = 0.001) and blood loss (400 vs. 575 mL, p < 0.05) were lower in the RPD group. No significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of operative time, vessel resection rates, and TNM-stage diagnosis; however, R0 resection rates (80.9% vs. 70.4%) and lymph node harvest (24.2 vs. 21.9) had a higher tendency in the RPD group, and postoperative length of stay was shorter in the RPD cohort (11 vs. 13 days). Moreover, improved 1- to 3-years DFS (75.7%, 61.7%, and 36.0% vs. 59.0%, 35.6%, and 21.9%) and OS (94.7%, 84.7%, and 50.8% vs. 84.1%, 63.6%, and 45.5%) was found in the RPD group in comparison with the LPD group.

CONCLUSIONS

RPD had advantages in surgical safety and oncological outcomes compared with LPD, but was similar to the latter in perioperative outcomes. Long-term outcomes require further study.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy: a pan-European multicenter propensity-matched study

BACKGROUND

The use of robot-assisted and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy is increasing, yet large adjusted analyses that can be generalized internationally are lacking. This study aimed to compare outcomes after robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy in a pan-European cohort.

METHODS

An international multicenter retrospective study including patients after robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy from 50 centers in 12 European countries (2009-2020). Propensity score matching was performed in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome was major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo ≥III).

RESULTS

Among 2,082 patients undergoing minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy, 1,006 underwent robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and 1,076 laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy. After matching 812 versus 812 patients, the rates of major morbidity (31.9% vs 29.6%; P = .347) and 30-day/in-hospital mortality (4.3% vs 4.6%; P = .904) did not differ significantly between robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy, respectively. Robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with a lower conversion rate (6.7% vs 18.0%; P < .001) and higher lymph node retrieval (16 vs 14; P = .003). Laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with shorter operation time (446 minutes versus 400 minutes; P < .001), and lower rates of postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C (19.0% vs 11.7%; P < .001), delayed gastric emptying grade B/C (21.4% vs 7.4%; P < .001), and a higher R0-resection rate (73.2% vs 84.4%; P < .001).

CONCLUSION

This European multicenter study found no differences in overall major morbidity and 30-day/in-hospital mortality after robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy compared with laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy. Further, laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with a lower rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula, delayed gastric emptying, wound infection, shorter length of stay, and a higher R0 resection rate than robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy. In contrast, robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with a lower conversion rate and a higher number of retrieved lymph nodes as compared with laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy.

Comparing oncologic and surgical outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy in patients with pancreatic cancer: a propensity-matched analysis

INTRODUCTION

Minimally invasive Pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD), or the Whipple procedure, is increasingly utilized. No study has compared laparoscopic (LPD) and robotic (RPD) approaches, and the impact of the learning curve on oncologic, technical, and post-operative outcomes remains relatively understudied.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database was queried for patients undergoing LPD or RPD from 2010 to 2020 with a diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. Outcomes were compared between approaches using propensity-score matching (PSM); the impact of annual center-level volume of MIPD was also assessed by dividing volume into quartiles.

RESULTS

A total of 3,342 patients were included. Most (n = 2,716, 81.3%) underwent LPD versus RPD (n = 626, 18.7%). There was a high rate (20.2%, n = 719) of positive margins. Mean length-of-stay (LOS) was 10.4 ± 8.9 days. Thirty-day mortality was 2.8% (n = 92) and ninety-day mortality was 5.7% (n = 189). PSM matched 625 pairs of patients receiving LPD or RPD. After PSM, there was no differences between groups based on age, sex, race, CCI, T-stage, neoadjuvant chemo/radiotherapy, or type of PD. After PSM, there was a higher rate of conversion to open (HR = 0.68, 95%CI = 0.50-0.92)., but there was no difference in LOS (HR = 1.00, 95%CI = 0.92-1.11), 30-day readmission (HR = 1.08, 95% CI = 0.68-1.71), 30-day (HR = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.39-1.56) or 90-day mortality (HR = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.42-1.16), ability to receive adjuvant therapy (HR = 1.15, 95% CI = 0.92-1.44), nodal harvest (HR = 1.01, 95%CI = 0.94-1.09) or positive margins (HR = 1.19, 95% CI = 0.89-1.59). Centers in lower quartiles of annual volume of MIPD demonstrated reduced nodal harvest (p = 0.005) and a higher rate of conversion to open (p = 0.038). Higher-volume centers had a shorter LOS (p = 0.012), higher rate of initiation of adjuvant therapy (p = 0.042), and, most strikingly, a reduction in 90-day mortality (p = 0.033).

CONCLUSION

LPD and RPD have similar surgical and oncologic outcomes, with a lower rate of conversion to open in the robotic cohort. The robotic technique does not appear to eliminate the "learning curve", with higher volume centers demonstrating improved outcomes, especially seen at minimum annual volume of 5 cases.

Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy: A favorable approach for frail patients with pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

Within the past decade, minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy has been increasingly adopted in high-volume cancer centers. Amid broader trends of a growing older population, the numbers of frail patients with cancer are expected to increase. In this study, we compared the postoperative outcomes of open pancreaticoduodenectomy and minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy in frail patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

METHODS

Using the pancreatectomy-targeted American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database (2014-2021), we identified pancreaticoduodenectomy cases for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Patients with a modified frailty index ≥2 were considered frail. We performed 2:1 (open pancreaticoduodenectomy to minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy) optimal pair propensity score matching for both patient- and disease-specific characteristics. We evaluated baseline covariate balance for homogeneity and assessed 30-day postoperative outcomes: complications, discharge destination, major morbidity, and mortality.

RESULTS

We identified 3,143 frail patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Of those, 275 (9%) underwent minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy. Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy was associated with a lower rate of any complications compared with open pancreaticoduodenectomy (43% vs 54%; P < .001), major morbidity (29% vs 35%; P = .042), and nonhome discharge (12% vs 17%; P = .022). When comparing the 2 minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy approaches, robotic surgery was associated with fewer complications compared with laparoscopy (39% vs 51%; P = .040) and a lower mortality rate (1% vs 4%; P = .041) CONCLUSION: In frail patients with pancreatic cancer, minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy was associated with better postoperative outcomes than open pancreaticoduodenectomy. This study builds on growing literature reporting that, when properly implemented, minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy is associated with more favorable postoperative outcomes. Given the particularly high risk of complication in frail patients, implementing a preoperative frailty assessment can provide valuable insights to inform patient counseling.

Current Status of Robotic Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery

Laparoscopic surgery is performed worldwide and has clear economic and social benefits in terms of patient recovery time. It is used for most gastrointestinal surgical procedures, but laparoscopic surgery for more complex procedures in the esophageal, hepatobiliary, and pancreatic regions remains challenging. Minimally invasive surgery that results in accurate tumor dissection is vital in surgical oncology, and development of surgical systems and instruments plays a key role in assisting surgeons to achieve this. A notable advance in the latter half of the 1990s was the da Vinci Surgical System, which involves master-slave surgical support robots. Featuring high-resolution three-dimensional (3D) imaging with magnification capabilities and forceps with multi-joint function, anti-shake function, and motion scaling, the system compensates for the drawbacks of conventional laparoscopic surgery. It is expected to be particularly useful in the field of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery, which requires delicate reconstruction involving complex liver anatomy with diverse vascular and biliary systems and anastomosis of the biliary tract, pancreas, and intestines. The learning curve is said to be short, and it is hoped that robotic surgery will be standardized in the near future. There is also a need for a standardized robotic surgery training system for young surgeons that can later be adapted to a wider range of surgeries. This systematic review describes trends and future prospects for robotic surgery in the hepatobiliary-pancreatic region.

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.

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.

Impact of Neoadjuvant Treatment and Minimally Invasive Surgery on Perioperative Outcomes of Pancreatoduodenectomy: an ACS NSQIP Analysis

BACKGROUND

There is an increasing use of neoadjuvant treatment (NAT) for pancreatic cancer (PC) followed by minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD). We evaluate the impact of the surgical approach on 30-day outcomes in PC patients who underwent NAT.

METHODS

Patients with PC who had NAT followed by MIPD or open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) were identified from a pancreatectomy-targeted dataset (2014-2020) of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Comparisons were made between MIPD and OPD within NAT groups.

RESULTS

A total of 5588 patients were analyzed. Of those, 4907 underwent OPD and 476 underwent MIPD. In addition, 3559 patients received neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone and 1830 received neoadjuvant chemoradiation. In the chemotherapy-alone group, the MIPD subgroup had lower rates of any complication (38.2% vs. 45.8%, P = 0.005), but there were no differences in mortality (2.1% for MIPD vs 1.9% for OPD, P=0.8) or serious complication (11.8% for MIPD vs 15% for OPD, P=0.1). On multivariable analysis, MIPD was independently predictive of lower rates of any complication (OR: 0.74, 95% CI 0.6-0.93, P = 0.0009), CR-POPF (OR: 0.58, 95% CI 0.35-0.96, P = 0.04), and shorter LOS (estimate: -1.03, 95% CI -1.73 to -0.32, P = 0.004). In the chemoradiation group, patients undergoing MIPD had higher rates of preoperative diabetes (P < 0.05), but there were no significant differences in any outcomes between the two approaches in this group.

CONCLUSION

MIPD is safe and feasible after NAT. Patients having neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone followed by MIPD had lower rates of complications, shorter LOS, and fewer CR-POPFs compared to OPD.

Effect of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy on the incidence of surgical-site wound infection: A meta-analysis

A meta-analysis was conducted to assess the impact of robotic and laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomies on postoperative surgical site wound infections. A comprehensive computerised search of databases, such as PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, and Wanfang Data, was performed to identify studies comparing robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) with laparoscopicPD. Relevant studies were searched from the inception of the database construction until April 2023. The meta-analysis outcomes were analysed using odds ratios (OR) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). The RevMan 5.4 software was used for the meta-analysis. The findings of the meta-analysis showed that patients who underwent laparoscopic PD had a significantly lower incidence of surgical-site wound (16.52% vs. 18.92%, OR: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.68-0.90, P = .0005), superficial wound (3.65% vs. 7.57%, OR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.39-0.68, P < .001), and deep wound infections (1.09% vs. 2.23%, OR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.34-0.85, P = .008) than those who received robotic PD. However, because of variations in sample size between studies, some studies suffered from methodological quality deficiencies. Therefore, further validation of this result is needed in future studies with higher quality and larger sample sizes.

Evolution of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy at Westmead Hospital

BACKGROUND

Despite its proposed benefits, laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) has not been widely adopted due to its technical complexity and steep learning curve. The aim of this study was to report a single surgeon's experience in the stepwise implementation of LPD and evolution of technique over a nine-year period in a moderate-high volume unit.

METHODS

Carefully selected patients underwent LPD initially by hybrid approach (laparoscopic resection and open reconstruction), which evolved into a total LPD (laparoscopic resection and reconstruction). Data was prospectively collected to include patient characteristics, intraoperative data, evolution of technique and postoperative outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 25 patients underwent hybrid LPD (HLPD) and 20 patients underwent total LPD (TLPD). There was no 90-day mortality. Three patients developed a postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), all of which occurred in patients undergoing HLPD. There was no POPF in 20 consecutive TLPD. There was no evidence of anastomotic strictures in the hepaticojejunostomy in patients undergoing TLPD at long term follow up.

CONCLUSION

A gradual and cautious progression from HLPD to TLPD is essential to ensure safe implementation into a unit. LPD should only be considered in carefully selected patients, with outcomes subjected to regular and rigorous independent audit.

Robotic Pancreaticoduodenectomy: Increased Adoption and Improved Outcomes: Is Laparoscopy Still Justified?

OBJECTIVE

To compare the rate of postoperative 30-day complications between laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD).

BACKGROUND

Previous studies suggest that minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MI-PD)-either LPD or RPD-is noninferior to open pancreaticoduodenectomy in terms of operative outcomes. However, a direct comparison of the two minimally invasive approaches has not been rigorously performed.

METHODS

Patients who underwent MI-PD were abstracted from the 2014 to 2019 pancreas-targeted American College of Surgeons National Sample Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) dataset. Optimal outcome was defined as absence of postoperative mortality, serious complication, percutaneous drainage, reoperation, and prolonged length of stay (75th percentile, 11 days) with no readmission. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to compare optimal outcome of RPD and LPD.

RESULTS

A total of 1540 MI-PDs were identified between 2014 and 2019, of which 885 (57%) were RPD and 655 (43%) were LPD. The rate of RPD cases/year significantly increased from 2.4% to 8.4% ( P =0.008) from 2014 to 2019, while LPD remained unchanged. Similarly, the rate of optimal outcome for RPD increased during the study period from 48.2% to 57.8% ( P <0.001) but significantly decreased for LPD (53.5% to 44.9%, P <0.001). During 2018-2019, RPD outcomes surpassed LPD for any complication [odds ratio (OR)=0.58, P =0.004], serious complications (OR=0.61, P =0.011), and optimal outcome (OR=1.78, P =0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

RPD adoption increased compared with LPD and was associated with decreased overall complications, serious complications, and increased optimal outcome compared with LPD in 2018-2019.

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy and laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy with robotic reconstruction: single-surgeon experience and technical notes

Purpose

Despite the increasing number of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomies, laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) and LPD with robotic reconstruction (LPD-RR) are still valuable surgical options for minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD). This study introduces the surgical techniques, tips, and outcomes of our experience with LPD and LPD-RR.

Methods

Between March 2014 and July 2021, 122 and 48 patients underwent LPD and LPD-RR respectively, at CHA Bundang Medical Center in Korea. The operative settings, procedures, and trocar placements were identical in both approaches; however, different trocars were used. We introduced our techniques of retraction methods for Kocherization and uncinate process dissection, pancreatic reconstruction, pancreatic division, and protection using the round ligament. The perioperative surgical outcomes of LPD and LPD-RR were compared.

Results

Baseline demographics of patients in the LPD and LPD-RR groups were comparable, but the LPD group had older age (65.5 ± 11.6 years vs. 60.0 ± 14.1 years, p = 0.009) and lesser preoperative chemotherapy (15.6% vs. 35.4%, p = 0.008). The proportion of malignant disease was similar (LPD group, 86.1% vs. LPD-RR group, 83.3%; p = 0.759). Perioperative outcomes were also comparable, including operative time, estimated blood loss, clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (LPD group, 9.0% vs. LPD-RR group, 10.4%; p = 0.684), and major postoperative complication rates (LPD group, 14.8% vs. LPD-RR group, 6.2%; p = 0.082).

Conclusion

Both LPD and LPR-RR can be safely performed by experienced surgeons with acceptable surgical outcomes. Further investigations are required to evaluate the objective benefits of robotic surgical systems in MIPD and establish widely acceptable standardized MIPD techniques.

Minimally Invasive Pancreatectomy: Robotic and Laparoscopic Developments

Minimally invasive pancreatectomy is increasingly used. Although offering potential advantages over open approaches, minimally invasive pancreatectomy has many challenges to maintain high-quality of oncologic resection. Multiple patient and surgical factors should be considered in planning laparoscopic or robotic resection, including the learning curve required to produce proficiency. For pancreaticoduodenectomy, distal pancreatectomy, and other pancreatic resections, a safe, margin-negative resection remains the goal. National and societal guidelines for the adoption of minimally invasive pancreatectomy are ongoing and will continue to be important as these techniques are further adopted.

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.

Surgical Treatment of Pancreatic Cancer: Currently Debated Topics on Vascular Resection

Vascular resections involving the superior mesenteric and portal veins (SMV-PV), celiac axis (CA), superior mesenteric artery (SMA) and hepatic artery (HA) have multiplied in recent years, raising the resection rate for pancreatic cancer (PDAC) and the related morbidity and mortality rates. While resection is generally accepted for resectable SMV-PV, the usefulness of associated arterial resection in borderline resectable (BRPC) and locally-advanced PDAC (LAPC) is much debated. Careful selection of splenic vein reconstruction is very important to prevent left-sided portal hypertension (LSPH). During distal pancreatectomy (DP), CA and common HA resection is largely accepted, while there is debate on the value of SMA and proper HA resection and reconstruction. Their resection is useless according to several reviews and meta-analyses, and some international societies, although some high-volume centers have reported good results. Short- and long-term reconstructed vessel patency varies with the type of reconstruction, the material used, and the surgeon's experience. Laparoscopic and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy and DP are generally accepted if done by surgeons performing at least 10 such procedures annually. The usefulness of associated vascular resection remains highly controversial. Surgeons need to complete numerous minimally-invasive procedures to overcome the learning curve, and prevent an increase in complications and surgical mortality. Higher resectability rates and satisfactory long-term results have been reported after neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) for BRPC and LAPC requiring vascular resection. It is essential to select the most appropriate NAT for a given patient and to assess PDAC resectability preoperatively.

An assessment of perioperative outcomes for open, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy in New York State

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive techniques for pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) are increasing in practice, however, data remains limited regarding perioperative outcomes. Our study sought to compare patients undergoing open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) with those undergoing laparoscopic (LPD) or robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD).

METHODS

Patients who underwent PD during 2016-2018 were identified from the New York State Planning and Research Cooperative System database.

RESULTS

Of the 1954 patients identified, 1708 (87.4%) underwent OPD, 165 (8.4%) underwent LPD, and 81 (4.2%) underwent RPD. The majority of patients were White (63.8%), males (53.3%) with a mean age of 65.4 years. RPD patients had a lower median Charlson Comorbidity Index (2) than OPD (3) or LPD (3, p = 0.01) and had a lower 30-day rate of complications (35.8% vs. 48.3% vs. 43.6% respectively, p = 0.05). After propensity-score matching, however, there were no differences between the groups regarding overall complications, surgical site infections, anastomotic leaks, or mortality (p = NS for all). OPD demonstrated a longer length of stay (median 8 days) compared to LPD (7 days) or RPD (7 days, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing LPD and RPD have a shorter length of hospital stay compared to OPD and there was no difference in overall morbidity or mortality when matched to similar patients.

A comparative study of robotics and laparoscopic in minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy: A single-center experience

Objective

To retrospectively compare the short-term benefits of robotic surgery and laparoscopic in the perioperative period of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD).

Methods

This retrospective analysis evaluated patients who underwent laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) or robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) from March 2018 to January 2022 in the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University (Zhengzhou, China). Perioperative data, including operating time, complications, morbidity and mortality, estimated blood loss (EBL), and postoperative length of stay, were analysed.

Result

A total of 190 cases of MIPD were included, of which 114 were LPD and 76 were RPD. There was no significant difference between the two groups in gender, age, previous history of upper abdominal operation, jaundice (>150 µmol/L), or diabetes (P > 0.05). The conversion rate to laparotomy was similar in the LPD and RPD groups (5.3% vs. 6.6%, P = 0.969). A total of 179 cases of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy were successfully performed, including 108 cases of LPD and 71 cases of RPD. There were significant differences between the laparoscopic and robotic groups in operation time [mean, 5.97 h vs. 5.42 h, P < 0.05] and postoperative length of stay [mean, 15.3 vs. 14.6 day, P < 0.05]. No significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of EBL, intraoperative transfusion, complication rate, mortality rate, or reoperation rate (P > 0.05). There were no significant differences in pathological type, number of lymph nodes harvested, or positive lymph node rate (P > 0.05).

Conclusion

RPD had an advantage compared to LPD in reduced operation time and postoperative length of stay, technical feasibility, and safety.

Comparison of surgical outcomes among open, laparoscopic, and robotic pancreatoduodenectomy: a single-center retrospective study

Background

There is no general consensus on the feasibility and safety of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) and whether it increases surgical risks. The purpose of this study was to assess the safety, feasibility, and rationality of RPD by comparing perioperative data among open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD), laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD), and RPD performed in our center in recent years.

Methods

Clinical data of patients had undergone RPD (n = 32), LPD (n = 21), and OPD (n = 86) in The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University between January 2016 and June 2020 were retrospectively collected and analyzed.

Results

RPD required more time for operation (537.2 min vs. 441.5 min, p < 0.001) than OPD did, but less time to remove abdominal drainage tube (12.5 d vs. 17.3 d, p = 0.001). The differences between the RPD group and LPD group were interesting, as the two groups had similar operation time (537.2 min vs. 592.9 min, p = 1.000) and blood loss (482.8 ml vs. 559.5 ml, p > 0.05), but the RPD group had a higher activity of daily living score on postoperative day 3 (35.8 vs. 25.7, p = 0.0017) and a lower rate of conversion to OPD (6.5% vs. 38.1%, p = 0.011). Regarding complications, such as the postoperative pancreatic fistula, abdominal hemorrhage, intra-abdominal infection, bile leakage, reoperation, and perioperative mortality, there were no significant differences among the three groups.

Conclusions

Not only is RPD feasible and reliable, it also offers significant advantages in that it improves postoperative recovery of skills needed for everyday life, has a low conversion rate to open surgery, and does not increase surgical risks.

Which one is better? Laparoscopic versus robotic reconstruction in the remnant soft pancreas with a small pancreatic duct following pancreaticoduodenectomy: a multicenter study with propensity score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

Evidence of the advantages of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) over laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) is limited. Thus, this study aimed to compare the surgical outcomes of laparoscopic reconstruction L-recon) versus robotic reconstruction (R-recon) in patients with soft pancreas and small pancreatic duct.

METHOD

Among 429 patients treated with minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) between October 2012 and June 2020 by three surgeons at three institutions, 201 patients with a soft pancreas and a small pancreatic duct (< 3 mm) were included in this study.

RESULTS

Sixty pairs of patients who underwent L-recon and R-recon were selected after propensity score matching. The perioperative outcomes were comparable between the reconstruction approaches, with comparable clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) rates (15.0% [L-recon] vs. 13.3% [R-recon]). The sub-analysis according to the type of MIPD procedure also showed comparable outcomes, but only a significant difference in postoperative hospital stay was identified. During the learning curve analysis using the cumulative summation by operation time (CUSUM_OT), two surgeons who performed both L-recon and R-recon procedures reached their first peak in the CUSUM_OT graph earlier for the R-recon group than for the L-recon group (i.e., 20th L-recon case and third R-recon case of surgeon A and 43rd L-recon case and seventh R-recon case of surgeon B). Surgeon C, who only performed R-recon, demonstrated the first peak in the 22nd case. The multivariate regression analysis for risk factors of CR-POPF showed that the MIPD procedure type, as well as other factors, did not have any significant effect.

CONCLUSION

Postoperative pancreatic fistula rates and the overall perioperative outcomes of L-recon and R-recon were comparable in patients with soft-textured pancreas and small pancreatic duct treated by experienced surgeons.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy: An Up-To-Date System Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Although minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy has gained worldwide interest, there are limited comparative studies between two minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy techniques. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of robotic and laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD), especially the difference in the perioperative and short-term oncological outcomes.

Methods

PubMed, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Data, Web of Science, and EMBASE were searched based on a defined search strategy to identify eligible studies before July 2021. Data on operative times, blood loss, overall morbidity, major complications, vascular resection, blood transfusion, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), delayed gastric emptying (DGE), conversion rate, reoperation, length of hospital stay (LOS), and lymph node dissection were subjected to meta-analysis.

Results

Overall, the final analysis included 9 retrospective studies comprising 3,732 patients; 1,149 (30.79%) underwent robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD), and 2,583 (69.21%) underwent LPD. The present meta-analysis revealed nonsignificant differences in operative times, overall morbidity, major complications, blood transfusion, POPF, DGE, reoperation, and LOS. Alternatively, compared with LPD, RPD was associated with less blood loss (p = 0.002), less conversion rate (p < 0.00001), less vascular resection (p = 0.0006), and more retrieved lymph nodes (p = 0.01).

Conclusion

RPD is at least equivalent to LPD with respect to the incidence of complication, incidence and severity of DGE, and reoperation and length of hospital stay. Compared with LPD, RPD seems to be associated with less blood loss, lower conversion rate, less vascular resection, and more retrieved lymph nodes.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#recordDetails, identifier CRD2021274057

Surgery for pancreatic cancer: current controversies and challenges

Two areas that remain the focus of improvement in pancreatic cancer include high post-operative morbidity and inability to uniformly translate surgical success into long-term survival. This narrative review addresses specific aspects of pancreatic cancer surgery, including neoadjuvant therapy, vascular resections, extended pancreatectomy, extent of lymphadenectomy and current status of minimally invasive surgery. R0 resection confers longer disease-free survival and overall survival. Vascular and adjacent organ resections should be undertaken after neoadjuvant therapy, only if R0 resection can be ensured based on high-quality preoperative imaging, and that too, with acceptable post-operative morbidity. Extended lymphadenectomy does not offer any advantage over standard lymphadenectomy. Although minimally invasive distal pancreatectomies offers some short-term benefits over open distal pancreatectomy, safety remains a concern with minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy. Strict adherence to principles and judicious utilization of surgery within a multimodality framework is the way forward.

Minimally Invasive Techniques for Pancreatic Resection

There is increasing interest in the role of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for pancreatectomy. Prospective data indicate significant advantages for MIS when performed for left-sided pancreatic pathologies and may be deemed as the standard of care. However, there is reluctance in implementing this technique to pancreaticoduodenectomy because of the complexity of the operation and the mixed results from randomized trials. A detailed description of the technical aspects of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy is presented in this article in addition to a summary of the most important prospective and cohort studies. We also provide insights into patient selection and the learning curve of MIS surgery for pancreatectomy.

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy: Where do we stand?

Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is a complex operation accompanied by significant morbidity rates. Due to this complexity, the transition to minimally invasive PD has lagged behind other abdominal surgical operations. The safety, feasibility, favorable post-operative outcomes of robotic PD have been suggested by multiple studies. Compared to open surgery and other minimally invasive techniques such as laparoscopy, robotic PD offers satisfactory outcomes, with a non-inferior risk of adverse events. Trends of robotic PD have been on rise with centers substantially increasing the number the operation performed. Although promising, findings on robotic PD need to be corroborated in prospective trials.

Robotic pancreas surgery: an overview of history and update on technique, outcomes, and financials

The use robotics in surgery is gaining momentum. This approach holds substantial promise in pancreas surgery. Robotic surgery for pancreatic lesions and malignancies has become well accepted and is expanding to more and more center annually. The number of centers using robotics in pancreatic surgery is rapidly increasing. The most studied robotic pancreas surgeries are pancreaticoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy. Most studies are in their early phases, but they report that robotic pancreas surgery is safe feasible. Robotic pancreas surgery offers several advantages over open and laparoscopic techniques. Data regarding costs of robotics versus conventional techniques is still lacking. Robotic pancreas surgery is still in its early stages. It holds promise to become the new surgical standard for pancreatic resections in the future, however, more research is still needed to establish its safety, cost effectiveness and efficacy in providing the best outcomes.

Pancreatic adenocarcinoma: A review of recent paradigms and advances in epidemiology, clinical diagnosis and management

Pancreatic cancer is one of the dreaded malignancies for both the patient and the clinician. The five-year survival rate of pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDA) is as low as 2% despite multimodality treatment even in the best hands. As per the Global Cancer Observatory of the International Agency for Research in Cancer estimates of pancreatic cancer, by 2040, a 61.7% increase is expected in the total number of cases globally. With the widespread availability of next-generation sequencing, the entire genome of the tumors is being sequenced regularly, providing insight into their pathogenesis. As invasive PDA arises from pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia and mucinous neoplasm and intraductal papillary neoplasm, screening for them can be beneficial as the disease is curable with resection at an early stage. Routine preoperative biliary drainage has no role in patients suffering from PDA with obstructive jaundice. If performed, metallic stents are preferred over plastic ones. Minimally invasive procedures are preferred to open procedures as they have less morbidity. The duct-to-mucosa technique for pancreaticojejunostomy is presently widely practiced. The role of intraperitoneal drains after surgery for PDA is controversial. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy has been proven to have a significant role both in locally advanced as well as in resectable PDA. Many new regimens and drugs have been added in the arsenal of chemoradiotherapy for metastatic disease. The roles of immunotherapy and gene therapy in PDA are being investigated. This review article is intended to improve the understanding of the readers with respect to the latest updates of PDA, which may help to trigger new research ideas and make better management decisions.

State of the art of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy

Current evidence shows that robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) is feasible with a safety profile equivalent to either open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) or laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD). However, major intraoperative bleeding can occur and emergency conversion to OPD may be required. RPD reduces the risk of emergency conversion when compared to LPD. The learning curve of RPD ranges from 20 to 40 procedures, but proficiency is reached only after 250 operations. Once proficiency is achieved, the results of RPD may be superior to those of OPD. As for now, RPD is at least equivalent to OPD and LPD with respect to incidence and severity of POPF, incidence and severity of post-operative complications, and post-operative mortality. A minimal annual number of 20 procedures per center is recommended. In pancreatic cancer (versus OPD), RPD is associated with similar rates of R0 resections, but higher number of examined lymph nodes, lower blood loss, and lower need of blood transfusions. Multivariable analysis shows that RPD could improve patient survival. Data from selected centers show that vein resection and reconstruction is feasible during RPD, but at the price of high conversion rates and frequent use of small tangential resections. The true Achilles heel of RPD is higher operative costs that limit wider implementation of the procedure and accumulation of a large experience at most single centers. In conclusion, when proficiency is achieved, RPD may be superior to OPD with respect to CR-POPF and oncologic outcomes. Achievement of proficiency requires commitment, dedication, and truly high volumes.

500 Minimally Invasive Robotic Pancreatoduodenectomies: One Decade of Optimizing Performance

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to present the outcomes of our decade-long experience of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy and provide insights into successful program implementation.

BACKGROUND

Despite significant improvement in mortality over the past 30 years, morbidity following open pancreatoduodenectomy remains high. We implemented a minimally invasive pancreatic surgery program based on the robotic platform as one potential method of improving outcomes for this operation.

METHODS

A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained institutional database was performed to identify patients who underwent robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) between 2008 and 2017 at the University of Pittsburgh.

RESULTS

In total, 500 consecutive RPDs were included. Operative time, conversion to open, blood loss, and clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula improved early in the experience and have remained low despite increasing complexity of case selection as reflected by increasing number of patients with pancreatic cancer, vascular resections, and higher Charlson Comorbidity scores (all P<0.05). Operating room time plateaued after 240 cases at a median time of 391 minutes (interquartile rang 340-477). Major complications (Clavien >2) occurred in less than 24%, clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula in 7.8%, 30- and 90-day mortality were 1.4% and 3.1% respectively, and median length of stay was 8 days. Outcomes were not impacted by integration of trainees or expansion of selection criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

Structured implementation of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy can be associated with excellent outcomes. In the largest series of RPD, we establish benchmarks for the surgical community to consider when adopting this approach.

National Trends in Robotic Pancreas Surgery

BACKGROUND

Robotic pancreatic surgery is expanding throughout centers across the country. We investigated national trends in the use and outcomes for robotic-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) and distal pancreatectomy (RDP) for primary pancreatic tumors.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database was queried for RPD and RDP performed during three time periods: 2010-2012, 2013-2014, and 2015-2016. These time periods were compared for patient and center factors as well as surgical outcomes.

RESULTS

The use of robotic surgery increased during the study period. Most centers performed a low volume of robotic surgery (RPD, 82% of centers averaged < 1 case/year; RDP, 87% averaged < 1 case/year). From the first to last time period, the proportion of cases performed at academic centers decreased (RPD, 83% to 56%; RDP, 77% to 58%, p < 0.001) while patient characteristics remained largely unchanged. For RPD, improvements in mortality (6.7 to 1.8%, p = 0.013) and lymphadenectomy (18 to 21 nodes, p = 0.035) were observed, with no changes in conversion to open surgery, negative margin resections, or readmissions. For RDP, length of stay decreased (7 to 6 days, p = 0.048), but there were no changes in other outcomes. Compared with academic centers, non-academic centers had equivalent rates of conversion to open surgery, negative margins, and 90-day mortality. On multivariate analysis, there was no difference in survival between academic and non-academic centers.

DISCUSSION

Robotic pancreas surgery is expanding to a greater variety of centers nationwide with preservation of key surgical outcomes. These findings support the continued rigorous training and proliferation of qualified robotic pancreas surgeons going forward.

Short-term Outcomes After Robot-Assisted vs Open Pancreaticoduodenectomy After the Learning Curve

Question

What are the actual advantages of robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) after the learning curve?

Findings

In this cohort study of 187 individuals, robot-assisted PD had advantages over open PD in operative time, estimated blood loss, and postoperative hospital stay after the learning curve.

Meaning

The true advantages of robot-assisted PD could be revealed after passing the learning curve.

Importance

Robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) has been reported to be safe and feasible. As a new technique, RPD has a learning curve similar to that of other types of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery such as laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy. To our knowledge, no reports exist on the outcomes of open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) and RPD after the learning curve.

Objective

To analyze and evaluate the actual advantages of RPD.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Between May 2010 and December 2018, 450 patients underwent RPD in the Shanghai Ruijin Hospital affiliated with Shanghai Jiaotong University in Shanghai, China, a high-volume pancreatic disease center. According to our previous study, an important flexion point in the learning curve is 250 cases. Data on the last 200 RPD cases were collected from January 2017 to December 2018. During that period, 634 patients underwent OPD. These patients were divided into 2 groups, and propensity score matching was used to minimize bias. The demographic data and operative outcomes were collected and analyzed. Analysis began May 2019.

Exposures

Robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy and OPD.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The short-term operative outcomes of RPD and OPD.

Results

After 1:1 matching, 187 cases of RPD and OPD were recorded. In the RPD group, 78 patients (41.7%) were women, and the mean (SD) age was 60.9 (11.4) years. In the OPD group, 80 patients (42.8%) were women, and the mean (SD) age was 60.1 (10.8) years. Robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy had advantages in operative time (mean [SD], 279.7 [76.3] minutes vs 298.2 [78.3] minutes; P = .02), estimated blood loss (mean [SD], 297.3 [246.8] mL vs 415.2 [497.9] mL; P = .002), and postoperative length of hospital stay (mean [SD], 22.4 [16.7] days vs 26.1 [16.3] days; P = .03). However, there was no significant difference in the R0 resection rate and incidence rate of postoperative complications, such as postoperative pancreatic fistula, bile leak, and delayed gastric emptying. The incidence rates of postoperative bleeding and reoperation in the RPD group were similar to those in the OPD group, with no statistically significant difference.

Conclusions and Relevance

After passing the learning curve, RPD had advantages in operative time and blood loss compared with OPD. There were no differences in postoperative complications such as postoperative pancreatic fistula, bile leak, and delayed gastric emptying. However, patients recovered more quickly after RPD than after OPD. A prospective randomized clinical trial is needed in the future to verify these results.

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

PURPOSE

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

Surgical performance improved significantly after the first 30 cases.

Systematic review and updated network meta-analysis comparing open, laparoscopic, and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy

The treatment of periampullary and pancreatic head neoplasms is evolving. While minimally invasive Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) has gained worldwide interest, there has been a debate on its related outcomes. The purpose of this paper was to provide an updated evidence comparing short-term surgical and oncologic outcomes within Open Pancreaticoduodenectomy (OpenPD), Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy (LapPD), and Robotic Pancreaticoduodenectomy (RobPD). MEDLINE, Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane Central Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were referred for systematic search. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was executed. Forty-one articles (56,440 patients) were included; 48,382 (85.7%) underwent OpenPD, 5570 (9.8%) LapPD, and 2488 (4.5%) RobPD. Compared to OpenPD, LapPD and RobPD had similar postoperative mortality [Risk Ratio (RR) = 1.26; 95%CrI 0.91–1.61 and RR = 0.78; 95%CrI 0.54–1.12)], clinically relevant (grade B/C) postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) (RR = 1.12; 95%CrI 0.82–1.43 and RR = 0.87; 95%CrI 0.64–1.14, respectively), and severe (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3) postoperative complications (RR = 1.03; 95%CrI 0.80–1.46 and RR = 0.93; 95%CrI 0.65–1.14, respectively). Compared to OpenPD, both LapPD and RobPD had significantly reduced hospital length-of-stay, estimated blood loss, infectious, pulmonary, overall complications, postoperative bleeding, and hospital readmission. No differences were found in the number of retrieved lymph nodes and R0. OpenPD, LapPD, and RobPD seem to be comparable across clinically relevant POPF, severe complications, postoperative mortality, retrieved lymphnodes, and R0. LapPD and RobPD appears to be safer in terms of infectious, pulmonary, and overall complications with reduced hospital readmission We advocate surgeons to choose their preferred surgical approach according to their expertise, however, the adoption of minimally invasive techniques may possibly improve patients’ outcomes.

Does center or surgeon volume influence adoption of minimally invasive versus open pancreatoduodenectomy? A systematic review and meta-regression

BACKGROUND

There has been increasing uptake of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy during the past decade, but it remains a highly specialized procedure as benefits over open pancreatoduodenectomy remain contentious. This study aimed to evaluate current evidence on minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy versus open pancreatoduodenectomy in terms of impact of center volume on outcomes.

METHODS

A systematic review of articles on comparative cohort and registry studies on minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy versus open pancreatoduodenectomy published until 31st December 2019 were identified, and meta-analyses were performed. Primary endpoints were International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistula grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula and 30-day mortality.

RESULTS

After screening 7,390 studies, 43 comparative cohort studies (8,755 patients) with moderate methodological quality and 3 original registry studies (43,735 patients) were included. For the cohort studies, the median annual hospital minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy volume was 10. No significant differences were found in grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula (odds ratio: 0.98, 95% confidence interval: 0.78-1.23) or 30-day mortality (odds ratio: 1.14, 95% confidence interval: 0.65-2.01) between minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy when compared with open. No publication biases were present and meta-regression identified no confounding for grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula, center volume or 30-day mortality. Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy was only strongly associated with significantly lower rates of postoperative pulmonary complications and surgical site infection, shorter length of stay, and significantly higher rates of R0 margin resections.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy remains noninferior to open pancreatoduodenectomy for grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula but is strongly associated with significantly lower rates of postoperative pulmonary complications and surgical site infection. Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy can be adopted safely with good outcomes irrespective of annual center resection volume.

Transition from open and laparoscopic to robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy in a UK tertiary referral hepatobiliary and pancreatic centre - Early experience of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

Pancreaticoduodenectomy is performed using an open technique (OPD) as the gold standard. An increase in those performed laparoscopically (LPD) and robotically (RPD) are now reported. We compared the short-term outcomes of RPD cases with LPD and OPD.

METHODS

A retrospective review of a prospectively collected database was undertaken of our first consecutive RPD, our first LPD and consecutive OPD cases. Those requiring venous and/or arterial resection were excluded.

RESULTS

RPD (n = 25) had longer median operating times (461 (IQR 358-564) mins) than LPD (n = 41) (330 (IQR 262.5-397.5) mins) and OPD (n = 37) (330 (IQR 257-403) mins, p < 0.0001). Estimated blood loss and transfusion requirement was less after RPD and LPD compared to OPD (p = 0.012 and p < 0.0001 respectively). No RPD cases required conversion to open operation compared to 24.4% of LPD. Morbidity was comparable with a Clavien Dindo score ≥3 in 20.00%, 24.39% and 18.92% for RPD, LPD and OPD respectively (p = 0.83). Post-operative pancreatic fistula rates were seen in 16.00%, 29.27% and 21.62% of our RPD, LPD and OPD cohorts respectively (p = 0.81). 90-day mortality was seen in 0.97% of the total cohort. Length of hospital stay (LOS) was shorter for RPD compared to both LPD (p = 0.030) and OPD (p = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

RPD is safe to perform with comparable outcomes to LPD and OPD. Further evidence is provided that a randomised controlled trial for PD techniques is required.

Achilles'heel of laparoscopic pancreatectomy: reconstruction of the remnant pancreas

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic pancreatic reconstruction is a challenging procedure and is considered the Achilles' heel of laparoscopic pancreatectomy. Multiple techniques of laparoscopic pancreatic reconstruction have been reported, but the optimal technique remains unclear.

AREAS COVERED

This paper provides a brief introduction to the developmental status and major related complications of laparoscopic pancreatic reconstruction. We reviewed all published literature on the technology of laparoscopic pancreatic reconstruction within the last 5 years and herein discuss the advantages and disadvantages of different reconstruction methods. We also discuss several details of different reconstruction techniques in terms of their significance to the operation and complications.

EXPERT OPINION

No individual method of laparoscopic pancreatic reconstruction is considered optimal for all conditions. The reconstruction strategy should be based on the surgeon's proficiency with laparoscopic technology and the patient's individual risk factors. Personalized methods of pancreatic reconstruction may more effectively reduce morbidity and mortality.

Current Status of Laparoscopic and Robotic Pancreatic Surgery and Its Adoption in Singapore

Despite the potential clinical advantages offered by laparoscopic pancreatic surgery (LPS), the main obstacle to its widespread adoption is the technically demanding nature of the procedure and its steep learning curve. LPS and robotic pancreatic surgery (RPS) have been proven to result in superior short-term perioperative outcomes and equivalent long-term oncological outcomes compared to the conventional open approach, with the caveat that they are performed by expert surgeons who have been trained to perform such procedures. The primary challenge faced by most pancreatic surgeons is the steep learning curve associated with these complex procedures and the need to undergo surgical training, especially with regards to laparoscopic and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. Current evidence suggests that RPS may help to shorten the lengthy learning curve required for LPS. More robust evidence—in the form of large randomised controlled trials—is needed to determine whether LPS and RPS can be safely adopted universally. Ann Acad Med Singapore 2020;49:377–83 Key words: Laparoscopic pancreatectomy, Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy, Minimally invasive pancreatic surgery, Robotic pancreatectomy, Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy

Trends of robotic-assisted surgery for thyroid, colorectal, stomach and hepatopancreaticobiliary cancer: 10 year Korea trend investigation

BACKGROUND

The current position of robotic surgery in the field of minimally invasive surgery remains ambiguous. We evaluated long-term trends of robotic general surgery and the future direction of its development.

METHODS

Data on robotic cancer surgeries between 2005 and 2014 were retrospectively collected by volunteer institutions in the Republic of Korea. Spearman's correlation and logistic regression analyses were used to compare robotic and laparoscopic surgery trends in general surgery.

RESULTS

The odds that robotic surgery was performed instead of laparoscopic surgery significantly decreased in the fields of colorectal, stomach, and hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery (odds ratio [OR]: 0.95, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.93-0.97; OR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.88-0.92; and OR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.65-0.78, respectively), except for thyroid surgery (OR: 1.28, 95% CI: 1.25-1.30). Of the total numbers of each procedure, proportions of robotic intersphincteric resections, abdominoperineal resections, and pylorus-preserving surgery performed significantly increased (r = 0.98, P < .001; r = 0.78, P = .01; and r = 0.86, P = .007, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of robotic surgery failed to preponderate that of laparoscopic surgery, except for thyroid surgery. Robotic surgery is increasingly preferred for limited fields or complex surgeries, but the use of robotics in simple surgeries has decreased.

Safety and oncologic efficacy of robotic compared to open pancreaticoduodenectomy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

Emerging data from multi-institutional and national databases suggest that robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy is safe and feasible for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Nevertheless, there are limited reports evaluating its safety and oncologic efficacy following neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

METHOD

This is a retrospective study from the 2010-2016 National Cancer Database comparing the postoperative, pathological and long-term oncologic outcomes between robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) for pancreatic adenocarcinoma following neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

RESULTS

We identified 155 (5%) RPD and 3329 (95%) OPD following neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The use of the robot increased from 3 cases in 2010 to 50 cases in 2016. RPD patients were more likely to receive adjuvant chemotherapy and to be treated at academic centers. After adjustment, RPD was associated with a higher proportion of adequate lymphadenectomy, receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy, decreased rate of prolonged length of stay, and similar 90-day mortality. There was no difference in median overall survival between RPD and OPD (25.6 months vs. 27.5 months, Log Rank p = 0.879). The 1-, 3- and 5-year overall survival rates for RPD were 83%, 36% and 22% and for OPD were 86%, 38% and 22%. After adjustment, the use of robotic surgery was associated with similar overall survival compared to the open approach (HR 1.011, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.776-1.316).

CONCLUSIONS

Following neoadjuvant chemotherapy, RPD is associated with similar short- and long-term mortality with the advantage of shorter length of stay, higher proportion of adequate lymphadenectomy and receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy.

The Miami International Evidence-based Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreas Resection

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to develop and externally validate the first evidence-based guidelines on minimally invasive pancreas resection (MIPR) before and during the International Evidence-based Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreas Resection (IG-MIPR) meeting in Miami (March 2019).

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

MIPR has seen rapid development in the past decade. Promising outcomes have been reported by early adopters from high-volume centers. Subsequently, multicenter series as well as randomized controlled trials were reported; however, guidelines for clinical practice were lacking.

METHODS

The Scottisch Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) methodology was used, incorporating these 4 items: systematic reviews using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases to answer clinical questions, whenever possible in PICO style, the GRADE approach for assessment of the quality of evidence, the Delphi method for establishing consensus on the developed recommendations, and the AGREE-II instrument for the assessment of guideline quality and external validation. The current guidelines are cosponsored by the International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the Americas Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the Asian-Pacific Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the European-African Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery, Pancreas Club, the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgery, the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

RESULTS

After screening 16,069 titles, 694 studies were reviewed, and 291 were included. The final 28 recommendations covered 6 topics; laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomy, central pancreatectomy, pancreatoduodenectomy, as well as patient selection, training, learning curve, and minimal annual center volume required to obtain optimal outcomes and patient safety.

CONCLUSION

The IG-MIPR using SIGN methodology give guidance to surgeons, hospital administrators, patients, and medical societies on the use and outcome of MIPR as well as the approach to be taken regarding this challenging type of surgery.

Advanced laparoscopic HPB surgery: Experience in Seoul National University Bundang Hospital

The worldwide trend in surgery has moved from open surgery to minimally invasive surgery. Likewise, the application of minimally invasive surgery in the hepato-pancreato-biliary (HBP) field is also rapidly expanding. The field of HBP surgery can be divided into liver, pancreas and biliary fields. Minimally invasive liver surgery is recently developed. However, laparoscopic liver resection in difficult areas is challenging. However, with the accumulation of experiences, laparoscopic liver resection for difficult areas is performed more than before. With more propagation, more and more liver resection will be performed by laparoscopic approach. In minimally surgery for the pancreas, distal pancreatectomy has become a well-recommended procedure in benign and borderline malignancy. There have been several systemic reviews that show advantages of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. The reports on laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) are slowly increasing in spite of technical difficulty, with several systemic reviews showing advantages of the procedure. However, more PD will be performed as robotic-assisted procedures in the future. The laparoscopic surgery for biliary tract malignancy is still in early stages. The laparoscopic surgery for gallbladder cancer has been contraindicated, although there have been encouraging reports from expert centers. The laparoscopic surgery for Klatskin tumor is still an experimental procedure. Robotic-assisted procedures for the surgery of cholangiocarcinoma will be the future. Robotic-assisted surgery for the HBP field is still not well-developed. However, with the necessity of more precise manipulation like intracorporeal suturing, robotic-assisted surgery will be used more often in the field of HBP surgery.

Long-term oncologic outcomes of robotic and open pancreatectomy in a national cohort of pancreatic adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

Robotic pancreatectomy is gaining momentum; however, limited data exist on the long-term survival of this approach for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). The objective of this study is to compare the long-term oncologic outcomes of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) and robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) to open surgery in patients with PDAC.

STUDY DESIGN

Robotic and open pancreatectomy for stages I-III PDAC were obtained from the 2010 to 2016 National Cancer Database.

RESULTS

We identified 17 831 pancreaticoduodenectomies and 2718 distal pancreatectomies of which 626 (4%) and 332 (12%) were robotic, respectively. There was no difference in median overall survival between RPD (22.0 months) and open pancreatoduodenectomy (21.8 months; logrank P = .755). The adjusted hazard ratio [HR] was 1.014 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.903-1.139). The median overall survival for RDP (35.3 months) was higher than open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) (24.9 months; logrank P = .001). The adjusted HR suggests a benefit to RDP compared to ODP (HR, 0.744; 95% CI: 0.632-0.868) CONCLUSION: In a national cohort of resected pancreatic adenocarcinoma, the robotic platform was associated with similar long-term survival for pancreaticoduodenectomy, but improved survival for distal pancreatectomy.

Time Spent Away from Home in the Year Following High-Risk Cancer Surgery in Older Adults

OBJECTIVES

To understand where older adults spend time (at home, in the hospital, or in a nursing home) in the year following high-risk cancer surgery.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Medicare beneficiaries using data from Medicare Inpatient claims to ascertain hospital days and the Minimum Data Set to ascertain nursing home days.

PARTICIPANTS

Beneficiaries who underwent high-risk cancer surgery (cystectomy, pancreaticoduodenectomy, gastrectomy, or esophagectomy) were identified to determine cumulative time spent away from home in the year following surgery.

MEASUREMENTS

Adjusted percentages of time spent away from home (ie, days in a hospital or nursing home) were modeled for the year following surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 37 748 beneficiaries underwent high-risk cancer surgery during the study period, and 28.3% died within 1 year. Overall, beneficiaries spent 13.9 ± 26.2 days in the hospital (over 1.5 ± 2.0 hospital readmissions) and 37.2 ± 50.6 days in the nursing home (over 1.5 ± 1.0 admissions) in the year following surgery. Among beneficiaries who were alive and dead at 1 year, 18.5% and 30.1% of time was spent away from home, respectively. Beneficiaries who were initially discharged to a facility following surgery and died within 1 year spent 44.4% of their final year away from home.

CONCLUSION

Time spent away from home in the hospital and/or nursing home in the year following high-risk cancer surgery is substantial among Medicare beneficiaries. This information is crucial in counseling patients on postoperative expectations and may additionally influence preoperative decision making. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:505-510, 2020.

The North American Neuroendocrine Tumor Society Consensus Paper on the Surgical Management of Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors

This manuscript is the result of the North American Neuroendocrine Tumor Society consensus conference on the surgical management of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors from July 19 to 20, 2018. The group reviewed a series of questions of specific interest to surgeons taking care of patients with pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors, and for each, the available literature was reviewed. What follows are these reviews for each question followed by recommendations of the panel.

Comparison Between Robotic and Laparoscopic or Open Anastomoses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Robotic surgery has been increasingly used in fashioning various surgical anastomoses. Our aim was to collect and analyze outcomes related to anastomoses performed using a robotic approach and compare them with those done using laparoscopic or open approaches through meta-analysis.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted for articles comparing robotic with laparoscopic and/or open operations (colectomy, low anterior resection, gastrectomy, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), pancreaticoduodenectomy, radical cystectomy, pyeloplasty, radical prostatectomy, renal transplant) published up to June 2019 searching Medline, Scopus, Google Scholar, Clinical Trials and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Studies containing information about outcomes related to hand-sewn anastomoses were included for meta-analysis. Studies with stapled anastomoses or without relevant information about the anastomotic technique were excluded. We also excluded studies in which the anastomoses were performed extracorporeally in laparoscopic or robotic operations.

RESULTS

We included 83 studies referring to the aforementioned operations (4 randomized controlled and 79 non-randomized, 10 prospective and 69 retrospective) apart from colectomy and low anterior resection. Anastomoses done using robotic instruments provided similar results to those done using laparoscopic or open approach in regards to anastomotic leak or stricture. However, there were lower rates of stenosis in robotic than in laparoscopic RYGB (p=0.01) and in robotic than in open radical prostatectomy (p<0.00001). Moreover, all anastomoses needed more time to be performed using the robotic rather than the open approach in renal transplant (p≤0.001).

CONCLUSION

Robotic anastomoses provide equal outcomes with laparoscopic and open ones in most operations, with a few notable exceptions.

Learning Curve From 450 Cases of Robot-Assisted Pancreaticoduocectomy in a High-Volume Pancreatic Center: Optimization of Operative Procedure and a Retrospective Study

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to describe our experience and the learning curve of 450 cases of robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) and optimize the surgical process so that our findings can be useful for surgeons starting to perform RPD.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Robotic surgical systems were first introduced 20 years ago. Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is a challenging surgery because of its technical difficulty. RPD may overcome some of these difficulties.

METHODS

The medical records of 450 patients who underwent RPD between May 2010 and December 2018 at the Shanghai Ruijin Hospital were retrospectively analyzed. Operative times and estimated blood loss (EBL) were analyzed and the learning curve was determined. A cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis was used to identify the inflexion points. Other postoperative outcomes, postoperative complications, and long-term follow-up were also analyzed.

RESULTS

Operative time improved gradually over time from 405.4 ± 112.9 minutes (case 1-50) to 273.6 ± 70 minutes (case 301-350) (P < 0.001). EBL improved from 410 ± 563.5 mL (case 1-50) to 149.0 ± 103.3 mL (case 351-400) (P < 0.001). According to the CUSUM curve, there were 3 phases in the RPD learning curve. The inflexion points were around cases 100 and 250. The incidence of pancreatic leak in the last 350 cases was significantly lower than that in the first 100 cases (30.0% vs 15.1%, P = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

RPD is safe and feasible for selected patients. Operative and oncologic outcomes were much improved after experience of 250 cases. Our optimization of the surgical process may have also contributed to this. Future prospective and randomized studies are needed to confirm our results.

Operative results and patient satisfaction after robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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