Treatment of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms, neuroendocrine and periampullary pancreatic tumors using robotic surgery: a safe and feasible technique

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Outcomes associated with robotic approach to pancreatic resections

Minimally invasive techniques have improved post-operative outcomes, however, the majority of pancreatic surgery, known for its complexity, is still performed via open approaches. The development of robotics has improved dexterity which may allow for application in more complex surgeries. We queried a prospectively maintained robotic database to identify patients who underwent robotic pancreatic resection by a single surgeon between 2012 and 2016. Patient demographics and operative outcomes were compared using Mann-Whitney U, Kruskal Wallis and Pearson's Chi-square test as appropriate. We identified 119 patients; 65 Whipples [Robotic Whipple (RW)], 43 distal pancreatectomies, 4 total pancreatectomies, 6 pancreatic enucleations, and 1 robotic cyst gastrostomy with a median age of 71 [24-91], median body mass index (BMI) of 27.6 (16.8-40.2), and American society of anesthesiologists (ASA) of 3. The median estimated blood loss (EBL) was 125 [25-800] and loss of heterozygosity (LOH) 6 [1-34]. Mean operative time for RW decreased after 15 cases (578 vs. 457 minutes, P<0.004). Conversions to open occurred in 5 (4.2%) patients. In total of 117 (98.3%) patients underwent R0 resections and the median lymph node (LN) harvest was 16 [0-37]. The 30 and 90 days mortality was 1 (0.8%). Major complications (Clavien-Dindo grade 3-5) were seen in 16 (13.4%) cases (20.3%) but decreased steadily as volume increased (case 30). Pancreatic leaks occurred in 14 (11.8%): A, 8 (6.7%); B, 4 (3.4%); and C, 2 (1.7%). Robotic assisted approaches to pancreatic resections is feasible. However, it takes approximately 15 cases before a decrease in operative time and 30 cases before major complications are decreased. These trends in complications are associated with surgeon experience and volume are critical to consider in robotic pancreatic surgery.

Total robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a systematic review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is a complex operation with high perioperative morbidity and mortality, even in the highest volume centers. Since the development of the robotic platform, the number of reports on robotic-assisted pancreatic surgery has been on the rise. This article reviews the current state of completely robotic PD.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed including studies published between January 2000 and July 2016 reporting PDs in which all procedural steps (dissection, resection and reconstruction) were performed robotically.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria, including a total of 738 patients. Data regarding perioperative outcomes such as operative time, blood loss, mortality, morbidity, conversion and oncologic outcomes were analyzed. No major differences were observed in mortality, morbidity and oncologic parameters, between robotic and non-robotic approaches. However, operative time was longer in robotic PD, whereas the estimated blood loss was lower. The conversion rate to laparotomy was 6.5-7.8%.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic PD is feasible and safe in high-volume institutions, where surgeons are experienced and medical staff are appropriately trained. Randomized controlled trials are required to further investigate outcomes of robotic PD. Additionally, cost analysis and data on long-term oncologic outcomes are needed to evaluate cost-effectiveness of the robotic approach in comparison with the open technique.

Revisiting robotic approaches to endocrine neoplasia: do the data support their continued use?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Although the advent of the robot has revolutionized the modern treatment of endocrine neoplasia, substantial controversies exist on its applicability, safety and benefits over the conventional laparoscopic operations. The present review aims to review the recent literature on various robotic approaches in treating thyroid, parathyroid, adrenal and pancreatic endocrine neoplasia and see whether its continued use should be supported.

RECENT FINDINGS

In summary, the role of robotic thyroidectomy has been clearly established and should be continued by experienced surgeons on selected patients. Because of the limited availability of evidence, the feasibility of robotic parathyroidectomy has yet to be elucidated. With proven favorable perioperative outcomes, robotic adrenalectomy and pancreatectomy should be continued as potential alternatives to conventional surgery.

SUMMARY

Robotic endocrine procedures still play a pivotal role in minimally invasive endocrine surgery with demonstrable safety and effectiveness. Future research should embark on prospective randomized-controlled trials on robotic endocrine procedures to collect higher level of evidence and long-term survival data.

Comparison of the morbidity, weight loss, and relative costs between robotic and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy for the treatment of obesity in Brazil

BACKGROUND

In recent years, there has been renewed interest in using robotics in bariatric surgery for the treatment of morbid obesity. However, the high cost of a robotic surgical system has hindered its widespread use in developing countries. This study aims to compare the rate of morbidity, weight loss, and relative costs between laparoscopic (LSG) and robotic-assisted sleeve gastrectomy (RSG) performed for the treatment of obesity in a single center in Brazil.

METHODS

From January 2011 to March 2013, 48 severely obese patients underwent either LSG or RSG at our institution and were prospectively followed up for 12 months. Patients were free to choose either approach and were informed of any extra costs that may be incurred.

RESULTS

Thirty-two patients underwent LSG and 16 patients, RSG. No significant differences were observed between LSG and RSG groups regarding age, sex, BMI, incidence of comorbidities, duration of surgery, and length of hospital stay. Also, there were no significant between-group differences in BMI values evaluated at 6 and 12 months after surgery. Surgical costs were almost twice as high and total hospital costs were approximately 50 % higher in the robotic approach compared to the laparoscopic approach.

CONCLUSION

Both RSG and LSG had excellent and similar post-operative clinical outcomes. However, the much higher costs of purchasing and maintaining the robotic system are still precluding the use of RSG as a routine approach in the treatment of morbid obesity in Brazil.

The state of the art of robotic pancreatectomy

During the last decades an increasing number of minimally invasive pancreatic resections have been reported in the literature. With the development of robotic surgery a new enthusiasm has not only increased the number of centers approaching minimally invasive pancreatic surgery in general but also enabled the use of this technique for major pancreatic procedures, in particular in minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy. The aim of this review was to define the state of the art of pancreatic robotic surgery. No prospective randomized trials have been performed comparing robotic, laparoscopic, and open pancreatic procedures. From the literature one may conclude that robotic pancreatectomies seem to be as feasible and safe as open procedures. The general idea that the overall perioperative costs of robotic surgery would be higher than traditional procedures is not supported. With the current lack of evidence of any oncologic advantages, the cosmetic benefits offered by robotic surgery are not enough to justify extensive use in cancer patients. In contrast, the safety of these procedure can justify the use of the robotic technique in patient with benign/low grade malignant tumors of the pancreas.

A systematic review on robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery might have several advantages in respect of the laparoscopic approach since might make more feasible the execution of a complex procedure such as pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). The aim of the present systematic review is to evaluate the current state of the literature on robotic PD.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed, from January 1st 2003 to July 31st 2012, for studies which reported PDs performed for neoplasm and in which at least one surgical reconstructive or resective step was robotically performed.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies, representing 207 patients, met the inclusion criteria. The definition of the robotic approach was heterogeneous since the technique was defined as robotic, robotic-assisted, robot-assisted laparoscopic and robotic hybrid. Resection and reconstruction steps of robotic PD were also heterogeneous combining sequentially different approaches: totally robotic technique, laparoscopic-robotic resection and robotic reconstruction, laparoscopic resection and robotic reconstruction, hand port-assisted laparoscopic resection and robotic reconstruction, laparoscopic-robotic resection and reconstruction through mini-laparotomy. As regard the type of PD 66% were classic Whipple operations and 34% pylorus-preserving pancreatoduodenectomies. The management of pancreatic stump was a pancreaticogastrostomy in 23%, end-to-side pancreaticojejunostomy in 67%, and fibrin glue occlusion of the main pancreatic duct in 10% of cases. The overall procedure failure (rates of conversion to open surgery) was 14%. The overall morbidity rate was 58% and the reoperation rate was 7.3%.

CONCLUSIONS

There have been an increasing number of recent case series suggesting increased utilization of robotic PD over the past decade. The technical approach is heterogenous. For highly selected patient, robotic PD is feasible with similar morbidity and mortality compared to open or purely laparoscopic approaches. Data on cost analysis are lacking and further studies are needed to evaluate also the cost-effectiveness of the robotic approach for PD in comparison to open or laparoscopic techniques. The current state of the art analysis on robotic DP can be also useful in planning future trials.