Short-term perioperative outcomes after robot-assisted and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy

[Robotic pancreatic surgery]

Robotic operations as a further development of conventional laparoscopic surgery have been introduced for nearly all interventions in visceral surgery during the last decade. They also currently have a high importance and acceptance in pancreatic surgery despite a relevant learning curve and high associated costs. Standard procedures, such as robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) and partial pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) are most frequently performed, whereas extended resections, e.g., vascular reconstructions of the portal vein, are still limited to a small number of centers worldwide. Potential advantages of robotic pancreatic surgery compared to open surgery include, in particular, less blood loss and a faster postoperative recovery of the patients leading to a shorter hospital stay. Compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery, robotic approaches offer advantages with respect to better visualization and three-dimensional dexterity of the instruments; however, the currently published literature comprises only retrospective or prospective observational studies and randomized controlled results are not yet available but first study results in this respect are expected within the next 2-3 years.

ROBOTIC ASSISTED VERSUS LAPAROSCOPIC DISTAL PANCREATECTOMY: A RETROSPECTIVE STUDY

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) is associated with less blood loss and faster functional recovery. However, the benefits of robotic assisted distal pancreatectomy (RDP) over laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) are unknown.

AIMS

To compare RDP versus LDP for surgical treatment of benign lesions, pre-malignant and borderline malignant pancreatic neoplasias.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study comparing LDP with RDP. Main outcomes were overall morbidity and overall costs. Secondary outcomes were pancreatic fistula (PF), infectious complications, readmission, operative time (OT) and length of hospital stay (LOS).

RESULTS

Thirty patients submitted to LDP and 29 submitted to RDP were included in the study. There was no difference regarding preoperative characteristics. There was no difference regarding overall complications (RDP - 72,4% versus LDP - 80%, p=0,49). Costs were superior for patients submitted to RDP (RDP=US$ 6,688 versus LDP=US$ 6,149, p=0,02), mostly due to higher costs of surgical materials (RDP=US$ 2,364 versus LDP=1,421, p=0,00005). Twenty-one patients submitted to RDP and 24 to LDP developed pancreatic fistula (PF), but only 4 RDP and 7 LDP experienced infectious complications associated with PF. OT (RDP=224 min. versus LDP=213 min., p=0.36) was similar, as well as conversion to open procedure (1 RDP and 2 LDP).

CONCLUSIONS

The postoperative morbidity of robotic distal pancreatectomy is comparable to laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. However, the costs of robotic distal pancreatectomy are slightly higher.

A Comparison of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy for Benign or Malignant Lesions: A Meta-Analysis

Background: The momentum of robotic surgery is increasing, and it has great prospects in pancreatic surgery. It has been widely accepted and expanding to more and more centers. Robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) is the most recent advanced minimally invasive approach for pancreatic lesions and malignancies. However, laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) also showed good efficacy. We compared the effect of RDP with LDP using a meta-analysis. Methods: From January 2010 to June 2023, clinical trials of RDP versus LDP were determined by searching PubMed, Medline, and EMBASE. A meta-analysis was conducted to compare the effect of RDP with LDP. This meta-analysis evaluated the R0 resection rate, lymph node metastasis rate, conversion to open surgery rate, spleen preservation rate, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative pancreatic fistula, postoperative hospital stay, 90-day mortality rate, surgical cost, and total cost. Results: This meta-analysis included 38 studies. Conversion to open surgery, blood loss, and 90-day mortality in the RDP group were all significantly less than that in the LDP group (P < .05). There was no difference in lymph node resection rate, R0 resection rate, or postoperative pancreatic fistula between the two groups (P > .05). Spleen preservation rate in the LDP group was higher than that in the RDP group (P < .05). Operation cost and total cost in the RDP group were both more than that in the LDP group (P < .05). It is uncertain which group has an advantage in postoperative hospital stay. Conclusions: To some degree, RDP and LDP were indeed worth comparing in clinical practice. However, it may be difficult to determine which is absolute advantage according to current data. Large sample randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm which is better treatment. PROSPERO ID: CRD4202345576.

The influence of procedural volume on short-term outcomes for robotic pancreatoduodenectomy-a cohort study and a learning curve analysis

BACKGROUND

An increasing number of robotic pancreatoduodenectomies (RPD) are reported, however, questions remain on the number of procedures needed for gaining technical proficiency in RPD. Therefore, we aimed to assess the influence of procedure volume on short-term RPD outcomes and assess the learning curve effect.

METHODS

A retrospective review of consecutive RPD cases was undertaken. Non-adjusted cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis was performed to identify the procedure volume threshold, following which before-threshold and after-threshold outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

Since May 2017, 60 patients had undergone an RPD at our institution. The median operative time was 360 min (IQR 302.25-442 min). CUSUM analysis of operative time identified 21 cases as proficiency threshold, indicated by curve inflexion. Median operative time was significantly shorter after the threshold of 21 cases (470 vs 320 min, p < 0.001). No significant difference was found between before- and after-threshold groups in major Clavien-Dindo complications (23.8 vs 25.6%, p = 0.876).

CONCLUSIONS

A decrease in operative time after 21 RPD cases suggests a threshold of technical proficiency potentially associated with an initial adjustment to new instrumentation, port placement and standardisation of operative step sequence. RPD can be safely performed by surgeons with prior laparoscopic surgery experience.

Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis including patient subgroups

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RDP) has been suggested to hold some benefits over laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) but consensus and data on specific subgroups are lacking. This systematic review and meta-analysis reports the surgical and oncological outcome and costs between RDP and LDP including subgroups with intended spleen preservation and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).

METHODS

Studies comparing RDP and LDP were included from PubMed, Cochrane Central Register, and Embase (inception-July 2022). Primary outcomes were conversion and unplanned splenectomy. Secondary outcomes were R0 resection, lymph node yield, major morbidity, operative time, intraoperative blood loss, in-hospital mortality, operative costs, total costs and hospital stay.

RESULTS

Overall, 43 studies with 6757 patients were included, 2514 after RDP and 4243 after LDP. RDP was associated with a longer operative time (MD = 18.21, 95% CI 2.18-34.24), less blood loss (MD = 54.50, 95% CI - 84.49-24.50), and a lower conversion rate (OR = 0.44, 95% CI 0.36-0.55) compared to LDP. In spleen-preserving procedures, RDP was associated with more Kimura procedures (OR = 2.23, 95% CI 1.37-3.64) and a lower rate of unplanned splenectomies (OR = 0.32, 95% CI 0.24-0.42). In patients with PDAC, RDP was associated with a higher lymph node yield (MD = 3.95, 95% CI 1.67-6.23), but showed no difference in the rate of R0 resection (OR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.67-1.37). RDP was associated with higher total (MD = 3009.31, 95% CI 1776.37-4242.24) and operative costs (MD = 3390.40, 95% CI 1981.79-4799.00).

CONCLUSIONS

RDP was associated with a lower conversion rate, a higher spleen preservation rate and, in patients with PDAC, a higher lymph node yield and similar R0 resection rate, as compared to LDP. The potential benefits of RDP need to be weighed against the higher total and operative costs in future randomized trials.

Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy on perioperative outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Robotic surgery has become a promising surgical method in minimally invasive pancreatic surgery due to its three-dimensional visualization, tremor filtration, motion scaling, and better ergonomics. Numerous studies have explored the benefits of RDP over LDP in terms of perioperative safety and feasibility, but no consensus has been achieved yet. This article aimed to evaluate the benefits and drawbacks of RDP and LDP for perioperative outcomes. By June 2022, all studies comparing RDP to LDP in the PubMed, the Embase, and the Cochrane Library database were systematically reviewed. According to the heterogeneity, fix or random-effects models were used for the meta-analysis of perioperative outcomes. Odds ratio (OR), weighted mean differences (WMD), and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. A sensitivity analysis was performed to explore potential sources of high heterogeneity and a trim and fill analysis was used to evaluate the impact of publication bias on the pooled results. Thirty-four studies met the inclusion criteria. RDP provides greater benefit than LDP for higher spleen preservation (OR 3.52 95% CI 2.62-4.73, p < 0.0001) and Kimura method (OR 1.93, 95% CI 1.42-2.62, p < 0.0001) in benign and low-grade malignant tumors. RDP is associated with lower conversion to laparotomy (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.33-0.52, p < 0.00001), and shorter postoperative hospital stay (WMD - 0.57, 95% CI - 0.92 to - 0.21, p = 0.002), but it is more costly. In terms of postoperative complications, there was no difference between RDP and LDP except for 30-day mortality (RDP versus LDP, 0.1% versus 1.0%, p = 0.03). With the exception of its high cost, RDP appears to outperform LDP on perioperative outcomes and is technologically feasible and safe. High-quality prospective randomized controlled trials are advised for further confirmation as the quality of the evidence now is not high.

Is robotic distal pancreatectomy better than laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy after the learning curve? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Aim

The aim of this study was to compare the safety and overall effect of robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) to laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) after the learning curve, especially in perioperative outcome and short-term oncological outcome.

Methods

A literature search was performed by two authors independently using PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science to identify any studies comparing the results of RDP versus LDP published until 5 January 2022. Only the studies where RDP was performed in more than 35 cases were included in this study. We performed a meta-analysis of operative time, blood loss, reoperation, readmission, hospital stay, overall complications, major complications, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), blood transfusion, conversion to open surgery, spleen preservation, tumor size, R0 resection, and lymph node dissection.

Results

Our search identified 15 eligible studies, totaling 4,062 patients (1,413 RDP). It seems that the RDP group had a higher rate of smaller tumor size than the LDP group (MD: −0.15; 95% CI: −0.20 to −0.09; p &lt; 0.00001). Furthermore, compared with LPD, RDP was associated with a higher spleen preservation rate (OR: 2.19; 95% CI: 1.36–3.54; p = 0.001) and lower rate of conversion to open surgery (OR: 0.43; 95% CI: 0.33–0.55; p &lt; 0.00001). Our study revealed that there were no significant differences in operative time, overall complications, major complications, blood loss, blood transfusion, reoperation, readmission, POPF, and lymph node dissection between RDP and LDP.

Conclusions

RDP is safe and feasible for distal pancreatectomy compared with LDP, and it can reduce the rate of conversion to open surgery and increase the rate of spleen preservation, which needs to be further confirmed by quality comparative studies with large samples.

Systematic Review Registration

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

Learning curves in minimally invasive pancreatic surgery: a systematic review

Background

The learning curve of new surgical procedures has implications for the education, evaluation and subsequent adoption. There is currently no standardised surgical training for those willing to make their first attempts at minimally invasive pancreatic surgery. This study aims to ascertain the learning curve in minimally invasive pancreatic surgery.

Methods

A systematic search of PubMed, Embase and Web of Science was performed up to March 2021. Studies investigating the number of cases needed to achieve author-declared competency in minimally invasive pancreatic surgery were included.

Results

In total, 31 original studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria with 2682 patient outcomes being analysed. From these studies, the median learning curve for distal pancreatectomy was reported to have been achieved in 17 cases (10–30) and 23.5 cases (7–40) for laparoscopic and robotic approach respectively. The median learning curve for pancreaticoduodenectomy was reported to have been achieved at 30 cases (4–60) and 36.5 cases (20–80) for a laparoscopic and robotic approach respectively. Mean operative times and estimated blood loss improved in all four surgical procedural groups. Heterogeneity was demonstrated when factoring in the level of surgeon’s experience and patient’s demographic.

Conclusions

There is currently no gold standard in the evaluation of a learning curve. As a result, derivations are difficult to utilise clinically. Existing literature can serve as a guide for current trainees. More work needs to be done to standardise learning curve assessment in a patient-centred manner.

Comparative analysis of open, laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatic resection: The United Kingdom's first single-centre experience

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) has potential advantages over its open equivalent open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) for pancreatic disease in the neck, body and tail. Within the United Kingdom (UK), there has been no previous experience describing the role of robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP). This study evaluated differences between ODP, LDP and RDP.

METHODS

Patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy performed in the Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery at the Freeman Hospital between September 2007 and December 2018 were included from a prospectively maintained database. The primary outcome measure was length of hospital stay, and the secondary outcome measures were complication rates graded according to the Clavien-Dindo classification.

RESULTS

Of the 125 patients, the median age was 61 years and 46% were male. Patients undergoing RDP (n = 40) had higher American Society of Anesthesiologists grading III compared to ODP (n = 38) and LDP (n = 47) (57% vs. 37% vs. 38%, P = 0.02). RDP had a slightly lower but not significant conversion rate (10% vs. 13%, P = 0.084), less blood loss (median: 0 vs. 250 ml, P < 0.001) and a higher rate of splenic preservation (30% vs. 2%, P < 0.001) and shorter operative time, once docking time excluded (284 vs. 300 min, P < 0.001) compared to LDP. RDP had a higher R0 resection rate than ODP and LDP (79% vs. 47% vs. 71%, P = 0.078) for neoplasms. RDP was associated with significantly shorter hospital stay than LDP and ODP (8 vs. 9 vs. 10 days, P = 0.001). While there was no significant different in overall complications across the groups, RDP was associated with lower rates of Grade C pancreatic fistula than ODP and LDP (2% vs. 5% vs. 6%, P = 0.194).

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive pancreatic resection offers potential advantages over ODP, with a trend showing RDP to be marginally superior when compared to conventional LDP, but it is accepted that that this is likely to be at greater expense compared to the other current techniques.

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.

State of the art robotic distal pancreatectomy: a review of the literature

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy has become increasingly used in practice. While laparoscopic approach is the most commonly used technique, robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) has emerged as a safe, feasible and effective approach for distal pancreatectomy. Most studies have shown that RDP improved perioperative surgical outcomes and has equivalent oncologic outcomes to open technique. Widespread adoption is limited by a steep learning curve, higher costs and the need for institutional training protocols in place for safe integration of the platform into practice.

Short-term and long term morbidity in robotic pancreatic surgery: a systematic review

Background

Pancreatic cancer is one of the most aggressive and lethal tumours in Western society. Pancreatic surgery can be considered a challenge for open and laparoscopic surgeons, even if the accuracy of gland dissection, due to the close relationship between pancreas, the portal vein, and mesenteric vessels, besides the reconstructive phase (in pancreaticoduodenectomy), lead to significant difficulties for laparoscopic technique. Minimally invasive pancreatic surgery changed utterly with the development of robotic surgery. However, this review aims to make more clarity on the influence of robotic surgery on long-term morbidity.

Methods

A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Scopus to identify and analyze studies published from November 2011 to September 2020 concerning robotic pancreatic surgery. The following terms were used to perform the search: "long term morbidity robotic pancreatic surgery".

Results

Eighteen articles included in the study were published between November 2011 and September 2020. The review included 2041 patients who underwent robotic pancreatic surgery, mainly for a malignant tumour. The two most common robotic surgical procedures adopted were the robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) and the robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD). In two studies, patients were divided into groups; on the one hand, those who underwent a robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD), on the other hand, those who underwent robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP). The remaining items included surgical approach such as robotic middle pancreatectomy (RMP), robotic distal pancreatectomy and splenectomy, robotic-assisted laparoscopic pancreatic dissection (RALPD), robotic enucleation of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours.

Conclusions

Comparison between robotic surgery and open surgery lead to evidence of different advantages of the robotic approach. A multidisciplinary team and a surgical centre at high volume are essential for better postoperative morbidity and mortality.

[Evidence for robotics in oncological pancreatic surgery]

Robotic surgical procedures have been implemented and have become an important development in pancreatic surgery with an increasing acceptance worldwide. Nearly all types of pancreatic surgery have now been performed robotically and especially standardized resections, such as distal pancreatectomy (RDP) and partial pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) have gained importance despite a potentially long learning curve and high associated procedural costs. The present review article summarizes the available literature and evidence on the respective procedures focused on their use for indications of malignancy.

Comparison of 3 Minimally Invasive Methods Versus Open Distal Pancreatectomy: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

The efficacy and safety of open distal pancreatectomy (DP), laparoscopic DP, robot-assisted laparoscopic DP, and robotic DP have not been established. The authors aimed to comprehensively compare these 4 surgical methods using a network meta-analysis.

Current statement and safe implementation of minimally invasive surgery in the pancreas

Minimally invasive pancreatic resection has become very popular in modern pancreatic surgery. Evidence of the benefits of a minimally invasive approach is accumulating thanks to prospective and randomized controlled studies. Minimally invasive surgery provides advantages to the surgeon due to the high definition of the surgical field and the freedom of fine movement of the robot, but should be considered only in selected patients and in high-volume centers. Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy for benign and low-grade malignant tumors has established a secure position over open distal pancreatectomy, since it is associated with a shorter hospital stay, reduced blood loss, and equivalent complication rates. Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma appears to be a feasible, safe, and oncologically equivalent technique in experienced hands. On the other hand, the feasibility and safety of minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy are still controversial compared with open pancreaticoduodenectomy. The choice of either technique among open, laparoscopic, and robotic approaches depends on surgeons' experience and hospital resources with a focus on patient safety. Further studies are needed to prove the perioperative and oncological advantages of minimally invasive surgery compared to open surgery in the pancreas. Here, we review the current status of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery and its safe implementation.

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.

How to train and evaluate minimally invasive pancreas surgery

Training for minimally invasive pancreas surgery is critical as an evolving body of literature supports its use with acceptable outcomes during training and improved short term outcomes following completion. Although case volume needed to achieve mastery remains unclear, improved outcomes for both laparoscopic and robotic pancreatectomy are demonstrated following a learning curve and inflection point. Therefore, dedicated training curricula for both laparoscopic and robotic pancreatectomy have been developed to mitigate this learning curve and improve outcomes.

Revisiting the potential advantage of robotic surgical system in spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy over conventional laparoscopic approach

Background

This study aimed to compare success rate of spleen preservation between robotic and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (DP).

Methods

Between November 2007 and March 2018, forty-one patients underwent the conventional laparoscopic DP (Lap group) and the other 37 patients underwent robotic DP (Robot group). The perioperative clinicopathologic variables were compared.

Results

The robotic procedure was chosen by younger patients compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery (42.9±14.0 vs. 51.3±14.6 years, P=0.016). The mean operation time was longer (313 vs. 246 min, P=0.000), but the mean tumor size was smaller in Robot group (2.7±1.2 vs. 4.2±3.3 cm, P=0.018). The overall spleen-preserving rate was higher in the Robot group (91.9% vs. 68.3%, P=0.012). However, with accumulating laparoscopic experiences (after 16th case), the statistical differences in spleen preservation rate between the Robot and Lap groups had diminished (P=0.428).

Conclusions

The present results suggest a robot can be helpful to save the spleen during DP for benign and borderline malignancy. However, a surgeon highly experienced in the laparoscopic approach can also produce a high success rate of spleen preservation, similar to that shown with the robotic approach.

Meta-analysis of short-term outcomes comparing robot-assisted and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy

Aim: To evaluate and compare the short-term outcomes of robotic surgery and laparoscopic approach in distal pancreatectomy (DP). Materials & methods: EMBASE, PubMed, the Cochrane Library, CNKI and Wan Fang database were retrieved from the inception of electronic databases to June 2019. All analyses were performed using Stata/SE 15.1 version (StataCorp). Results: Twenty-two papers were included, four of which were prospective studies and the rest were retrospective studies. There was significant difference in spleen preservation rate (odds ratio: 2.020; 95% CI: 1.085-3.758; p = 0.027), operation time (mean difference [MD]: 27.372; 95% CI: 8.236-47.210; p = 0.000), the length of hospital stay (MD: -0.911; 95% CI: -1.287 to -0.535; p = 0.000), conversion rate (rate difference: -0.090; 95% CI: -1.287 to -0.535; p = 0.000), operation cost (MD: 2816.564; 95% CI: 1782.028-3851.064; p = 0.000). However, no significant difference was detected in estimated blood loss, total complication, severe complication, lymph nodules harvest, blood transfusion rate, total pancreatic fistula, severe pancreatic fistula, R0 resection rate and mortality. Conclusion: Both robotic and laparoscopic DP are safe and feasible. Although robotic DP increases the operation cost, the spleen-preserving rate is much higher. Robotic surgery may be an alternative approach to DP.

Systematic review of learning curves in robot-assisted surgery

Background

Increased uptake of robotic surgery has led to interest in learning curves for robot‐assisted procedures. Learning curves, however, are often poorly defined. This systematic review was conducted to identify the available evidence investigating surgeon learning curves in robot‐assisted surgery.

Methods

MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched in February 2018, in accordance with PRISMA guidelines, alongside hand searches of key congresses and existing reviews. Eligible articles were those assessing learning curves associated with robot‐assisted surgery in patients.

Results

Searches identified 2316 records, of which 68 met the eligibility criteria, reporting on 68 unique studies. Of these, 49 assessed learning curves based on patient data across ten surgical specialties. All 49 were observational, largely single‐arm (35 of 49, 71 per cent) and included few surgeons. Learning curves exhibited substantial heterogeneity, varying between procedures, studies and metrics. Standards of reporting were generally poor, with only 17 of 49 (35 per cent) quantifying previous experience. Methods used to assess the learning curve were heterogeneous, often lacking statistical validation and using ambiguous terminology.

Conclusion

Learning curve estimates were subject to considerable uncertainty. Robust evidence was lacking, owing to limitations in study design, frequent reporting gaps and substantial heterogeneity in the methods used to assess learning curves. The opportunity remains for the establishment of optimal quantitative methods for the assessment of learning curves, to inform surgical training programmes and improve patient outcomes.

Comparison of surgical outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy versus laparoscopic and open resections: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RADP) has been developed with the aim of improving surgical quality and overcoming the limitations of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) and open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) for pancreatic resections. A systematic search was performed in the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and China Biology Medicine databases up to December 2016 for studies that compared the surgical outcomes of RADP vs. LDP or ODP for pancreatic resections. The weighted mean differences, odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated, and the data were combined using the random-effects model. The GRADE system was used to interpret the primary outcomes of this meta-analysis. A total of seventeen non-randomized observational clinical studies involving 2133 patients satisfied the eligibility criteria. Compared with LDP, RADP was associated with a longer operative time (P = 0.018), a shorter hospital length of stay (P = 0.030), and a higher rate of spleen preservation (P = 0.022). Moreover, RADP was associated with a shorter hospital LOS (P = 0.014) and a lower total complication rate (P = 0.034) than ODP. We found no statistically significant differences between the techniques in the mean estimated blood loss, severe complication rate, incidence of total pancreatic fistulas or incidence of severe pancreatic fistulas. The overall quality of evidence was poor for all outcomes. This meta-analysis indicates that RADP may be safe and comparable in terms of surgical results to LDP and ODP. Further RCTs are needed to confirm the outcomes of this meta-analysis.

Do patients benefit more from robot assisted approach than conventional laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy? A meta-analysis of perioperative and economic outcomes

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Robotic approach has improved the ergonomics of conventional laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP), but whether patients benefit more from robot assisted distal pancreatectomy (RADP) is still controversial. This meta-analysis aims to compare the perioperative and economic outcomes of RADP with LDP.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was carried out on PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library between January 1990 and March 2017. All eligible studies comparing RADP versus LDP were included. Perioperative and economic outcomes constituted the end points.

RESULTS

13 English studies with 1396 patients were included. Regarding to intraoperative outcomes, RADP was associated with a significant decrease in conversion rate (OR = 0.52; 95%CI: 0.34, 0.78; P = 0.002). Although the spleen-preserving rates were comparable between RADP and LDP, a significant higher splenic vessels conservation rate was observed in the RADP group (OR = 4.71; 95%CI: 1.77, 12.56; P = 0.002). No statistically significant differences were found at operation time, estimated blood loss and blood transfusion rate. Concerning postoperative outcomes, pooled data indicated the overall morbidity, pancreatic fistula and the length of hospital stay did not differ significantly between the RADP and LDP groups. And concerning pathological outcomes, positive margin rate and the number of lymph nodules harvested were comparable between the two groups. The operative cost of RADP was almost double that of LDP (WMD = 2350.2 US dollars; 95%CI: 1165.62, 3534.78; P = 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

RADP showed a slight technical advantage. But whether this benefit is worth twofold cost should be considered by patient's individuation.

Minimally Invasive Distal Pancreatectomy: A Single-Center Analysis of Outcome With Experience and Systematic Review of the Literature

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study is to analyze the learning curve for laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) in our series and review the literature on learning curves for LDP and robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP).

METHODS

Learning curve analysis was performed by split group and cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis of blood loss, operative time, and length of stay. The systematic review identified studies analyzing changes in outcome with experience.

RESULTS

A total of 25 resections were performed. CUSUM analysis of operative time found learning curves of 10 cases for LDP and splenectomy and 11 for LDP with splenic preservation. CUSUM analysis of blood loss showed approximately 6 cases. In the literature, values of 10 cases of LDP and approximately 7 RDP were found.

CONCLUSIONS

Low numbers of LDP are required to reach proficiency in the hands of expert laparoscopic surgeons. Our results correspond with numbers quoted in the literature.

Robotic distal pancreatectomy with or without preservation of spleen: a technical note

Background

Distal pancreatectomy (DP) is a surgical procedure performed to remove the pancreatic tail jointly with a variable part of the pancreatic body and including a spleen resection in the case of conventional distal pancreatectomy or not in the spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy.

Methods

In this article, we describe a standardized operative technique for fully robotic distal pancreatectomy.

Results

In the last decade, the use of robotic systems has become increasingly common as an approach for benign and malignant pancreatic disease treatment. Robotic Distal Pancreatectomy (RDP) is an emerging technology for which sufficient data to draw definitive conclusions in surgical oncology are still not available because the follow-up period after surgery is too short (less than 2 years).

Conclusions

RDP is an emerging technology for which sufficient data to draw definitive conclusions of value in surgical oncology are still not available, however this techniques is safe and reproducible by surgeons that possess adequate skills.