Assessing the perioperative complications and outcomes of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy using the National Cancer Database: is it ready for prime time?

Role of robotic surgery as an element of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery protocol in patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

Although the current trend in pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) has shifted from open surgery to minimally invasive surgery (MIS), evidence on the role of MIS as an element of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) in PD is limited. This study aimed to investigate the effect of robotic surgery using the ERAS protocol on the outcomes of patients undergoing PD.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 252 patients who underwent open PD (OPD) or robotic PD (RPD) managed using the ERAS protocol between January 2017 and March 2023. Outcomes stratified by the surgical approach were compared. Multivariable analyses were performed to evaluate the effect of ERAS items, including robotic surgery, on outcomes after PD.

RESULTS

Of 252 patients, 202 (80.2%) underwent OPD, and 50 (19.2%) underwent RPD. Multivariable analyses demonstrated that perioperative management center support (odds ratio [OR], 2.85; 95% CI, 1.14-7.72; P = .025), robotic surgery (OR, 6.40; 95% CI, 1.94-26.1; P = .002), early solid intake (OR, 2.84; 95% CI, 1.46-5.63; P = .002), and early drain removal (OR, 3.77; 95% CI, 2.04-7.06; P < .001) were significant ERAS items related to early discharge after PD.

CONCLUSION

Our study demonstrated that employing the ERAS protocol for OPD and RPD is feasible and safe. Moreover, our results suggested the role of robotic surgery as an element of the ERAS protocol for PD. A combination of ERAS protocols and MIS may be safe and feasible for accelerating postoperative recovery after PD.

Unplanned conversions of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy: short-term outcomes and suggested stepwise approach for a safe conversion

OBJECTIVE

With the increased adoption of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy, the effects of unplanned conversions to an 'open' operation are ill-defined. This study aims to describe the impact of unplanned conversions of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy on short-term outcomes and suggest a stepwise approach for safe unplanned conversions during robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy.

METHODS

This is an analysis of 400 consecutive patients undergoing robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy in a single high-volume institution. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD), and significance is accepted with 95% probability.

RESULTS

Between November 2012 and February 2023, 184 (46%) women and 216 (54%) men, aged 70 (68 ± 11.0) years, underwent a robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. Unplanned conversions occurred in 42 (10.5%) patients; 18 (5%) were converted due to unanticipated vascular involvement, 13 (3%) due to failure to obtain definitive control of bleeding, and 11 (3%) due to visceral obesity. Men were more likely to require a conversion than women (29 vs. 13, p = 0.05). Conversions were associated with shorter operative time (376 (323 ± 182.2) vs. 434 (441 ± 98.7) min, p < 0.0001) but higher estimated blood loss (675 (1010 ± 1168.1) vs. 150 (196 ± 176.8) mL, p < 0.0001). Patients that required an unplanned conversion had higher rates of complications with Clavien-Dindo scores of   III-V (31% vs. 12%, p = 0.003), longer length of stay (8 (11 ± 11.6) vs. 5 (7 ± 6.2), p = 0.0005), longer ICU length of stay (1 (2 ± 5.1) vs. 0 (0 ± 1.3), p < 0.0001) and higher mortality rates (21% vs. 4%, p = 0.0001). The conversion rate significantly decreased over time (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Unplanned conversions of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy significantly and negatively affect short-term outcomes, including postoperative mortality. Men were more likely to require a conversion than women. The unplanned conversions rates significantly decreased over time, implying that increased proficiency and patient selection may prevent unplanned conversions. An unplanned conversion should be undertaken in an organized stepwise approach to maximize patient safety.

Trends and disparities in access to minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (midp): an eight-year analysis from the national cancer database

Laparoscopic and robotic approaches to distal pancreatectomy are becoming the standard of care. The aim of our study was to evaluate the trends of utilization and disparities in access to minimally invasive approaches in distal pancreatectomy. We queried the National Cancer Database (NCDB) and analyzed all the patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy from 2010 to 2017. Patients were divided into groups of those with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) and those with laparoscopic or robotic distal pancreatectomy (MIDP = minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy). Our outcome measures were trends of MIDP and disparities in access to MIDP. Cochran Armitage trend analysis and multivariate regression analysis were used to evaluate outcomes. A total of 13,537 patients with distal pancreatectomy were identified in the NCDB from 2010 to 2017. 7548 (55.8%) underwent ODP, while 5989 (44.2%) underwent MIDP. The MIDP rates increased from 25% in 2010 to 52% in 2017 (p < 0.01). On regression analysis, when controlled for age, gender, diagnosis, tumor size, grade, staging, and chemoradiotherapy, African American patients were 30% less likely to undergo MIDP than White (OR 0.7, 95% CI [0.5-0.8], p < 0.01). Similarly, Hispanic patients were 25% less likely to undergo MIDP than non-Hispanic patients OR 0.75, 95% CI [0.6-0.9], p = 0.02). Compared to Medicare/private insured patients, uninsured patients were 50% less likely to undergo MIDP (OR 0.5, 95% CI [0.4-0.7], p < 0.01). Based on the medium household income, compared to patients in the fourth quartile, patients in the third quartile OR 0.9, 95% CI [0.3-0.9], p = 0.03). Second OR 0.8, 95%CI [0.5-0.9], p < 0.01), first quartile OR 0.7, 95% CI [0.5-0.8], p < 0.01) were less likely to undergo MIPD as well. Utilization of MIDP has increased from one in every four patients in 2010 to every other patient in 2017. However, African Americans, Hispanics, the uninsured, and those from low-income quartiles are less likely to undergo MIDP. Efforts should be made to ensure access to minimally invasive approches are available to minorities.

Meta-analysis of robotic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy in all patients and pancreatic cancer patients

Purposes

To compare perioperative outcomes of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) using evidence from cohort studies.

Methods

Outcomes of interest include operative time, blood loss, R0 resection rate, lymph nodes harvested, overall complication rate, pancreatic fistula rate, delayed gastric emptying rate and 90-day mortality.

Results

6 prospective studies and 15 retrospective studies were included. Five of these studies were limited to patients with pancreatic cancer. Operative time was significantly longer in RPD (WMD: 64.60 min; 95% CI: 26.89 to 102.21; p = 0.001). Estimated blood loss was lower in RPD (WMD: −185.44 ml; 95% CI: −239.66 to −131.21; p < 0.001). Overall complication rates (OR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.44 to 0.97; p < 0.001) and pancreatic fistula rate (OR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.55 to 0.82; p < 0.001) were both lower in RPD. Length of hospital stay was longer in OPD (WMD: −1.90; 95% CI: −2.47 to −1.33). 90-day mortality was lower in RPD [odds ratio (OR): 0.77; 95% CI: 0.45 to 0.95; p = 0.025].

Conclusion

At current level of evidence, RPD is a safer alternative than OPD with regard to post-operative outcomes and blood loss. However, in terms of oncological outcomes RPD show no advantage over OPD, and the cost of RPD was higher. In general, RPD is now considered a reliable technology, but high-quality randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies are still needed to support this conclusion.

Current status of robotic surgery for hepato-pancreato-biliary malignancies

INTRODUCTION

Robotic surgery is an emerging aspect of gastrointestinal surgery. Hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery is currently being explored for a broad spectrum of indications, entities, and postoperative outcomes. Noninferiority and financial aspects are the focus of studies. In this review, the impact on oncological therapies is assessed.

AREAS COVERED

An extensive literature review was conducted, and relevant studies and articles and reviews for robotic surgery in the field of hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery were examined. Special attention was given to the oncological aspects of robotic surgery and its possible impact on the therapy of malignant neoplasms.

EXPERT OPINION

Robotic-assisted surgery for oncological indications is promising, in part, an established technique that has already shown its advantages in the last decade, although high-quality studies are missing. Upcoming experience must consider the oncological benefit and putative new indications in a rapidly changing field of anti-neoplastic regimens. Also, robotic surgery may possess the ability to accelerate digitalization and AI-based augmentation in this context.