Safety and efficacy of robot-assisted versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: a meta-analysis of multiple worldwide centers

What are the true benefits of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy for patients with pancreatic cancer?

INTRODUCTION

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is a devastating disease, and multimodal treatment including high-quality surgery can improve survival outcomes. Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) has evolved with minimally invasive approaches including the implementation of robotic PD (RPD). In this special report, we review the literature whilst evaluating the 'true benefits' of RPD compared to open approach for the treatment of PDAC.

AREAS COVERED

We have performed a mini-review of studies assessing PD approaches and compared intraoperative characteristics, perioperative outcomes, post-operative complications and oncological outcomes.

EXPERT OPINION

RPD was associated with similar or longer operative times, and reduced intra-operative blood loss. Perioperative pain scores were significantly lower with shorter lengths of stay with the robotic approach. With regards to post-operative complications, post-operative pancreatic fistula rates were similar, with lower rates of clinically relevant fistulas after RPD. Oncological outcomes were comparable or superior in terms of margin status, lymph node harvest, time to chemotherapy and survival between RPD and OPD. In conclusion, RPD allows safe implementation of minimally invasive PD. The current literature shows that RPD is either equivalent, or superior in certain aspects to OPD. Once more centers gain sufficient experience, RPD is likely to demonstrate clear superiority over alternative approaches.

Epidemiology of healthcare-associated infections and outcomes among open and robotic pancreatoduodenectomy: A retrospective study from 2013 to 2022

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) are one of the common postoperative complications. This study aims to investigate the epidemiology of postoperative HAIs in patients with open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD).

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study described the trend of HAIs in patients undergoing PD from January 2013 to December 2022 at a tertiary hospital. Patients were divided into OPD and RPD, and the HAIs and outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

Among 2632 patients who underwent PD, 230 (8.7%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 7.7-9.9%) were diagnosed with HAIs, with a decreasing trend from 2013 to 2022 (P < 0.001 for trend). The incidence of postoperative HAIs was significantly higher in patients with OPD than RPD (9.6% vs 5.8%; P = 0.003). The incidence of HAIs for patients with OPD showed a decreasing trend (P = 0.001 for trend), and the trend for RPD was not significant (P = 0.554 for trend). Logistic regression showed that RPD was significantly associated with postoperative HAIs after adjusting for covariates (adjusted odds ratio = 0.654; 95% CI 0.443-0.965; P = 0.032), especially in the subgroup of patients without preoperative biliary drainage (adjusted odds ratio = 0.486; 95% CI 0.292-0.809; P = 0.006). Regarding clinical outcomes, RPD has a shorter length of stay and a more expensive charge than OPD (all P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Postoperative HAIs in patients with PD showed a decreasing trend in recent years, especially in OPD. RPD was significantly associated with reduced postoperative HAIs and length of stay, although the charge is more expensive. Attention should be paid to postoperative HAIs in OPD, and it is imperative to continue reducing the costs of RPD.

Robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy with the da Vinci Xi: can the costs of advanced technology be offset by clinical advantages? A case-matched cost analysis versus open approach

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) has shown some advantages over open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) but few studies have reported a cost analysis between the two techniques. We conducted a structured cost-analysis comparing pancreatoduodenectomy performed with the use of the da Vinci Xi, and the traditional open approach, and considering healthcare direct costs associated with the intervention and the short-term post-operative course.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty RPD and 194 OPD performed between January 2011 and December 2020 by the same operator at our high-volume multidisciplinary center for robot-assisted surgery and for pancreatic surgery, were retrospectively analyzed. Two comparable groups of 20 patients (Xi-RPD-group) and 40 patients (OPD-group) were obtained matching 1:2 the RPD-group with the OPD-group. Perioperative data and overall costs, including overall variable costs (OVCs) and fixed costs, were compared.

RESULTS

No difference was reported in mean operative time: 428 min for Xi-RPD-group versus 404 min for OPD, p = 0.212. The median overall length of hospital stay was significantly lower in the Xi-RPD-group: 10 days versus 16 days, p = 0.001. In the Xi-RPD-group, consumable costs were significantly higher (€6149.2 versus €1267.4, p < 0.001), while hospital stay costs were significantly lower: €5231.6 versus €8180 (p = 0.001). No significant differences were found in terms of OVCs: €13,483.4 in Xi-RPD-group versus €11,879.8 in OPD-group (p = 0.076).

CONCLUSIONS

Robot-assisted surgery is more expensive because of higher acquisition and maintenance costs. However, although RPD is associated to higher material costs, the advantages of the robotic system associated to lower hospital stay costs and the absence of difference in terms of personnel costs thanks to the similar operative time with respect to OPD, make the OVCs of the two techniques no longer different. Hence, the higher costs of advanced technology can be partially compensated by clinical advantages, particularly within a high-volume multidisciplinary center for both robot-assisted and pancreatic surgery. These preliminary data need confirmation by further studies.

Nomogram for Predicting the Prognoses of Patients With Pancreatic Head Cancer After Pancreaticoduodenectomy: A Population-Based Study on SEER Data

Objective

In this study, we retrieved the data available in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database to identify the prognostic factors for patients with pancreatic head cancer who had undergone pancreaticoduodenectomy and developed a prediction model for clinical reference.

Methods

We screened the data between 1973 and 2015. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to control for the confounding factors. Kaplan-Meier (log-rank test) curves were used to compare the survival rates. A nomogram was established using multifactorial Cox regression.

Results

In total, 4099 patients were identified. Their median survival was 22 months, with 74.2%, 36.5%, and 26.2% survival after 1, 3, and 5 years, respectively. The median cancer-specific survival was 24.0 months, with 71.1%, 32.6%, and 21.9% survival after 1, 3, and 5 years, respectively. The results of the Cox proportional risk regression showed that age, insurance status, gender, histological type, degree of tissue differentiation, T and N stages, tumor size, extent of regional lymph node dissection, and postoperative radiotherapy or chemotherapy are independent factors affecting prognosis. PSM was used twice to eliminate any bias from the unbalanced covariates in the raw data. After PSM, the patients who had received postoperative radiotherapy were found to have a better survival prognosis and disease-specific survival prognosis than those who had not received radiotherapy [HR = 0.809, 95% CI (0.731–0.894), P < 0.001 and HR = 0.814, 95% CI (0.732–0.904), P < 0.001; respectively]. A similar result was observed for the patients who had received postoperative chemotherapy versus those who had not [HR = 0.703, 95% CI (0.633–0.78), P < 0.001 and HR = 0.736, 95% CI (0.658–0.822), P < 0.001, for survival and disease-specific survival prognoses, respectively]. Finally, the β coefficients of the Cox proportional risk regression were used to establish a nomogram.

Conclusion

Age, insurance status, gender, histological type, degree of differentiation, T and N stages, tumor size, regional lymph node dissection, and postoperative radiotherapy or chemotherapy are factors affecting the prognosis in pancreatic head cancer after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Postoperative radiotherapy and chemotherapy can improve patient survival. These still need to be further validated in the future.

Choice of operative method for pancreaticojejunostomy and a multivariable study of pancreatic leakage in pancreaticoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

As one of the major abdominal operations, pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) involves many organs. The operation is complex, and the scope of the operation is large, which can cause significant trauma in patients. The operation has a high rate of complications. Pancreatic leakage is the main complication after PD. When pancreatic leakage occurs after PD, it can often lead to abdominal bleeding and infection, threatening the lives of patients. One study found that pancreatic leakage was affected by many factors including the choice of pancreaticojejunostomy method which can be well controlled.

AIM

To investigate the choice of operative methods for pancreaticojejunostomy and to conduct a multivariate study of pancreatic leakage in PD.

METHODS

A total of 420 patients undergoing PD in our hospital from January 2014 to March 2019 were enrolled and divided into group A (n = 198) and group B (n = 222) according to the pancreatointestinal anastomosis method adopted during the operation. Duct-to-mucosa pancreatojejunostomy was performed in group A and bundled pancreaticojejunostomy was performed in group B. The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and pancreatic leakage of the two groups were assessed. The occurrence of pancreatic leakage after the operation in different patients was analyzed.

RESULTS

The differences in operative time and intraoperative bleeding between groups A and B were not significant (P > 0.05). In group A, the time of pancreatojejunostomy was 26.03 ± 4.40 min and pancreatic duct diameter was 3.90 ± 1.10 mm. These measurements were significantly higher than those in group B (P < 0.05). The differences in the occurrence of pancreatic leakage, abdominal infection, abdominal hemorrhage and gastric retention between group A and group B were not significant (P > 0.05). The rates of pancreatic leakage in patients with preoperative albumin < 30 g/L, preoperative jaundice time ≥ 8 wk, and pancreatic duct diameter < 3 mm, were 23.33%, 33.96%, and 19.01%, respectively. These were significantly higher than those in patients with preoperative albumin ≥ 30 g/L, preoperative jaundice time < 8 wk, and pancreatic duct diameter ≥ 3 cm (P < 0.05). Logistic regression analysis showed that preoperative albumin < 30 g/L, preoperative jaundice time ≥ 8 wk, and pancreatic duct diameter < 3 mm were risk factors for pancreatic leakage after PD (odds ratio = 2.038, 2.416 and 2.670, P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The pancreatointestinal anastomosis method during PD has no significant effect on the occurrence of pancreatic leakage. The main risk factors for pancreatic leakage include preoperative albumin, preoperative jaundice time, and pancreatic duct diameter.