State of the art of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy

Achievement of international benchmark outcomes for robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy in a low volume country

BACKGROUND

Recently, there has been an increase in the utilisation of the robotic platform to perform minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy in high volume centres, with the goal of reducing morbidity and improving patient outcomes. This study reports the successful implementation of a robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) programme in the relatively low volume setting of Australia, measured against established, internationally accepted benchmarks for low-risk open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD).

METHODS

Retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database for consecutive RPD at two Brisbane hospitals was performed, comparing data to internationally established benchmarks for low-risk OPD. A structured RPD programme was implemented by two surgeons across a study period spanning May 2017 to December 2023.

RESULTS

Over the study period, seventy-two consecutive RPDs were performed, with 79 % for malignancy. Perioperative outcomes for transfusions, conversion rate, postoperative fistula rate, morbidity, mortality and oncological outcomes were all within established benchmark cutoffs for low-risk open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD), although operative time exceeded the benchmark value by 0.7hrs.

CONCLUSION

A carefully implemented RPD programme in the low volume Australian setting is feasible, with high quality outcomes achievable when compared to established benchmarks for low-risk OPD and to reported RPD series published by high volume pioneering centres.

Robotic Pancreatoduodenectomy: Increasing Complexity and Decreasing Complications with Experience: Single-Center Results from 150 Consecutive Patients

BACKGROUND

This report describes the authors' experience with 150 consecutive robotic pancreatoduodenectomies.

METHODS

The study enrolled 150 consecutive patients who underwent robotic pancreatoduodenectomy between 2018 and 2023. Pre- and intraoperative variables such as age, gender, indication, operation time, diagnosis, and tumor size were analyzed. The patients were divided into two groups. Group 1 comprised the first 75 patients, and group 2 comprised the last 75 cases. The median age of the patients was 62.4 years and did not differ between the two groups.

RESULTS

Morbidity was lower in group 2. The mortality rate was 0.7% at 30 days and 1.3% at 90 days, and there was no difference between the groups. There was a significant reduction (p < 0.05) in operative time, resection time, reconstruction time, and conversion to open surgery in group 2. Partial resection of the portal vein was performed in 17 patients and more common in group 2 (p < 0.01). The number of resected lymph nodes was higher in group 2. The indication for pancreatoduodenectomy did not differ between the two groups. There was no difference in tumor size or clinical characteristics of the patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The robotic platform is useful for pancreatoduodenectomy, facilitates adequate lymphadenectomy, and is helpful for digestive tract reconstruction after resection. Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy is safe and feasible for selected patients. It should be performed in specialized centers by surgeons experienced in open and minimally invasive pancreatic surgery.

Instrumentless liver suspension for liver retraction in robotic pancreatoduodenectomy

The popularity of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) is increasing, yet it remains a complex procedure. Outcomes are influenced by various factors, including patient-specific variables, disease characteristics, and surgical technique. Numerous and intricate details contribute to the technical success of RPD. In this study, our focus is on achieving effective and "gentle" liver retraction. The use of liver retractors has been associated with the risk of retractor-related liver injury (RRLI), which can have serious consequences. Here, we introduce a refined technique for instrumentless liver retraction in RPD, developed progressively through a series of over 300 procedures. The core concept of this technique involves suspending the liver to the diaphragmatic dome. This is accomplished by securing the round ligament to the anterior abdominal wall using transparietal sutures and attaching the fundus of the gallbladder and the anterior margin of liver segment number 3 to the diaphragm. Our consecutive series of over 300 RPDs demonstrates the feasibility and safety of this approach, with no clinically relevant RRLI observed. Instrumentless liver retraction offers a valuable refinement in RPD, streamlining the procedure while reducing potential complications associated with dedicated retractors.

Internal hernia through the Treitz fossa after robotic pancreatoduodenectomy: pathogenesis and preventive measures

Internal hernia through the Treitz fossa following robotic pancreatoduodenectomy is a rare but potentially serious complication. In our review of 328 cases of robotic pancreatoduodenectomies, two patients (0.6%) required repeat surgery due to internal herniation of the entire small bowel through the Treitz fossa. This complication can present as afferent loop syndrome, with symptoms including nausea, vomiting, and abdominal distension, possibly leading to cholangitis and pancreatitis. Timely diagnosis and intervention are paramount, as conservative management often fails. Preventive measures involve closing the peritoneal defect in the Treitz fossa at the end of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy, particularly in lean patients with thin mesentery who are at increased risk of internal hernia due to increased mobility of the small bowel. This technical note elucidates the pathogenesis of Treitz hernia following robotic pancreatoduodenectomy and underscores the importance of closing the peritoneal breach to prevent this rare yet potentially serious complication.

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.

Safety and feasibility of instituting a robotic pancreas program in the Australian setting: a case series and narrative review

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive pancreatic resection has been gathering interest over the last decade due to the technical demands and high morbidity associated with these typically open procedures. We report our experience with robotic pancreatectomy within an Australian context.

METHODS

All patients undergoing robotic distal pancreatectomy (DP) and pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) at two Australian tertiary academic hospitals between May 2014 and December 2020 were included.

RESULTS

Sixty-two patients underwent robotic pancreatectomy during the study period. Thirty-four patients with a median age of 68 years (range 42-84) were in the PD group whilst the DP group included 28 patients with a median age of 60 years (range 18-78). Thirteen patients (46.4%) in the DP group had spleen-preserving procedures. There were 13 conversions (38.2%) in the PD group whilst 0 conversions occurred in the DP group. The Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III complication rate was 26.4% and 17.9% in the PD and DP groups, respectively. Two deaths (5.9%) occurred within 90-days in the PD group whilst none were observed in the DP group. The median length of hospital stay was 11.5 days (range 4-56) in the PD group and 6 days (range 2-22) in the DP group.

CONCLUSION

Robotic pancreatectomy outcomes at our institution are comparable with international literature demonstrating it is both safe and feasible to perform. With improved access to this platform, robotic pancreas surgery may prove to be the turning point for patients with regards to post-operative complications as more experience is obtained.

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.

Robotic Versus Open Pancreatoduodenectomy With Vein Resection and Reconstruction: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

Objective

This study aimed to compare robotic pancreatoduodenectomy with vein resection (PD-VR) based on the incidence of severe postoperative complications (SPC).

Background

Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy has been gaining momentum in recent years. Vein resection is frequently required in this operation, but no study has compared robotic and open PD-VR using a matched analysis.

Methods

This was an intention-to-treat study designed to demonstrate the noninferiority of robotic to open PD-VR (2011-2021) based on SPC. To achieve a power of 80% (noninferiority margin:10%; α error: 0.05; ß error: 0.20), a 1:1 propensity score-matched analysis required 35 pairs.

Results

Of the 151 patients with PD-VR (open = 115, robotic = 36), 35 procedures per group were compared. Elective conversion to open surgery was required in 1 patient with robotic PD-VR (2.9%). One patient in both groups experienced partial vein thrombosis. SPC occurred in 7 (20.0%) and 6 patients (17.1%) in the robotic and open PD-VR groups, respectively (P = 0.759; OR: 1.21 [0.36-4.04]). Three patients died after robotic PD-VR (8.6%) and none died after open PD-VR (P = 0.239). Robotic PD-VR was associated with longer operative time (611.1 ± 13.9 minutes vs 529.0 ± 13.0 minutes; P < 0.0001), more type 2 vein resection (28.6% vs 5.7%; P = 0.0234) and less type 3 vein resection (31.4% vs 71.4%; P = 0.0008), longer vein occlusion time (30 [25.3-78.3] minutes vs 15 [8-19.5] minutes; P = 0.0098), less blood loss (450 [200-750] mL vs 733 [500-1070.3] mL; P = 0.0075), and fewer blood transfusions (intraoperative: 14.3% vs 48.6%; P = 0.0041) (perioperative: 14.3% vs 60.0%; P = 0.0001).

Conclusions

In this study, robotic PD-VR was noninferior to open PD-VR for SPC. Robotic and open PD-VR need to be compared in randomized controlled trials.

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.

Defining the operative time threshold for safety in patients undergoing robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) is a safe and efficacious procedure in appropriately selected patients, though frequently with increased operative times compared to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD).

METHODS

From 2014 to 2019, patients who underwent elective, low-risk, RPDs and OPDs in the NSQIP database were isolated. The operative time threshold (OTT) for safety in RPD patients was estimated by identifying the operative time at which complication rates for RPD patients exceeded the complication rate of the benchmark OPD control.

RESULTS

Of 6270 patients identified, 939 (15%) underwent RPD and 5331 (85%) underwent OPD. The incidence of major morbidity or mortality for the OPD cohort was 35.1%. The OTT was identified as 7.7 h. Patients whose RPDs were above the OTT experienced a higher incidence of major morbidity (42.5% vs. 35.0%, p < 0.01) and 30-day mortality (2.7% vs. 1.2%, p = 0.03) than the OPD cohort. Preoperative obstructive jaundice (OR: 1.47, [95% CI: 1.08-2.01]) and pancreatic duct size <3 mm (OR: 2.44, [95% CI: 1.47-4.06]) and 3-6 mm (OR: 2.15, [95% CI: 1.31-3.52]) were risk factors for prolonged RPDs on multivariable regression.

CONCLUSION

The operative time threshold for safety, identified at 7.7 h, should be used to improve patient selection for RPDs and as a competency-based quality benchmark.

Reappraisal of surgical and survival outcomes of 500 consecutive cases of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

The role of the robotic approach for pancreaticoduodenectomy has not been well established with robust data. This study aimed to reappraise feasibility and justification of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) over time.

METHODS

A total of 500 patients undergoing RPD were enrolled and divided into early (first 250 patients) and late (last 250 patients) groups for a comparative study.

RESULTS

The conversion rate was 8.8% overall and was significantly lower in the late group (5.6% vs. 12.0%; p = .012). The overall median intraoperative blood loss was 130 mL. Radicality of resection was similar between early and late groups. The overall surgical mortality after RPD was 1.3%. The overall surgical morbidity and major complication was 44.1% and 13.2%, respectively, and similar between early and late groups. Chyle leakage was the most common complication after RPD (25.0%), followed by postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF). The POPF rate was 8.6% overall, with 5.9% in the early group and 11.0% in the late group, p = .051. The overall delayed gastric emptying rate was 3.5%. The late group had better survival outcomes than those of the early group after RPD for ampullary adenocarcinoma (p = .027) but not for pancreatic head adenocarcinoma.

CONCLUSIONS

Reappraisal of this study has confirmed that RPD is not only technically feasible without increasing surgical risks but also oncologically justified without compromising survival outcomes for both pancreatic head and other periampullary cancers over time. Moreover, RPD is associated with the benefits of low surgical mortality, blood loss, and delayed gastric emptying.

Streamlining robotic-assisted abdominoperineal resection

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted surgery has proven to be a safe and feasible approach for the management of rectal cancer, including abdominoperineal resection (APR). However, it often incurs longer operative times and higher costs. This study aimed to overcome these limitations by adopting a synchronous approach utilizing an optimized team composition.

METHODS

Data on patients who underwent robot-assisted APR at our facility between June 2022 and June 2023 were analyzed. The key points of the optimized approach included the following: At the start of the surgery, the surgeon performed an anococcygeal ligament resection from the perineal side while the bedside assistants set up the ports. Then, through console manipulation, the presacral fascia, elevated by previously placed gauze, was easily and safely incised, providing access to the perineal region.

RESULTS

A total of nine patients were included in this study. The median operation time was 231 min, and the intraoperative blood loss was 170 ml. The operation time was reduced to 167.5 min, and the blood loss was 80.5 ml in cases without a trainee. Surgical site infections, classified as Clavien-Dindo grade II complications, were observed in two cases, but no obvious urinary or erectile dysfunction was observed.

CONCLUSION

The study results indicate that the challenges associated with APR can be efficiently addressed without requiring additional personnel by streamlining team composition and the synchronous approach. This optimization strategy minimizes the need for a larger surgical team, while maximizing the utilization of surgical time and resources.

The Feasibility, Proficiency, and Mastery Learning Curves in 635 Robotic Pancreatoduodenectomies Following a Multicenter Training Program: "Standing on the Shoulders of Giants"

OBJECTIVE

To assess the feasibility, proficiency, and mastery learning curves for robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) in "second-generation" RPD centers following a multicenter training program adhering to the IDEAL framework.

BACKGROUND

The long learning curves for RPD reported from "pioneering" expert centers may discourage centers interested in starting an RPD program. However, the feasibility, proficiency, and mastery learning curves may be shorter in "second-generation" centers that participated in dedicated RPD training programs, although data are lacking. We report on the learning curves for RPD in "second-generation" centers trained in a dedicated nationwide program.

METHODS

Post hoc analysis of all consecutive patients undergoing RPD in 7 centers that participated in the LAELAPS-3 training program, each with a minimum annual volume of 50 pancreatoduodenectomies, using the mandatory Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit (March 2016-December 2021). Cumulative sum analysis determined cutoffs for the 3 learning curves: operative time for the feasibility (1) risk-adjusted major complication (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III) for the proficiency, (2) and textbook outcome for the mastery, (3) learning curve. Outcomes before and after the cutoffs were compared for the proficiency and mastery learning curves. A survey was used to assess changes in practice and the most valued "lessons learned."

RESULTS

Overall, 635 RPD were performed by 17 trained surgeons, with a conversion rate of 6.6% (n=42). The median annual volume of RPD per center was 22.5±6.8. From 2016 to 2021, the nationwide annual use of RPD increased from 0% to 23% whereas the use of laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy decreased from 15% to 0%. The rate of major complications was 36.9% (n=234), surgical site infection 6.3% (n=40), postoperative pancreatic fistula (grade B/C) 26.9% (n=171), and 30-day/in-hospital mortality 3.5% (n=22). Cutoffs for the feasibility, proficiency, and mastery learning curves were reached at 15, 62, and 84 RPD. Major morbidity and 30-day/in-hospital mortality did not differ significantly before and after the cutoffs for the proficiency and mastery learning curves. Previous experience in laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy shortened the feasibility (-12 RPDs, -44%), proficiency (-32 RPDs, -34%), and mastery phase learning curve (-34 RPDs, -23%), but did not improve clinical outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

The feasibility, proficiency, and mastery learning curves for RPD at 15, 62, and 84 procedures in "second-generation" centers after a multicenter training program were considerably shorter than previously reported from "pioneering" expert centers. The learning curve cutoffs and prior laparoscopic experience did not impact major morbidity and mortality. These findings demonstrate the safety and value of a nationwide training program for RPD in centers with sufficient volume.

Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: Update of CT-Based Radiomics Applications in the Pre-Surgical Prediction of the Risk of Post-Operative Fistula, Resectability Status and Prognosis

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is the seventh leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. Surgical resection is the main driver to improving survival in resectable tumors, while neoadjuvant treatment based on chemotherapy (and radiotherapy) is the best option-treatment for a non-primally resectable disease. CT-based imaging has a central role in detecting, staging, and managing PDAC. As several authors have proposed radiomics for risk stratification in patients undergoing surgery for PADC, in this narrative review, we have explored the actual fields of interest of radiomics tools in PDAC built on pre-surgical imaging and clinical variables, to obtain more objective and reliable predictors.

METHODS

The PubMed database was searched for papers published in the English language no earlier than January 2018.

RESULTS

We found 301 studies, and 11 satisfied our research criteria. Of those included, four were on resectability status prediction, three on preoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) prediction, and four on survival prediction. Most of the studies were retrospective.

CONCLUSIONS

It is possible to conclude that many performing models have been developed to get predictive information in pre-surgical evaluation. However, all the studies were retrospective, lacking further external validation in prospective and multicentric cohorts. Furthermore, the radiomics models and the expression of results should be standardized and automatized to be applicable in clinical practice.

Prospective minimally invasive pancreatic resections from the IGOMIPS registry: a snapshot of daily practice in Italy on 1191 between 2019 and 2022

This retrospective analysis of the prospective IGOMIPS registry reports on 1191 minimally invasive pancreatic resections (MIPR) performed in Italy between 2019 and 2022, including 668 distal pancreatectomies (DP) (55.7%), 435 pancreatoduodenectomies (PD) (36.3%), 44 total pancreatectomies (3.7%), 36 tumor enucleations (3.0%), and 8 central pancreatectomies (0.7%). Spleen-preserving DP was performed in 109 patients (16.3%). Overall incidence of severe complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3) was 17.6% with a 90-day mortality of 1.9%. This registry analysis provided some important information. First, robotic assistance was preferred for all MIPR but DP with splenectomy. Second, robotic assistance reduced conversion to open surgery and blood loss in comparison to laparoscopy. Robotic PD was also associated with lower incidence of severe postoperative complications and a trend toward lower mortality. Fourth, the annual cut-off of ≥ 20 MIPR and ≥ 20 MIPD improved selected outcome measures. Fifth, most MIPR were performed by a single surgeon. Sixth, only two-thirds of the centers performed spleen-preserving DP. Seventh, DP with splenectomy was associated with higher conversion rate when compared to spleen-preserving DP. Eighth, the use of pancreatojejunostomy was the prevalent reconstruction in PD. Ninth, final histology was similar for MIPR performed at high- and low-volume centers, but neoadjuvant chemotherapy was used more frequently at high-volume centers. Finally, this registry analysis raises important concerns about the reliability of R1 assessment underscoring the importance of standardized pathology of pancreatic specimens. In conclusion, MIPR can be safely implemented on a national scale. Further analyses are required to understand nuances of implementation of MIPR in Italy.

Surgical Risks and Survival Outcomes in Robotic Pancreaticoduodenectomy for the Aged Over 80: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Aim

Whether to execute pancreaticoduodenectomy or not for older people could pose a dilemma. This study clarifies the safety and justification of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) for older individuals over 80.

Methods

A total of 500 patients undergoing RPD were divided into group O (≥ 80 y/o) and group Y (< 80 y/o) for comparison.

Results

There were 62 (12.4%) patients in group O. Surgical mortality was 1.6% for overall patients and higher in group O, 6.5% vs 0.9%; p = 0.001. The surgical complication was comparable between groups O and Y. Delayed gastric emptying and bile leakage were higher in group O, 9.7% vs 2.5%; p = 0.004, and 6.5% vs 0.9%; p = 0.001, respectively. Length of stay was also longer in group O, with a median of 26 vs 19 days; p = 0.001. Survival outcome after RPD was poorer in group O for overall periampullary adenocarcinomas, with a 5-year survival of 48.1% vs 51.2%; p = 0.025 and also for the subgroup of pancreatic head adenocarcinoma, with a 3-year survival of 27.4% vs 42.5%; p = 0.030.

Conclusion

RPD is safe and justified for the selected octogenarians and even nonagenarians, whoever is fit for a major operation. Nevertheless, pancreatic head cancer and higher mortality risk for the aged over 80 with advanced ASA score ≥ 3 should be informed as part of counselling in offering RPD.

Initial 50 consecutive full-robotic pancreatoduodenectomies without conversion by a single surgeon: a learning curve analysis from a tertiary referral high-volume center

BACKGROUND

Several studies report on a learning curve for robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (R-PD) ranging between 20 and 80 operations, with conversion rates varying between 1.1 and 35%. However, as these publications mostly refer to initial robotic experiences and do not take into account the previous surgical background in pancreatic surgery (PS) and in robotic-assisted surgery (RAS), the center's volume, as well as the platform used, we aimed to perform a surgical outcomes analysis with a particular view to these aspects.

METHODS

Intraoperative and perioperative outcomes of the first 50 consecutive R-PD performed with the da Vinci Xi by the same surgeon, within a tertiary referral high-volume center, between January 2018 and March 2022, were analyzed. The surgeon was previously experienced in both PS and RAS. Shewhart control chart and cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis were used to evaluate the learning curve of R-PD.

RESULTS

All the operations were performed with a full-robotic technique, without any conversion to open surgery. Twenty of 50 patients (40%) had a BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2, while 24/50 (48%) had undergone previous abdominal surgery. Mean console time was 276.30 ± 31.16 min. The median post-operative length of hospital stay was 10 days, while 20/50 (40%) patients were discharged within post-operative day 8. Six patients (12%) had major complications (Clavien-Dindo grade 3 or above). There was no 30-day mortality. Shewhart control chart and CUSUM analysis did not show a significant learning curve during the study period.

CONCLUSIONS

An extensive prior experience in both PS and RAS, within a tertiary referral high-volume center with availability of the da Vinci Xi platform, can significantly flatten the learning curve and, therefore, enable safe performance of challenging operations, i.e., pancreatoduodenectomies with a minimally invasive approach, with very low risk of conversion to open surgery, even in the first 50 operations.

Impact of shifting from laparoscopic to robotic surgery during 600 minimally invasive pancreatic and liver resections

BACKGROUND

Many centers worldwide are shifting from laparoscopic to robotic minimally invasive hepato-pancreato-biliary resections (MIS-HPB) but large single center series assessing this process are lacking. We hypothesized that the introduction of robot-assisted surgery was safe and feasible in a high-volume center.

METHODS

Single center, post-hoc assessment of prospectively collected data including all consecutive MIS-HPB resections (January 2010-February 2022). As of December 2018, all MIS pancreatoduodenectomy and liver resections were robot-assisted. All surgeons had participated in dedicated training programs for laparoscopic and robotic MIS-HPB. Primary outcomes were in-hospital/30-day mortality and Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3 complications.

RESULTS

Among 1875 pancreatic and liver resections, 600 (32%) were MIS-HPB resections. The overall rate of conversion was 4.3%, Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3 complications 25.7%, and in-hospital/30-day mortality 1.8% (n = 11). When comparing the period before and after the introduction of robotic MIS-HPB (Dec 2018), the overall use of MIS-HPB increased from 25.3 to 43.8% (P < 0.001) and blood loss decreased from 250 ml [IQR 100-500] to 150 ml [IQR 50-300] (P < 0.001). The 291 MIS pancreatic resections included 163 MIS pancreatoduodenectomies (52 laparoscopic, 111 robotic) with 4.3% conversion rate. The implementation of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with reduced operation time (450 vs 361 min; P < 0.001), reduced blood loss (350 vs 200 ml; P < 0.001), and a decreased rate of delayed gastric emptying (28.8% vs 9.9%; P = 0.009). The 309 MIS liver resections included 198 laparoscopic and 111 robotic procedures with a 3.6% conversion rate. The implementation of robotic liver resection was associated with less overall complications (24.7% vs 10.8%; P = 0.003) and shorter hospital stay (4 vs 3 days; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The introduction of robotic surgery was associated with greater implementation of MIS-HPB in up to nearly half of all pancreatic and liver resections. Although mortality and major morbidity were not affected, robotic surgery was associated with improvements in some selected outcomes. Ultimately, randomized studies and high-quality registries should determine its added value.

The PD-ROBOSCORE: A difficulty score for robotic pancreatoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

Difficulty scoring systems are important for the safe, stepwise implementation of new procedures. We designed a retrospective observational study for building a difficulty score for robotic pancreatoduodenectomy.

METHODS

The difficulty score (PD-ROBOSCORE) aims at predicting severe postoperative complications after robotic pancreatoduodenectomy. The PD-ROBOSCORE was developed in a training cohort of 198 robotic pancreatoduodenectomies and was validated in an international multicenter cohort of 686 robotic pancreatoduodenectomies. Finally, all centers tested the model during the early learning curve (n = 300). Growing difficulty levels (low, intermediate, high) were defined using cut-off values set at the 33rd and 66th percentile (NCT04662346).

RESULTS

Factors included in the final multivariate model were a body mass index of ≥25 kg/m² for males and ≥30 kg/m² for females (odds ratio:2.39; P < .0001), borderline resectable tumor (odd ratio:1.98; P < .0001), uncinate process tumor (odds ratio:1.69; P < .0001), pancreatic duct size <4 mm (odds ratio:1.59; P < .0001), American Society of Anesthesiologists class ≥3 (odds ratio:1.59; P < .0001), and hepatic artery originating from the superior mesenteric artery (odds ratio:1.43; P < .0001). In the training cohort, the absolute score value (odds ratio = 1.13; P = .0089) and difficulty groups (odds ratio = 2.35; P = .041) predicted severe postoperative complications. In the multicenter validation cohort, the absolute score value predicted severe postoperative complications (odds ratio = 1.16, P < .001), whereas the difficulty groups did not (odds ratio = 1.94, P = .082). In the learning curve cohort, both absolute score value (odds ratio:1.078, P = .04) and difficulty groups (odds ratio: 2.25, P = .017) predicted severe postoperative complications. Across all cohorts, a PD-ROBOSCORE of ≥12.51 doubled the risk of severe postoperative complications. The PD-ROBOSCORE score also predicted operative time, estimated blood loss, and vein resection. The PD-ROBOSCORE predicted postoperative pancreatic fistula, delayed gastric emptying, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage, and postoperative mortality in the learning curve cohort.

CONCLUSION

The PD-ROBOSCORE predicts severe postoperative complications after robotic pancreatoduodenectomy. The score is readily available via www.pancreascalculator.com.

A chronicle of the pancreatoduodenectomy technique development - from the surgeon's hand to the robotic arm

BACKGROUND

Pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) remains one of the most challenging abdominal surgical procedures.

METHODS

A review of the literature regarding the history of PD, starting from the pioneers, Walter Kausch and Alan Whipple, through the great surgeons of the last century, up to the present day.

RESULTS

The greatest development of the PD technique took place at the end of the twentieth century. Over the last 40 years, there have been huge technological advances in medicine, which have resulted in the introduction of laparoscopic and robotic techniques for abdominal surgery. However, it turns out that PD is still performed as it used to be "by the surgeon's hand" via laparotomy rather than using the most modern robot or laparoscope and is currently recommended by experts for treatment of pancreatic head cancer (PHC). This is mainly caused by not many data comparing these three PD methods. Moreover, increasingly the results achieved by surgeons advanced in minimally invasive pancreatic resections are comparable to or even better than those achieved by the open method in reference centres. Robot-assisted PD appears to be gaining an advantage over laparoscopic technique in the efficacy of PHC treatment. The obstacles most inhibiting the use of surgical robotics are the high cost of the device and procedure, and the long learning curve. A bright future lies ahead for both methods, with the robotic technique in the forefront.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite significant advances in access and surgical technique, PD remains a challenging surgical procedure requiring a big surgeon's experience.

New perspectives on robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy: An analysis of the National Cancer Database

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is a common malignancy. Despite all advancements, the prognosis remains, poor with an overall 5-year survival of only 10.8%. Recently, a robotic platform has become an attractive tool for treating pancreatic cancer (PC). While recent studies indicated improved lymph node (LN) harvest during robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD), data on long-term outcomes are insufficient.

AIM

To evaluate absolute LN harvest during PD. Secondary outcomes included evaluating the association between LN harvest and short- and long-term oncological outcomes for three different surgical approaches.

METHODS

We conducted an analysis of the National Cancer Database, including patients diagnosed with PC who underwent open, laparoscopic, or robotic PD in 2010-2018. One-way analysis of variance was used to compare continuous variables, chi-square test - for categorical. Overall survival was defined as the time between surgery and death. Median survival time was estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method, and groups were compared with the Wilcoxon test. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to assess the association of covariates with survival after controlling for patient characteristics and procedure type.

RESULTS

17169 patients were included, 8859 (52%) males; mean age 65; 14509 (85%) white. 13816 (80.5%) patients had an open PD, 2677 (15.6%) and 676 (3.9%) - laparoscopic and robotic PD respectively. Mean comorbidity index (Charlson-Deyo Score) 0.50. On average, 18.84 LNs were harvested. Mean LN harvest during open, laparoscopic and robotic PD was 18.59, 19.65 and 20.70 respectively (P < 0.001). On average 2.49 LNs were positive for cancer and did not differ by the procedure type (P = 0.26). Vascular invasion was noted in 42.6% of LNs and did differ by the approach: 42.1% for open, 44.0% for laparoscopic and 47.2% for robotic PD (P = 0.015). Median survival for open PD was 26.1 mo, laparoscopic - 27.2 mo, robotic - 29.1 mo (P = 0.064). Survival was associated with higher LN harvest, while higher number of positive LNs was associated with higher mortality.

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests that robotic PD is associated with increased intraoperative LN harvest and has comparable short-term oncological outcomes and survival compared to open and laparoscopic approaches.

Risk factors of positive resection margin differ in pancreaticoduodenectomy and distal pancreatosplenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma undergoing upfront surgery

OBJECTIVE

Positive resection margin indicates worse prognosis. The present study identified the independent risk factors of R1 resection in pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) and distal pancreatosplenectomy (DP) for patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).

METHOD

Consecutive patients who were operated from 1st December 2017 to 30th December 2018 were analyzed retrospectively. A standardized pathological examination with digital whole-mount slide images (DWMSIs) was utilized for evaluation of resection margin status. R1 was defined as microscopic tumor infiltration within 1 mm to the resection margin. The potential risk factors of R1 resection for PD and DP were analyzed separately by univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses.

RESULTS

For the 192 patients who underwent PD, and the 87 patients who underwent DP, the R1 resection rates were 31.8% and 35.6%, respectively. Univariate analysis on risk factors of R1 resection for PD were tumor location, lymphovascular invasion, N staging, and TNM staging; while those for DP were T staging and TNM staging. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed the location of tumor in the neck and uncinate process, and N1/2 staging were independent risk factors of R1 resection for PD; while those for DP were T3 staging.

CONCLUSIONS

The clarification of the risk factors of R1 resection might clearly make surgeons take reasonable decisions on surgical strategies for different surgical procedures in patients with PDAC, so as to obtain the first attempt of R0 resection.

Application of robots in general surgery

Background: Application of robotic surgery in the field of general surgery has been increasing. This paper is an overview of the current uses and future perspectives of robotic surgery in four major divisions—endocrine, upper gastrointestinal, hepato-biliary-pancreatic (HBP), and colorectal surgery.Current Concepts: In endocrine surgery, cosmetic advantage is the highest priority when selecting a surgical approach for thyroidectomy. Currently, the transaxillary route is the most common approach. The introduction of the single-port system could maximize the advantages of this technique. In upper gastrointestinal surgery, the use of robots has the advantage of better retrieval of lymph nodes, less bleeding, earlier discharge, and less complications than the laparoscopic approach. However, a more prospective comparative trial is required to confirm those findings. In the HBP field, the indications of robotic surgery have expanded, starting with cholecystectomy to more challenging procedures, such as donor hepatectomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy. Meticulous dissection using robots could provide benefits to patients. In colorectal surgery, robotic surgery is an excellent technical tool for minimally invasive surgeries for rectal cancers, especially in male patients with narrow, deep pelvises. However, further studies are required to confirm the impact of robotic surgery on rectal cancers.Discussion and Conclusion: Robots are used to provide optimal surgical outcomes. Investigating new technologies and innovative surgical procedures is the highly important for a surgeon in the era of minimally invasive surgery.