Feasibility and safety of robotic-assisted total pancreatectomy: a pilot western series

Short-term outcomes and costs analysis of robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy-a retrospective single-center analysis

PURPOSE

Robotic-assisted surgery is an alternative technique for patients undergoing minimal invasive cholecystectomy (CHE). The aim of this study is to compare the outcomes and costs of laparoscopic versus robotic CHE, previously described as the major disadvantage of the robotic system, in a single Austrian tertiary center.

METHODS

A retrospective single-center analysis was carried out of all patients who underwent an elective minimally invasive cholecystectomy between January 2010 and August 2020 at our tertiary referral institution. Patients were divided into two groups: robotic-assisted CHE (RC) and laparoscopic CHE (LC) and compared according to demographic data, short-term postoperative outcomes and costs.

RESULTS

In the study period, 2088 elective minimal invasive cholecystectomies were performed. Of these, 220 patients met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed. One hundred ten (50%) patients underwent LC, and 110 patients RC. There was no significant difference in the mean operation time between both groups (RC: 60.2 min vs LC: 62.0 min; p = 0.58). Postoperative length of stay was the same in both groups (RC: 2.65 days vs LC: 2.65 days, p = 1). Overall hospital costs were slightly higher in the robotic group with a total of €2088 for RC versus €1726 for LC.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic-assisted cholecystectomy is a safe and feasible alternative to laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Since there are no significant clinical and cost differences between the two procedures, RC is a justified operation for training the whole operation team in handling the system as a first step procedure. Prospective randomized trials are necessary to confirm these conclusions.

Robotic versus open total pancreatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Limited data are available on postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing robotic total pancreatectomy (RTP). This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the postoperative outcomes of RTP and open total pancreatectomy (OTP). We performed a systematic review with meta-analysis according to the PRISMA 2020 and AMSTAR 2 guidelines. We included studies conducted through August 10, 2022, that systematically searched electronic databases and compared RTP with OTP. We retained four controlled clinical trials in the literature search, including 156 patients: 65 in the RTP group and 91 in the OTP group. There was no difference between the RTP group and OTP group in terms of mortality, severe complications, morbidity, bleeding, biliary leak, delayed gastric emptying, reoperation, operative time, length of stay, harvested lymph nodes, and positive resection margin. The RTP reduces the delay of the first liquid diet, first oral diet, and out of bed. RTP is feasible and safe in selected patients. Robotic surgery allows for a quicker recovery. In cases of major vessel invasion, conversion to laparotomy should be preoperatively considered.

Minimally invasive surgery versus open surgery for total pancreatectomy: a bibliometric review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive total pancreatectomy (MITP) is considered safe and feasible with limited evidence on this procedure. The aim of this study was to systematically analyze the current literature on MITP compared to open TP (OTP).

METHOD

Randomized controlled trials and prospective non-randomized comparative studies were sought systematically in MEDLINE, Web of Science and CENTRAL from their inception until December 2021. Outcome measures included operative time, length of hospital stay (LOH), spleen-preservation rate, estimated blood loss (EBL), need for transfusion, venous resection rate, delayed gastric emptying (DGE), biliary leakage, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), reoperation rate, overall 30-day morbidity (Clavien-Dindo > IIIa), 90-day mortality, 90-day readmission, examined lymph nodes (ELN). Pooled results are presented as odds ratios (OR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

7 observational studies with a total of 4212 patients were included. MITP had a decreased EBL and transfusion rate, lower 30-day morbidity and 90-day mortality with a longer LOH compared to OTP. There were no significant differences regarding operative time, spleen preservation rate, DGE, biliary leakage, venous resection rate, PPH, reoperation, 90-day readmission and ELN.

DISCUSSION

Based on the available studies, MITP is safe and feasible compared to OTP in highly experienced hands from high-volume centers. Further high-quality studies are needed to verify the conclusion.