1
|
Guerrero-Ortiz MA, Sánchez-Velazquez P, Burdío F, Gimeno M, Podda M, Pellino G, Toledano M, Nuñez J, Bellido J, Acosta-Mérida MA, Vicente E, Lopez-Ben S, Pacheco D, Pando E, Jorba R, Trujillo JPA, Ausania F, Alvarez M, Fernandes N, Castro-Boix S, Gantxegu A, Carré MK, Pinto-Fuentes P, Bueno-Cañones A, Valdes-Hernandez J, Tresierra L, Caruso R, Ferri V, Tio B, Babiloni-Simon S, Lacasa-Martin D, González-Abós C, Guevara-Martinez J, Gutierrez-Iscar E, Sanchez-Santos R, Cano-Valderrama O, Nogueira-Sixto M, Alvarez-Garrido N, Martinez-Cortijo S, Lasaia MA, Linacero S, Morante AP, Rotellar F, Arredondo J, Marti P, Sabatella L, Zozaya G, Ielpo B. Cost-effectiveness of robotic vs laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. Results from the national prospective trial ROBOCOSTES. Surg Endosc 2024:10.1007/s00464-024-11109-x. [PMID: 39138678 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-024-11109-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/06/2024] [Accepted: 07/16/2024] [Indexed: 08/15/2024]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Although several studies report that the robotic approach is more costly than laparoscopy, the cost-effectiveness of robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) over laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is still an issue. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of the RDP and LDP approaches across several Spanish centres. METHODS This study is an observational, multicenter, national prospective study (ROBOCOSTES). For one year from 2022, all consecutive patients undergoing minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy were included, and clinical, QALY, and cost data were prospectively collected. The primary aim was to analyze the cost-effectiveness between RDP and LDP. RESULTS During the study period, 80 procedures from 14 Spanish centres were analyzed. LDP had a shorter operative time than the RDP approach (192.2 min vs 241.3 min, p = 0.004). RDP showed a lower conversion rate (19.5% vs 2.5%, p = 0.006) and a lower splenectomy rate (60% vs 26.5%, p = 0.004). A statistically significant difference was reported for the Comprehensive Complication Index between the two study groups, favouring the robotic approach (12.7 vs 6.1, p = 0.022). RDP was associated with increased operative costs of 1600 euros (p < 0.031), while overall cost expenses resulted in being 1070.92 Euros higher than the LDP but without a statistically significant difference (p = 0.064). The mean QALYs at 90 days after surgery for RDP (0.9534) were higher than those of LDP (0.8882) (p = 0.030). At a willingness-to-pay threshold of 20,000 and 30,000 euros, there was a 62.64% and 71.30% probability that RDP was more cost-effective than LDP, respectively. CONCLUSIONS The RDP procedure in the Spanish healthcare system appears more cost-effective than the LDP.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Fernando Burdío
- Hepato Pancreato Biliary Unit, Hospital del Mar, Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Marta Gimeno
- Hepato Pancreato Biliary Unit, Hospital del Mar, Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Mauro Podda
- Department of Surgical Science, University of Cagliari, Policlinico Universitario "D. Casula", Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Di Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy
| | - Gianluca Pellino
- Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona UAB, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Miguel Toledano
- General Surgery Department, Hospital Universitario Rio Hortega, Valladolid, Spain
| | - Javier Nuñez
- Instituto de Validación de la Eficiencia Clinica (IVEC), fundación de HM Hospitales, Madrid, Spain
| | - Juan Bellido
- General Surgery Department, Hospital Universitario Virgen Macarena, Seville, Spain
| | - María Asunción Acosta-Mérida
- General Surgery Department, Hospital Universitario Dr Negrin, Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Gran Canaria, Spain
| | - Emilio Vicente
- General Surgery Department, Sanchinarro University Hospital, HM Hospitals Faculty of Health Sciences Camilo José Cela University, Madrid, Spain
| | - Santiago Lopez-Ben
- Department of General Surgery, Dr. Josep Trueta University Hospital, Girona, Spain
| | - David Pacheco
- General Surgery Department, Hospital Universitario Rio Hortega, Valladolid, Spain
| | - Elizabeth Pando
- Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona UAB, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Rosa Jorba
- Hepato Pancreato Biliary Unit, Department of General Surgery, Joan XXIII University Hospital, Universitat Rovira I Virgili, Tarragona, Spain
| | - Juan Pablo Arjona Trujillo
- Hepato Pancreato Biliary Unit, Department of General Surgery, Segovia University Hospital, Segovia, Spain
| | - Fabio Ausania
- Department of Surgery Hospital Clinic, HPB and Liver Transplantation, Barcelona IDIBAPS, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Mario Alvarez
- Department of General Surgery, La Paz University Hospital, Madrid, Spain
| | - Nair Fernandes
- Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona UAB, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Sandra Castro-Boix
- Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona UAB, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Amaia Gantxegu
- Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona UAB, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Miquel Kraft- Carré
- Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona UAB, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Pilar Pinto-Fuentes
- General Surgery Department, Hospital Universitario Rio Hortega, Valladolid, Spain
| | | | | | - Luis Tresierra
- General Surgery Department, Hospital Universitario Dr Negrin, Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Gran Canaria, Spain
- General Surgery, Hospital El Pilar, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Riccardo Caruso
- General Surgery Department, Sanchinarro University Hospital, HM Hospitals Faculty of Health Sciences Camilo José Cela University, Madrid, Spain
| | - Valentina Ferri
- General Surgery Department, Sanchinarro University Hospital, HM Hospitals Faculty of Health Sciences Camilo José Cela University, Madrid, Spain
| | - Berta Tio
- Department of General Surgery, Dr. Josep Trueta University Hospital, Girona, Spain
| | - Sonia Babiloni-Simon
- Hepato Pancreato Biliary Unit, Department of General Surgery, Joan XXIII University Hospital, Universitat Rovira I Virgili, Tarragona, Spain
| | - David Lacasa-Martin
- Hepato Pancreato Biliary Unit, Department of General Surgery, Segovia University Hospital, Segovia, Spain
| | - Carolina González-Abós
- Department of Surgery Hospital Clinic, HPB and Liver Transplantation, Barcelona IDIBAPS, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| | | | | | - Raquel Sanchez-Santos
- General Surgery Department, University Hospital, Instituto de Investigación Clinica Galicia Sur, Vigo, Spain
| | - Oscar Cano-Valderrama
- General Surgery Department, University Hospital, Instituto de Investigación Clinica Galicia Sur, Vigo, Spain
| | - Manuel Nogueira-Sixto
- General Surgery Department, University Hospital, Instituto de Investigación Clinica Galicia Sur, Vigo, Spain
| | - Nicolas Alvarez-Garrido
- General Surgery Department, University Hospital, Instituto de Investigación Clinica Galicia Sur, Vigo, Spain
| | | | - Manuel Alberto Lasaia
- Department of General Surgery, Alcorcón Foundation University Hospital, Alcorcon, Spain
| | - Santiago Linacero
- Department of General Surgery, Alcorcón Foundation University Hospital, Alcorcon, Spain
| | - Ana Pilar Morante
- Department of General Surgery, Alcorcón Foundation University Hospital, Alcorcon, Spain
| | - Fernando Rotellar
- General Surgery Department, Navarra University Hospital, Pamplona, Spain
| | - Jorge Arredondo
- General Surgery Department, Navarra University Hospital, Pamplona, Spain
| | - Pablo Marti
- General Surgery Department, Navarra University Hospital, Pamplona, Spain
| | - Lucas Sabatella
- General Surgery Department, Navarra University Hospital, Pamplona, Spain
| | - Gabriel Zozaya
- General Surgery Department, Navarra University Hospital, Pamplona, Spain
| | - Benedetto Ielpo
- Hepato Pancreato Biliary Unit, Hospital del Mar, Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona, Spain.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Schena CA, Luzzi AP, Laterza V, De Simone B, Aisoni F, Gavriilidis P, Catena F, Coccolini F, Morciano F, Rosa F, Marchegiani F, de'Angelis N. Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors of the Stomach: Is There Any Advantage of Robotic Resections? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2024; 34:603-613. [PMID: 38962886 DOI: 10.1089/lap.2024.0075] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 07/05/2024] Open
Abstract
Background: The role of robotic surgery for gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) resection remains unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery in patients requiring surgery for gastric GISTs. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane databases were searched from inception to September 4, 2023. Two independent reviewers conducted a systematic review of the literature to select all types of analytic studies comparing robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for GISTs and reporting intraoperative, postoperative, and/or pathological outcomes. Results: Overall, 4 retrospective studies were selected, including a total of 264 patients, specifically 111 (42%) in the robotic and 153 (58%) in the laparoscopic group. Robotic surgery was associated with longer operating time (+42.46 min; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 9.34, 75.58; P=0.01; I2: 85%) and reduced use of mechanical staplers (odds ratio [OR]: 0.05; 95%CI: 0.02, 0.11; P<0.00001; I2: 92%;) compared with laparoscopy. Although nonsignificant, conversion to open surgery was less frequently reported for robotic surgery (2.7%) than laparoscopy (5.2%) (OR: 0.59; 95%CI: 0.17, 2.03; P=0.4; I2: 0%). No difference was found for postoperative and oncological outcomes. Conclusions: Robotic surgery for gastric GISTs provides similar intraoperative, postoperative, and pathological outcomes to laparoscopy, despite longer operative time.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Carlo Alberto Schena
- Unit of Robotic and Minimally Invasive Digestive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Ferrara University Hospital Arcispedale Sant'Anna, Ferrara, Italy
| | - Andrea-Pierre Luzzi
- Dipartimento di Medicina Interna e Specialità Mediche (Di.M.I.), Università di Genova, Genoa, Italy
| | - Vito Laterza
- Department of Digestive Surgical Oncology, Liver Transplantation Unit, University Hospital of Besançon, Besançon, France
| | - Belinda De Simone
- Department of Minimally Invasive Surgery, Guastalla Hospital, AUSL-IRCCS Reggio, Emilia, Italy
| | - Filippo Aisoni
- Unit of Emergency Surgery, Department of Surgery, Ferrara University Hospital Arcispedale Sant'Anna, Ferrara, Italy
| | - Paschalis Gavriilidis
- Department of HBP Surgery, University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust,, Clifford Bridge Road, Coventry, CV2 2DX, United Kingdom
| | - Fausto Catena
- Department of General and Emergency Surgery, Bufalini Hospital-Level 1 Trauma Center, Cesena, Italy
| | - Federico Coccolini
- General, Emergency and Trauma Department, Pisa University Hospital, Pisa, Italy
| | - Francesca Morciano
- Unit of Colorectal and Digestive Surgery, DIGEST Department, Beaujon University Hospital (AP-HP), Clichy, France
| | - Fausto Rosa
- Emergency and Trauma Surgery Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy
- Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy
| | - Francesco Marchegiani
- Unit of Colorectal and Digestive Surgery, DIGEST Department, Beaujon University Hospital (AP-HP), Clichy, France
| | - Nicola de'Angelis
- Unit of Robotic and Minimally Invasive Digestive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Ferrara University Hospital Arcispedale Sant'Anna, Ferrara, Italy
- Department of Translational Medicine, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
van Bodegraven EA, van Ramshorst TME, Bratlie SO, Kokkola A, Sparrelid E, Björnsson B, Kleive D, Burgdorf SK, Dokmak S, Groot Koerkamp B, Cabús SS, Molenaar IQ, Boggi U, Busch OR, Petrič M, Roeyen G, Hackert T, Lips DJ, D’Hondt M, Coolsen MME, Ferrari G, Tingstedt B, Serrablo A, Gaujoux S, Ramera M, Khatkov I, Ausania F, Souche R, Festen S, Berrevoet F, Keck T, Sutcliffe RP, Pando E, de Wilde RF, Aussilhou B, Krohn PS, Edwin B, Sandström P, Gilg S, Seppänen H, Vilhav C, Abu Hilal M, Besselink MG. Minimally invasive robot-assisted and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy in a pan-European registry a retrospective cohort study. Int J Surg 2024; 110:3554-3561. [PMID: 38498397 PMCID: PMC11175778 DOI: 10.1097/js9.0000000000001315] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/11/2023] [Accepted: 02/26/2024] [Indexed: 03/20/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND International guidelines recommend monitoring the use and outcome of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery (MIPS). However, data from prospective international audits on minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) are lacking. This study examined the use and outcome of robot-assisted (RDP) and laparoscopic (LDP) distal pancreatectomy in the E-MIPS registry. PATIENTS AND METHODS Post-hoc analysis in a prospective audit on MIPS, including consecutive patients undergoing MIDP in 83 centers from 19 European countries (01-01-2019/31-12-2021). Primary outcomes included intraoperative events (grade 1: excessive blood loss, grade 2: conversion/change in operation, grade 3: intraoperative death), major morbidity, and in-hospital/30-day mortality. Multivariable logistic regression analyses identified high-risk groups for intraoperative events. RDP and LDP were compared in the total cohort and high-risk groups. RESULTS Overall, 1672 patients undergoing MIDP were included; 606 (36.2%) RDP and 1066 (63.8%) LDP. The annual use of RDP increased from 30.5% to 42.6% ( P <0.001). RDP was associated with fewer grade 2 intraoperative events compared with LDP (9.6% vs. 16.8%, P <0.001), with longer operating time (238 vs. 201 min, P <0.001). No significant differences were observed between RDP and LDP regarding major morbidity (23.4% vs. 25.9%, P =0.264) and in-hospital/30-day mortality (0.3% vs. 0.8%, P =0.344). Three high-risk groups were identified; BMI greater than 25 kg/m 2 , previous abdominal surgery, and vascular involvement. In each group, RDP was associated with fewer conversions and longer operative times. CONCLUSION This European registry-based study demonstrated favorable outcomes for MIDP, with mortality rates below 1%. LDP remains the predominant approach, whereas the use of RDP is increasing. RDP was associated with fewer conversions and longer operative time, including in high-risk subgroups. Future randomized trials should confirm these findings and assess cost differences.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eduard A. van Bodegraven
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Tess M. E. van Ramshorst
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of General Surgery, Istituto Ospedaliero Fondazione Poliambulanza, Brescia, Italy
| | - Svein O. Bratlie
- Department of Surgery, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - Arto Kokkola
- Department of Surgery, University of Helsinki, Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland
| | - Ernesto Sparrelid
- Division of Surgery, Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Bergthor Björnsson
- Department of Surgery in Linköping and Department of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden
| | - Dyre Kleive
- Department of HPB Surgery, The Intervention Centre, Oslo University Hospital and Institute for Clinical Medicine, Oslo, Norway
| | - Stefan K. Burgdorf
- Department of Surgery and Transplantation, Rigshospitalet Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Safi Dokmak
- Departement of HPB Surgery and Liver Transplantation, APHP Beaujon Hospital, University of Paris Cité, Clichy, France
| | - Bas Groot Koerkamp
- Department of Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | - I Quintus Molenaar
- Department of Surgery, Regional Academic Cancer Centre Utrecht, UMC Utrecht Cancer Centre and St Antonius Hospital Nieuwegein, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Ugo Boggi
- Division of General and Transplant Surgery, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy
| | - Olivier R. Busch
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Miha Petrič
- Department of Abdominal Surgery, Ljubljana University Medical Center, Zaloška cesta, Ljubljana, Slovenia
| | - Geert Roeyen
- Department of HPB, Endocrine and Transplantation Surgery, University Hospital Antwerp, Edegem, Belgium and University of Antwerp, Wilrijk, Belgium
| | - Thilo Hackert
- Department of Surgery, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Daan J. Lips
- Department of Surgery, Medisch Spectrum Twente, Enschede, The Netherland
| | - Mathieu D’Hondt
- Department of Digestive and Hepatobiliary/Pancreatic Surgery, Groeninge Hospital, Kortrijk, Belgium
| | - Mariëlle M E Coolsen
- Department of Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Center+, University of Maastricht, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Giovanni Ferrari
- Division of Minimally Invasive Surgical Oncology, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Milan, Italy
| | - Bobby Tingstedt
- Department of Surgery, Clinical Sciences Lund, Lund University, Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden
| | - Alejandro Serrablo
- HPB Surgical Division, Miguel Servet University Hospital, Zaragoza, Spain
| | - Sebastien Gaujoux
- Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery and Liver Transplantation, AP-HP, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, Sorbonne University, Paris, France
| | - Marco Ramera
- Department of General Surgery, Istituto Ospedaliero Fondazione Poliambulanza, Brescia, Italy
- Department of Clinical and Experimental Sciences, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy
| | - Igor Khatkov
- Department of Surgery, Moscow Clinical Scientific Center, Moscow, Russia
| | - Fabio Ausania
- Department of HPB and Transplant Surgery, Hospital Clinic, IDIBAPS, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Regis Souche
- Department of Surgery, Saint-Éloi Hospital, Montpellier, France
| | | | - Frederik Berrevoet
- Department of General and HPB Surgery and Liver Transplantation, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium
| | - Tobias Keck
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Centre Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany
| | - Robert P. Sutcliffe
- Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK
| | - Elizabeth Pando
- Department of Hepato, Pancreato, Biliary, and Transplant Surgery, Hospital Universitari Vall d’Hebron, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Roeland F. de Wilde
- Department of Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Beatrice Aussilhou
- Departement of HPB Surgery and Liver Transplantation, APHP Beaujon Hospital, University of Paris Cité, Clichy, France
| | - Paul S. Krohn
- Department of Surgery and Transplantation, Rigshospitalet Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Bjørn Edwin
- Department of HPB Surgery, The Intervention Centre, Oslo University Hospital and Institute for Clinical Medicine, Oslo, Norway
| | - Per Sandström
- Department of Surgery in Linköping and Department of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden
| | - Stefan Gilg
- Division of Surgery, Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Hanna Seppänen
- Department of Surgery, University of Helsinki, Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland
| | - Caroline Vilhav
- Department of Surgery, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - Mohammad Abu Hilal
- Department of General Surgery, Istituto Ospedaliero Fondazione Poliambulanza, Brescia, Italy
| | - Marc G. Besselink
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Ni LT, Zhao R, Ye YR, Ouyang YM, Chen X. Incidence of surgical site infection in minimally invasive colorectal surgery. World J Gastrointest Surg 2024; 16:1121-1129. [PMID: 38690046 PMCID: PMC11056659 DOI: 10.4240/wjgs.v16.i4.1121] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/19/2024] [Revised: 02/12/2024] [Accepted: 03/25/2024] [Indexed: 04/22/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Surgical site infection (SSI) is a common complication of colorectal surgery. Minimally invasive surgery notably reduces the incidence of SSI. This study aimed to compare the incidences of SSI after robot-assisted colorectal surgery (RACS) vs that after laparoscopic assisted colorectal surgery (LACS) and to analyze associated risk factors for SSI in minimally invasive colorectal surgery. AIM To compare the incidences of SSI after RACS and LACS, and to analyze the risk factors associated with SSI after minimally invasive colorectal surgery. METHODS Clinical data derived from patients who underwent minimally invasive colorectal surgery between October 2020 and October 2022 at the First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University were collated. Differences in clinical characteristics and surgeryrelated information associated with RACS and LACS were compared, and possible risk factors for SSI were identified. RESULTS A total of 246 patients (112 LACS and 134 RACS) were included in the study. Fortythree (17.5%) developed SSI. The proportions of patients who developed SSI were similar in the two groups (17.9% vs 17.2%, P = 0.887). Diabetes mellitus, intraoperative blood loss ≥ 100 mL, and incision length were independent risk factors for SSI. Possible additional risk factors included neoadjuvant therapy, lesion site, and operation time. CONCLUSION There was no difference in SSI incidence in the RACS and LACS groups. Diabetes mellitus, intraoperative blood loss ≥ 100 mL, and incision length were independent risk factors for postoperative SSI.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lu-Ting Ni
- Department of Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou 215000, Jiangsu Province, China
| | - Ru Zhao
- Department of Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou 215000, Jiangsu Province, China
| | - Yi-Ru Ye
- Department of Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou 215000, Jiangsu Province, China
| | - Yi-Ming Ouyang
- Department of Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou 215000, Jiangsu Province, China
| | - Xin Chen
- Department of Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou 215000, Jiangsu Province, China
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Timmerhuis HC, Jensen CW, Ngongoni RF, Baiocchi M, DeLong JC, Ohkuma R, Dua MM, Norton JA, Poultsides GA, Worth PJ, Visser BC. Postoperative outcomes and costs of laparoscopic versus robotic distal pancreatectomy: a propensity-matched analysis. Surg Endosc 2024; 38:2095-2105. [PMID: 38438677 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-024-10728-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/09/2023] [Accepted: 01/28/2024] [Indexed: 03/06/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) has established advantages over the open approach. The costs associated with robotic DP (RDP) versus laparoscopic DP (LDP) make the robotic approach controversial. We sought to compare outcomes and cost of LDP and RDP using propensity matching analysis at our institution. METHODS Patients undergoing LDP or RDP between 2000 and 2021 were retrospectively identified. Patients were optimally matched using age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists status, body mass index, and tumor size. Between-group differences were analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test for continuous data, and the McNemar's test for categorical data. Outcomes included operative duration, conversion to open surgery, postoperative length of stay, pancreatic fistula rate, pseudocyst requiring intervention, and costs. RESULTS 298 patients underwent MIDP, 180 (60%) were laparoscopic and 118 (40%) were robotic. All RDPs were matched 1:1 to a laparoscopic case with absolute standardized mean differences for all matching covariates below 0.10, except for tumor type (0.16). RDP had longer operative times (268 vs 178 min, p < 0.01), shorter length of stay (2 vs 4 days, p < 0.01), fewer biochemical pancreatic leaks (11.9% vs 34.7%, p < 0.01), and fewer interventional radiological drainage (0% vs 5.9%, p = 0.01). The number of pancreatic fistulas (11.9% vs 5.1%, p = 0.12), collections requiring antibiotics or intervention (11.9% vs 5.1%, p = 0.12), and conversion rates (3.4% vs 5.1%, p = 0.72) were comparable between the two groups. The total direct index admission costs for RDP were 1.01 times higher than for LDP for FY16-19 (p = 0.372), and 1.33 times higher for FY20-22 (p = 0.031). CONCLUSIONS Although RDP required longer operative times than LDP, postoperative stays were shorter. The procedure cost of RDP was modestly more expensive than LDP, though this was partially offset by reduced hospital stay and reintervention rate.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hester C Timmerhuis
- Department of Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Christopher W Jensen
- Department of Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Rejoice F Ngongoni
- Department of Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Michael Baiocchi
- Stanford Prevention Research Center and Departments of Statistics and Health Research and Policy, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Jonathan C DeLong
- Department of Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Rika Ohkuma
- Department of Quality, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Monica M Dua
- Department of Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Jeffrey A Norton
- Department of Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - George A Poultsides
- Department of Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Patrick J Worth
- Department of Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Brendan C Visser
- Department of Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
- Department of Surgery, Stanford Health Care & Stanford University School of Medicine, 300 Pasteur Drive, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Jiang Q, Lu C, Zhou Y, Zhu Q, Ren Y, Mou Y, Jin W. Comparison of manual sutures and laparoscopic stapler for pancreatic stump closure techniques in robotic distal pancreatectomy: a single-center experience. Surg Endosc 2024; 38:1230-1238. [PMID: 38091107 PMCID: PMC10881752 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-023-10601-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/27/2023] [Accepted: 11/14/2023] [Indexed: 02/23/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Postoperative pancreatic fistulas (POPFs) are prevalent and major postoperative complications of distal pancreatectomy (DP). There are numerous ways to manage the pancreatic stump. However, no single approach has been shown to be consistently superior. Moreover, the potential role of robotic systems in reducing POPFs has received little attention. METHODS The clinical data of 119 patients who had consecutively received robotic distal pancreatectomy between January 2019 and December 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were divided into two groups according to the method of handling the pancreatic stump. The attributes of the patients and the variables during the perioperative period were compared. RESULTS The analysis included 72 manual sutures and 47 stapler procedures. The manual suture group had a shorter operative time (removing installation time) than the stapler group (125.25 ± 63.04 min vs 153.30 ± 62.03 min, p = 0.019). Additionally, the manual suture group had lower estimated blood loss (50 mL vs 100 mL, p = 0.009) and a shorter postoperative hospital stay. There were no significant differences in the incidence of clinically relevant POPFs between the two groups (18.1% vs 23.4%, P > 0.05). No perioperative death occurred in either group. CONCLUSION The manual suturing technique was shown to have an incidence of POPFs similar to the stapler technique in robotic distal pancreatectomy and to be safe and feasible.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Qitao Jiang
- Department of Gastroenterology & Pancreatic Surgery, Zhejiang Province People's Hospital, Hangzhou, 310000, Zhejiang, People's Republic of China
- Department of Surgery, Bengbu Medical College, Bengbu, 233030, Anhui, People's Republic of China
| | - Chao Lu
- Department of Gastroenterology & Pancreatic Surgery, Zhejiang Province People's Hospital, Hangzhou, 310000, Zhejiang, People's Republic of China
| | - Yucheng Zhou
- Department of Gastroenterology & Pancreatic Surgery, Zhejiang Province People's Hospital, Hangzhou, 310000, Zhejiang, People's Republic of China
| | - Qicong Zhu
- Department of Gastroenterology & Pancreatic Surgery, Zhejiang Province People's Hospital, Hangzhou, 310000, Zhejiang, People's Republic of China
| | - Yufeng Ren
- Department of Gastroenterology & Pancreatic Surgery, Zhejiang Province People's Hospital, Hangzhou, 310000, Zhejiang, People's Republic of China
| | - Yiping Mou
- Department of Gastroenterology & Pancreatic Surgery, Zhejiang Province People's Hospital, Hangzhou, 310000, Zhejiang, People's Republic of China.
- Department of Medical Oncology, Zhejiang Province People's Hospital, Hangzhou, 310000, Zhejiang, People's Republic of China.
| | - Weiwei Jin
- Department of Gastroenterology & Pancreatic Surgery, Zhejiang Province People's Hospital, Hangzhou, 310000, Zhejiang, People's Republic of China.
- Department of Medical Oncology, Zhejiang Province People's Hospital, Hangzhou, 310000, Zhejiang, People's Republic of China.
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Jureidini R, Namur GN, Ribeiro TC, Bacchella T, Stolzemburg L, Jukemura J, Ribeiro Junior U, Cecconello I. ROBOTIC ASSISTED VERSUS LAPAROSCOPIC DISTAL PANCREATECTOMY: A RETROSPECTIVE STUDY. ARQUIVOS BRASILEIROS DE CIRURGIA DIGESTIVA : ABCD = BRAZILIAN ARCHIVES OF DIGESTIVE SURGERY 2023; 36:e1783. [PMID: 38088728 PMCID: PMC10712921 DOI: 10.1590/0102-672020230065e1783] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/02/2023] [Accepted: 09/22/2023] [Indexed: 12/17/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ricardo Jureidini
- Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo State Cancer Institute, Department of Gastroenterology - São Paulo (SP), Brazil
| | - Guilherme Naccache Namur
- Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo State Cancer Institute, Department of Gastroenterology - São Paulo (SP), Brazil
| | - Thiago Costa Ribeiro
- Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo State Cancer Institute, Department of Gastroenterology - São Paulo (SP), Brazil
| | - Telesforo Bacchella
- Univesidade de São Paulo, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Gastroenterology - São Paulo (SP), Brazil
| | - Lucas Stolzemburg
- Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo State Cancer Institute, Department of Gastroenterology - São Paulo (SP), Brazil
| | - José Jukemura
- Univesidade de São Paulo, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Gastroenterology - São Paulo (SP), Brazil
| | - Ulysses Ribeiro Junior
- Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo State Cancer Institute, Department of Gastroenterology - São Paulo (SP), Brazil
- Univesidade de São Paulo, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Gastroenterology - São Paulo (SP), Brazil
| | - Ivan Cecconello
- Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo State Cancer Institute, Department of Gastroenterology - São Paulo (SP), Brazil
- Univesidade de São Paulo, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Gastroenterology - São Paulo (SP), Brazil
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Campbell S, Lee SH, Liu Y, Wren SM. A retrospective study of laparoscopic, robotic-assisted, and open emergent/urgent cholecystectomy based on the PINC AI Healthcare Database 2017-2020. World J Emerg Surg 2023; 18:55. [PMID: 38037087 PMCID: PMC10687827 DOI: 10.1186/s13017-023-00521-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/22/2023] [Accepted: 11/02/2023] [Indexed: 12/02/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Robotic-assisted cholecystectomy (RAC) is becoming increasingly common, but the outcomes of emergent/urgent robotic-assisted cholecystectomies compared to emergent laparoscopic (LC) and open cholecystectomies (OC) remain understudied. METHODS The PINC AI Healthcare Database was queried to identify adults who underwent emergent or urgent (Em-Ur) cholecystectomy between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2020. Immediate postoperative and 30-day outcomes were identified including intraoperative complications, transfusion, conversion, postoperative complication, and hospital length of stay. Propensity score matching was done to compare outcomes between Em-Ur robotic-assisted, laparoscopic, and open cholecystectomies Subgroup analyses were performed comparing RAC done with and without fluorescent imaging as well as comparing RAC and LC performed for patients with class 3 obesity (BMI ≥ 40 kg/m2). RESULTS RAC Em-Ur cholecystectomies are being performed with increasing frequency and is the most utilized modality for patients with class 3 obesity. There was no difference in intraoperative complications (0.3%), bile duct injury (0.2%), or postoperative outcomes between RAC and LC. LC had significantly shorter operating room times (96 min (75,128)) compared to RAC (120 min (90,150)). There was a significant lower rate of conversion to open in RAC (1.9%) relative to LC (3.2%) in both the overall population and the class 3 obesity sub-analysis (RAC-2.6% vs. LC-4.4%). There was no difference in outcomes in robotic-assisted cholecystectomies done with and without fluorescent imaging. CONCLUSIONS A comparison of propensity score-matched cohorts of emergent/urgent robotic-assisted and laparoscopic cholecystectomy indicates that robotic-assisted cholecystectomy is a safe alternative to laparoscopic cholecystectomy, and that both have superior outcomes to open cholecystectomies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stephen Campbell
- VA Medical Center, Palo Alto Division, 3801 Miranda Avenue, Palo Alto, CA, 94304, USA.
| | | | - Yuki Liu
- Intuitive Surgical, Inc., Sunnyvale, CA, USA
| | - Sherry M Wren
- VA Medical Center, Palo Alto Division, 3801 Miranda Avenue, Palo Alto, CA, 94304, USA
- Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Ausania F, Landi F, Martinie JB, Vrochides D, Walsh M, Hossain SM, White S, Prabakaran V, Melstrom LG, Fong Y, Butturini G, Bignotto L, Valle V, Bing Y, Xiu D, Di Franco G, Sanchez-Bueno F, de'Angelis N, Laurent A, Giuliani G, Pernazza G, Esposito A, Salvia R, Bazzocchi F, Esposito L, Pietrabissa A, Pugliese L, Memeo R, Uyama I, Uchida Y, Rios J, Coratti A, Morelli L, Giulianotti PC. Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy in obese patients. Surg Endosc 2023; 37:8384-8393. [PMID: 37715084 PMCID: PMC10615948 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-023-10361-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/04/2023] [Accepted: 07/30/2023] [Indexed: 09/17/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Although robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) has a lower conversion rate to open surgery and causes less blood loss than laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP), clear evidence on the impact of the surgical approach on morbidity is lacking. Prior studies have shown a higher rate of complications among obese patients undergoing pancreatectomy. The primary aim of this study is to compare short-term outcomes of RDP vs. LDP in patients with a BMI ≥ 30. METHODS In this multicenter study, all obese patients who underwent RDP or LDP for any indication between 2012 and 2022 at 18 international expert centers were included. The baseline characteristics underwent inverse probability treatment weighting to minimize allocation bias. RESULTS Of 446 patients, 219 (50.2%) patients underwent RDP. The median age was 60 years, the median BMI was 33 (31-36), and the preoperative diagnosis was ductal adenocarcinoma in 21% of cases. The conversion rate was 19.9%, the overall complication rate was 57.8%, and the 90-day mortality rate was 0.7% (3 patients). RDP was associated with a lower complication rate (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.52-0.89; p = 0.005), less blood loss (150 vs. 200 ml; p < 0.001), fewer blood transfusion requirements (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.15-0.50; p < 0.001) and a lower Comprehensive Complications Index (8.7 vs. 8.9, p < 0.001) than LPD. RPD had a lower conversion rate (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.19-0.39; p < 0.001) and achieved better spleen preservation rate (OR 1.96, 95% CI 1.13-3.39; p = 0.016) than LPD. CONCLUSIONS In obese patients, RDP is associated with a lower conversion rate, fewer complications and better short-term outcomes than LPD.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Fabio Ausania
- Department of HBP Surgery and Transplantation, General and Digestive Surgery, Hospital Clinic Barcelona, Institut d'Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi i Sunyer (IDIBAPS), University of Barcelona (UB), C. Villarroel, 170, 08036, Barcelona, Spain
- Facultat de Medicina i Ciències de la Salut, Universitat de Barcelona (UB), Barcelona, Spain
| | - Filippo Landi
- Department of HBP Surgery and Transplantation, General and Digestive Surgery, Hospital Clinic Barcelona, Institut d'Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi i Sunyer (IDIBAPS), University of Barcelona (UB), C. Villarroel, 170, 08036, Barcelona, Spain.
- Facultat de Medicina i Ciències de la Salut, Universitat de Barcelona (UB), Barcelona, Spain.
| | - John B Martinie
- Division of HPB Surgery, Department of Surgery, Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, NC, USA
| | - Dionisios Vrochides
- Division of HPB Surgery, Department of Surgery, Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, NC, USA
| | - Matthew Walsh
- HPB Surgery Department, Digestive Disease and Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - Shanaz M Hossain
- HPB Surgery Department, Digestive Disease and Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | | | | | - Laleh G Melstrom
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Gastrointestinal Disease Team, City of Hope Medical Center, Duarte, CA, USA
| | - Yuman Fong
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Gastrointestinal Disease Team, City of Hope Medical Center, Duarte, CA, USA
| | - Giovanni Butturini
- Department of HBP Surgery, P. Pederzoli Hospital, Peschiera del Garda, Italy
| | - Laura Bignotto
- Department of HBP Surgery, P. Pederzoli Hospital, Peschiera del Garda, Italy
| | - Valentina Valle
- Division of General, Minimally Invasive and Robotic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Yuntao Bing
- Department of General Surgery, Beijing Third Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Dianrong Xiu
- Department of General Surgery, Beijing Third Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Gregorio Di Franco
- Division of Translational and New Technologies in Medicine and Surgery, General Surgery Department, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy
| | | | - Nicola de'Angelis
- Department of Digestive, HBP Surgery and Liver Transplantation, Henri Mondor Hospital, APHP, Creteil, France
| | - Alexis Laurent
- Department of Digestive, HBP Surgery and Liver Transplantation, Henri Mondor Hospital, APHP, Creteil, France
| | - Giuseppe Giuliani
- Division of General and Minimally Invasive Surgery, Misericordia Hospital, Grosseto, Italy
| | - Graziano Pernazza
- General and Robotic Surgery Department, San Giovanni Hospital, Rome, Italy
| | | | - Roberto Salvia
- HBP Surgery Department, Policlinico G.B. Rossi Hospital, Verona, Italy
| | - Francesca Bazzocchi
- Department of HBP Surgery, IRCCS Casa Sollievo della Sofferenza Hospital, Foggia, Italy
| | - Ludovica Esposito
- Department of HBP Surgery, IRCCS Casa Sollievo della Sofferenza Hospital, Foggia, Italy
| | | | - Luigi Pugliese
- Department of HBP Surgery, Policlinico S. Matteo Hospital, Pavia, Italy
| | - Riccardo Memeo
- Department of Surgery, Acquaviva delle Fonti Hospital, Bari, Italy
| | - Ichiro Uyama
- Department of Surgery, Fujita Health University School of Medicine, Toyoake, Japan
| | - Yuichiro Uchida
- Department of Surgery, Fujita Health University School of Medicine, Toyoake, Japan
| | - José Rios
- Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Hospital Clinic and Medical Statistics Core Facility, Institut d'Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi i Sunyer (IDIBAPS), Biostatistics Unit, Faculty of Medicine, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB), Barcelona, Spain
| | - Andrea Coratti
- Division of General and Minimally Invasive Surgery, Misericordia Hospital, Grosseto, Italy
| | - Luca Morelli
- Division of Translational and New Technologies in Medicine and Surgery, General Surgery Department, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy
| | - Pier C Giulianotti
- Division of General, Minimally Invasive and Robotic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Concors SJ, Katz MHG, Ikoma N. Minimally Invasive Pancreatectomy: Robotic and Laparoscopic Developments. Surg Oncol Clin N Am 2023; 32:327-342. [PMID: 36925189 DOI: 10.1016/j.soc.2022.10.009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/15/2023]
Abstract
Minimally invasive pancreatectomy is increasingly used. Although offering potential advantages over open approaches, minimally invasive pancreatectomy has many challenges to maintain high-quality of oncologic resection. Multiple patient and surgical factors should be considered in planning laparoscopic or robotic resection, including the learning curve required to produce proficiency. For pancreaticoduodenectomy, distal pancreatectomy, and other pancreatic resections, a safe, margin-negative resection remains the goal. National and societal guidelines for the adoption of minimally invasive pancreatectomy are ongoing and will continue to be important as these techniques are further adopted.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Seth J Concors
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1400 Pressler, FCT 17.6022, Houston, TX 77030, USA. https://twitter.com/SethConcorsMD
| | - Matthew H G Katz
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1400 Pressler, FCT 17.6022, Houston, TX 77030, USA. https://twitter.com/MKatzMD
| | - Naruhiko Ikoma
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1400 Pressler, FCT 17.6022, Houston, TX 77030, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis including patient subgroups. Surg Endosc 2023:10.1007/s00464-023-09894-y. [PMID: 36781467 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-023-09894-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 13.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/04/2022] [Accepted: 01/15/2023] [Indexed: 02/15/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
|
12
|
Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy on perioperative outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Updates Surg 2023; 75:7-21. [PMID: 36378464 PMCID: PMC9834369 DOI: 10.1007/s13304-022-01413-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 15.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/13/2022] [Accepted: 10/26/2022] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
|
13
|
Chen C, Hu J, Yang H, Zhuo X, Ren Q, Feng Q, Wang M. Is robotic distal pancreatectomy better than laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy after the learning curve? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Oncol 2022; 12:954227. [PMID: 36106111 PMCID: PMC9465417 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.954227] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/27/2022] [Accepted: 07/20/2022] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
AimThe 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.MethodsA 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.ResultsOur 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 < 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 < 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.ConclusionsRDP 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 Registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#recordDetails.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chuwen Chen
- Department of Liver Surgery and Liver Transplantation Centre, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
| | - Jing Hu
- Department of Health Management Centre, West China Fourth Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
| | - Hao Yang
- Engineering Research Centre of Medical Information Technology, Ministry of Education, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
- Information Technology Centre, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
| | - Xuejun Zhuo
- Engineering Research Centre of Medical Information Technology, Ministry of Education, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
- Information Technology Centre, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
| | - Qiuping Ren
- Department of Liver Surgery and Liver Transplantation Centre, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
| | - Qingbo Feng
- Department of Liver Surgery and Liver Transplantation Centre, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
| | - Miye Wang
- Engineering Research Centre of Medical Information Technology, Ministry of Education, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
- Information Technology Centre, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
- *Correspondence: Miye Wang,
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Hong SS, Cha SW, Hwang HK, Lee WJ, Kang CM. A Prognostic Impact of Splenectomy in Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy on Benign/Borderline Pancreatic Tumors: A Change of the Era. Yonsei Med J 2022; 63:564-569. [PMID: 35619580 PMCID: PMC9171669 DOI: 10.3349/ymj.2022.63.6.564] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/23/2021] [Revised: 02/10/2022] [Accepted: 03/17/2022] [Indexed: 11/27/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE In the past, spleen preservation during distal pancreatectomy (DP) was preferred; however, more recent studies reported comparable results between splenectomy and spleen preserving. We retrospectively reviewed patients in a single center who underwent laparoscopic DP with/without splenectomy, and evaluated the chronologic changes of surgical outcomes of the two procedures. MATERIALS AND METHODS Patients who underwent laparoscopic DP with or without splenectomy due to benign/borderline tumor from 2005 to 2019 were included in this study. We divided this period into Era 1 (2005-2012) and Era 2 (2013-2019), and compared the chronological evolution of surgical outcomes of laparoscopic distal pancreatosplenectomy (LDPS) to those of laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (LSpDP), including the long-term postoperative immunologic profiles. RESULTS A total of 198 cases were included (LSpDP: 80 cases; LDPS: 118 cases). As the period changed from Era 1 to Era 2, the ratio of LSpDP decreased and the surgical outcomes of LDPS improved. In Era 1, LSpDP group showed superior results compared to LDPS group in terms of hospital days and postoperative pancreatic fistula ratio; however, in Era 2, the surgical outcomes showed no statistical differences. No significant differences were observed in all of the immunologic markers. CONCLUSION We carefully conclude that during laparoscopic DP, combined splenectomy can be equivalent to spleen preserving in surgical and immunological outcomes, and inevitable splenectomy can be safely conducted.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Seung Soo Hong
- Division of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
- Pancreatobiliary Cancer Center, Yonsei Cancer Center, Severance Hospital, Seoul, Korea
| | - Sung Whan Cha
- Department of Surgery, Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine, Wonju, Korea
| | - Ho Kyoung Hwang
- Division of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
- Pancreatobiliary Cancer Center, Yonsei Cancer Center, Severance Hospital, Seoul, Korea
| | - Woo Jung Lee
- Division of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
- Pancreatobiliary Cancer Center, Yonsei Cancer Center, Severance Hospital, Seoul, Korea
| | - Chang Moo Kang
- Division of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
- Pancreatobiliary Cancer Center, Yonsei Cancer Center, Severance Hospital, Seoul, Korea.
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Lee SR, Kwon J, Shin JH. Current status of robotic surgery for pancreatic tumors. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GASTROINTESTINAL INTERVENTION 2022. [DOI: 10.18528/ijgii220011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/22/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Sung Ryol Lee
- Department of Surgery, Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Jaewoo Kwon
- Department of Surgery, Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Jun Ho Shin
- Department of Surgery, Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Benzing C, Timmermann L, Winklmann T, Haiden LM, Hillebrandt KH, Winter A, Maurer MM, Felsenstein M, Krenzien F, Schmelzle M, Pratschke J, Malinka T. Robotic versus open pancreatic surgery: a propensity score-matched cost-effectiveness analysis. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2022; 407:1923-1933. [PMID: 35312854 PMCID: PMC9399018 DOI: 10.1007/s00423-022-02471-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/05/2021] [Accepted: 02/14/2022] [Indexed: 12/21/2022]
Abstract
Background Robotic pancreatic surgery (RPS) is associated with high intraoperative costs compared to open pancreatic surgery (OPS). However, it remains unclear whether several advantages of RPS such as reduced surgical trauma and a shorter postoperative recovery time could lead to a reduction in total costs outweighing the intraoperative costs. The study aimed to compare patients undergoing OPS and RPS with regards to cost-effectiveness in a propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis. Methods Patients undergoing OPS and RPS between 2017 and 2019 were included in this monocentric, retrospective analysis. The controlling department provided financial data (costs and revenues, net loss/profit). A propensity score-matched analysis was performed or OPS and RPS (matching criteria: age, American society of anesthesiologists (ASA) score, gender, body mass index (BMI), and type of pancreatic resection) with a caliper 0.2. Results In total, 272 eligible OPS cases were identified, of which 252 met all inclusion criteria and were thus included in the further analysis. The RPS group contained 92 patients. The matched cohorts contained 41 patients in each group. Length of hospital stay (LOS) was significantly shorter in the RPS group (12 vs. 19 days, p = 0.003). Major postoperative morbidity (Dindo/Clavien ≥ 3a) and 90-day mortality did not differ significantly between OPS and RPS (p > 0.05). Intraoperative costs were significantly higher in the RPS group than in the OPS group (7334€ vs. 5115€, p < 0.001). This was, however, balanced by other financial categories. The overall cost-effectiveness tended to be better when comparing RPS to OPS (net profit—RPS: 57€ vs. OPS: − 2894€, p = 0.328). Binary logistic regression analysis revealed major postoperative complications, longer hospital stay, and ASA scores < 3 were linked to the risk of net loss (i.e., costs > revenue). Conclusions Surgical outcomes of RPS were similar to those of OPS. Higher intraoperative costs of RPS are outweighed by advantages in other categories of cost-effectiveness such as decreased lengths of hospital stay.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christian Benzing
- Department of Surgery, Campus Charité Mitte, Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Experimental Surgery and Regenerative Medicine, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany.
| | - Lea Timmermann
- Department of Surgery, Campus Charité Mitte, Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Experimental Surgery and Regenerative Medicine, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany
| | - Thomas Winklmann
- Department of Surgery, Campus Charité Mitte, Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Experimental Surgery and Regenerative Medicine, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany
| | - Lena Marie Haiden
- Department of Surgery, Campus Charité Mitte, Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Experimental Surgery and Regenerative Medicine, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany
| | - Karl Herbert Hillebrandt
- Department of Surgery, Campus Charité Mitte, Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Experimental Surgery and Regenerative Medicine, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany
| | - Axel Winter
- Department of Surgery, Campus Charité Mitte, Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Experimental Surgery and Regenerative Medicine, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany
| | - Max Magnus Maurer
- Department of Surgery, Campus Charité Mitte, Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Experimental Surgery and Regenerative Medicine, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany
| | - Matthäus Felsenstein
- Department of Surgery, Campus Charité Mitte, Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Experimental Surgery and Regenerative Medicine, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany
| | - Felix Krenzien
- Department of Surgery, Campus Charité Mitte, Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Experimental Surgery and Regenerative Medicine, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany
| | - Moritz Schmelzle
- Department of Surgery, Campus Charité Mitte, Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Experimental Surgery and Regenerative Medicine, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany
| | - Johann Pratschke
- Department of Surgery, Campus Charité Mitte, Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Experimental Surgery and Regenerative Medicine, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany
| | - Thomas Malinka
- Department of Surgery, Campus Charité Mitte, Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Experimental Surgery and Regenerative Medicine, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Scognamiglio P, Stüben BO, Heumann A, Li J, Izbicki JR, Perez D, Reeh M. Advanced Robotic Surgery: Liver, Pancreas, and Esophagus - The State of the Art? Visc Med 2022; 37:505-510. [PMID: 35087901 DOI: 10.1159/000519753] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/11/2021] [Accepted: 09/17/2021] [Indexed: 12/11/2022] Open
Abstract
Background The trend in performing robotic-assisted operations in visceral surgery has been increasing in the last decade, also reaching the challenging field of hepatic, pancreatic, and esophageal surgery. Nevertheless, solid data about advantages and disadvantages of the robotic approach are still missing. The aim of this review is to analyze the benefit and impact of robotic surgery in the field of hepatic, pancreatic, and esophageal surgery, focusing on the comparison with the conventional laparoscopic or open approach. Summary The well-known advantages of laparoscopic surgery in comparison to the open approach are also valid for robotic surgery, with the addition of a 3D-view camera, wristed instrumentation, and an ergonomic console. On the other hand, the use of a robotic system leads to longer operating time and higher costs. Randomized controlled trials comparing the robotic approach with the laparoscopic one are still missing. Key Message Recent meta-analyses show promising results of the usage of robotic systems in advanced surgical procedures, like hepatic, pancreatic, and esophageal resections. Further randomized studies are needed to validate the postulated benefit.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Pasquale Scognamiglio
- Department of General, Visceral and Thoracic Surgery, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Björn-Ole Stüben
- Department of General, Visceral and Thoracic Surgery, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Asmus Heumann
- Department of General, Visceral and Thoracic Surgery, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Jun Li
- Department of General, Visceral and Thoracic Surgery, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Jakob R Izbicki
- Department of General, Visceral and Thoracic Surgery, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Daniel Perez
- Department of General, Visceral and Thoracic Surgery, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Matthias Reeh
- Department of General, Visceral and Thoracic Surgery, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Kamarajah SK, Sutandi N, Sen G, Hammond J, Manas DM, French JJ, White SA. Comparative analysis of open, laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatic resection: The United Kingdom's first single-centre experience. J Minim Access Surg 2022; 18:77-83. [PMID: 35017396 PMCID: PMC8830579 DOI: 10.4103/jmas.jmas_163_20] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/03/2020] [Revised: 10/20/2020] [Accepted: 11/30/2020] [Indexed: 11/15/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sivesh Kathir Kamarajah
- Department of Hepatobiliary, Pancreatic and Transplant Surgery, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle Upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear, UK
- Department of Surgery, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle Upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear, UK
- Institute of Cellular Medicine, University of Newcastle, Newcastle upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear, UK
| | - Nathania Sutandi
- Department of Hepatobiliary, Pancreatic and Transplant Surgery, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle Upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear, UK
- Department of Surgery, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle Upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear, UK
| | - Gourab Sen
- Department of Hepatobiliary, Pancreatic and Transplant Surgery, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle Upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear, UK
- Department of Surgery, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle Upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear, UK
| | - John Hammond
- Department of Hepatobiliary, Pancreatic and Transplant Surgery, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle Upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear, UK
- Department of Surgery, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle Upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear, UK
| | - Derek M Manas
- Department of Hepatobiliary, Pancreatic and Transplant Surgery, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle Upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear, UK
- Department of Surgery, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle Upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear, UK
| | - Jeremy J French
- Department of Hepatobiliary, Pancreatic and Transplant Surgery, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle Upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear, UK
- Department of Surgery, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle Upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear, UK
| | - Steven A White
- Department of Hepatobiliary, Pancreatic and Transplant Surgery, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle Upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear, UK
- Department of Surgery, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle Upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear, UK
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Kwon J, Lee JH, Park SY, Park Y, Lee W, Song KB, Hwang DW, Kim SC. A comparison of robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: Propensity score matching analysis. Int J Med Robot 2021; 18:e2347. [PMID: 34726827 DOI: 10.1002/rcs.2347] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/14/2021] [Revised: 10/27/2021] [Accepted: 11/01/2021] [Indexed: 01/08/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The aim of this study was to assess the perioperative and pathologic outcomes of robotic distal pancreatectomy compared with a laparoscopic approach. METHODS A total of 121 robotic distal pancreatectomies and 992 laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies were retrospectively evaluated, comparing the demographic, perioperative and pathologic outcomes. After 1:2 propensity score matching (PSM) with 11 demographic variables, the factors were analysed again. RESULTS Following PSM, 104 robotic distal pancreatectomy patients were compared with 208 laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy patients. The operation time and proportion of spleen preservation were not different between the groups. The rates of open conversion were lower, whereas the hospital costs were higher in the robotic group. Other perioperative outcomes and pathologic factors did not differ between the groups. CONCLUSIONS Although robotic distal pancreatectomy is more expensive, this operation is feasible, with a higher probability of proceeding with the planned operation and with low open conversion rate.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jaewoo Kwon
- Department of Surgery, Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Jae Hoon Lee
- Division of Hepato-biliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Ulsan College of Medicine and Asan Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Seo Young Park
- Department of Statistics and Data Science, Korea National Open University, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Yejong Park
- Division of Hepato-biliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Ulsan College of Medicine and Asan Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Woohyung Lee
- Division of Hepato-biliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Ulsan College of Medicine and Asan Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Ki Byung Song
- Division of Hepato-biliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Ulsan College of Medicine and Asan Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Dae Wook Hwang
- Division of Hepato-biliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Ulsan College of Medicine and Asan Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Song Cheol Kim
- Division of Hepato-biliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Ulsan College of Medicine and Asan Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Feng Q, Jiang C, Feng X, Du Y, Liao W, Jin H, Liao M, Zeng Y, Huang J. Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Front Oncol 2021; 11:752236. [PMID: 34616686 PMCID: PMC8489404 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.752236] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/02/2021] [Accepted: 08/31/2021] [Indexed: 02/05/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) are the two principal minimally invasive surgical approaches for patients with pancreatic body and tail adenocarcinoma. The use of RDP and LDP for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains controversial, and which one can provide a better R0 rate is not clear. Methods A comprehensive search for studies that compared robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for PDAC published until July 31, 2021, was conducted. Data on perioperative outcomes and oncologic outcomes (R0-resection and lymph node dissection) were subjected to meta-analysis. PubMed, Cochrane Central Register, Web of Science, and EMBASE were searched based on a defined search strategy to identify eligible studies before July 2021. Results Six retrospective studies comprising 572 patients (152 and 420 patients underwent RDP and LDP) were included. The present meta-analysis showed that there were no significant differences in operative time, tumor size, and lymph node dissection between RDP and LDP group. Nevertheless, compared with the LDP group, RDP results seem to demonstrate a possibility in higher R0 resection rate (p<0.0001). Conclusions This systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that RDP is a technically and oncologically safe and feasible approach for selected PDAC patients. Large randomized and controlled prospective studies are needed to confirm this data. Systematic Review Registration https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#recordDetails, identifier [CRD42021269353].
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Qingbo Feng
- Department of Liver Surgery and Liver Transplantation Centre, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
| | - Chuang Jiang
- Department of Liver Surgery and Liver Transplantation Centre, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
| | - Xuping Feng
- Department of Liver Surgery and Liver Transplantation Centre, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
| | - Yan Du
- Department of Liver Surgery, The First Clinical Medical College of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China
| | - Wenwei Liao
- Department of Liver Surgery and Liver Transplantation Centre, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
| | - Hongyu Jin
- Department of Liver Surgery and Liver Transplantation Centre, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
| | - Mingheng Liao
- Department of Liver Surgery and Liver Transplantation Centre, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
| | - Yong Zeng
- Department of Liver Surgery and Liver Transplantation Centre, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
| | - Jiwei Huang
- Department of Liver Surgery and Liver Transplantation Centre, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Kamarajah SK, Gujjuri RR, Hilal MA, Manas DM, White SA. Does minimally invasive liver resection improve long-term survival compared to open resection for hepatocellular carcinoma? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Scand J Surg 2021; 111:14574969211042455. [PMID: 34605328 DOI: 10.1177/14574969211042455] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/21/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Minimally invasive liver surgery for hepatocellular carcinoma has gained widespread interest as an alternative to conventional open liver surgery. However, long-term survival benefits of this approach seem unclear. This meta-analysis was conducted to investigate long-term survival following minimally invasive liver surgery. METHOD A systematic review was performed to identify studies comparing long-term survival after minimally invasive liver surgery and open liver surgery until January 2020. The I2 test was used to test for statistical heterogeneity and publication bias was assessed using Egger test. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed for all-cause 5-year (main outcome) and 3-year mortality, and disease-specific 5-year and 3-year mortality. Meta-regression was performed for the 5-year and 3-year survival outcomes with adjustment for study factors (region, design), annual center volume, patient factors (American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, gender, age, body mass index, cirrhosis, tumor size, and number), and resection extent. Sensitivity analyses were performed on studies by study year, region, annual center volume, and resection type. RESULT The review identified 50 relevant studies including 13,731 patients undergoing liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma of which 4071 (25.8%) underwent minimally invasive liver surgery. Pooled analysis revealed similar all-cause (odds ratio: 0.83, 95% confidence interval: 0.70-1.11, p = 0.3) and disease-specific (odds ratio: 0.93, 95% confidence interval: 0.80-1.09, p = 0.4) 5-year mortality after minimally invasive liver surgery compared with open liver surgery. Sensitivity analysis of published studies from 2010 to 2019 demonstrated a significantly lower disease-specific 3-year mortality (odds ratio: 0.75, 95% confidence interval: 0.59-0.96, p = 0.022) and all-cause 5-year mortality (odds ratio: 0.63, 95% confidence interval: 0.50-0.81, p = 0.002). Meta-regression identified no confounding factors in all analyses. CONCLUSIONS Improvement in minimally invasive liver surgery techniques over the past decade appears to demonstrate superior disease-specific mortality with minimally invasive liver surgery compared to open liver surgery. Therefore, minimally invasive liver surgery can be recommended as an alternative surgical approach for hepatocellular carcinoma.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sivesh K Kamarajah
- BMedSci, MBChB Department of Hepatobiliary, Pancreatic and Transplant Surgery, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle University NHS Trust Hospitals, NE7 7DN, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK Institute of Cellular Medicine, Newcastle University, NE2 4HH, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - Rohan R Gujjuri
- College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Moh'd A Hilal
- Department of Surgery, Southampton University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK
| | - Derek M Manas
- Department of Hepatobiliary, Pancreatic and Transplant Surgery, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle University NHS Trust Hospitals, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK; Institute of Cellular Medicine, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - Steven A White
- Department of Hepatobiliary, Pancreatic and Transplant Surgery, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle University NHS Trust Hospitals, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK; Institute of Cellular Medicine, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Nakata K, Nakamura M. The current status and future directions of robotic pancreatectomy. Ann Gastroenterol Surg 2021; 5:467-476. [PMID: 34337295 PMCID: PMC8316739 DOI: 10.1002/ags3.12446] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/02/2020] [Revised: 01/19/2021] [Accepted: 01/28/2021] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
Robotic surgery has emerged as an alternative to laparoscopic surgery and it has also been applied to pancreatectomy. With the increase in the number of robotic pancreatectomies, several studies comparing robotic pancreatectomy and conventional open or laparoscopic pancreatectomy have been published. However, the use of robotic pancreatectomy remains controversial. In this review, we aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of the current status of robotic pancreatectomy. Various aspects of robotic pancreatectomy and conventional open or laparoscopic pancreatectomy are compared, including the benefits, limitations, oncological efficacy, learning curves, and costs. Both robotic pancreatoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy have favorable or comparable outcomes to conventional procedures, and robotic pancreatectomy has the potential to be an alternative to open or laparoscopic procedures. However, there are still several disadvantages to robotic platforms, such as prolonged operative duration and the high cost of the procedure. These disadvantages will be improved by developing instruments, overcoming the learning curve, and increasing the number of robotic pancreatectomies. In addition, robotic pancreatectomy is still in the introductory period in most centers and should only be used in accordance with strict indications.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kohei Nakata
- Department of Surgery and OncologyGraduate School of Medical SciencesKyushu UniversityFukuokaJapan
| | - Masafumi Nakamura
- Department of Surgery and OncologyGraduate School of Medical SciencesKyushu UniversityFukuokaJapan
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Lof S, van der Heijde N, Abuawwad M, Al-Sarireh B, Boggi U, Butturini G, Capretti G, Coratti A, Casadei R, D'Hondt M, Esposito A, Ferrari G, Fusai G, Giardino A, Groot Koerkamp B, Hackert T, Kamarajah S, Kauffmann EF, Keck T, Marudanayagam R, Nickel F, Manzoni A, Pessaux P, Pietrabissa A, Rosso E, Salvia R, Soonawalla Z, White S, Zerbi A, Besselink MG, Abu Hilal M. Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: multicentre analysis. Br J Surg 2021; 108:188-195. [PMID: 33711145 DOI: 10.1093/bjs/znaa039] [Citation(s) in RCA: 59] [Impact Index Per Article: 19.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/13/2020] [Revised: 09/03/2020] [Accepted: 09/15/2020] [Indexed: 01/04/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The role of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy is still unclear, and whether robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) offers benefits over laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is unknown because large multicentre studies are lacking. This study compared perioperative outcomes between RDP and LDP. METHODS A multicentre international propensity score-matched study included patients who underwent RDP or LDP for any indication in 21 European centres from six countries that performed at least 15 distal pancreatectomies annually (January 2011 to June 2019). Propensity score matching was based on preoperative characteristics in a 1 : 1 ratio. The primary outcome was the major morbidity rate (Clavien-Dindo grade IIIa or above). RESULTS A total of 1551 patients (407 RDP and 1144 LDP) were included in the study. Some 402 patients who had RDP were matched with 402 who underwent LDP. After matching, there was no difference between RDP and LDP groups in rates of major morbidity (14.2 versus 16.5 per cent respectively; P = 0.378), postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C (24.6 versus 26.5 per cent; P = 0.543) or 90-day mortality (0.5 versus 1.3 per cent; P = 0.268). RDP was associated with a longer duration of surgery than LDP (median 285 (i.q.r. 225-350) versus 240 (195-300) min respectively; P < 0.001), lower conversion rate (6.7 versus 15.2 per cent; P < 0.001), higher spleen preservation rate (81.4 versus 62.9 per cent; P = 0.001), longer hospital stay (median 8.5 (i.q.r. 7-12) versus 7 (6-10) days; P < 0.001) and lower readmission rate (11.0 versus 18.2 per cent; P = 0.004). CONCLUSION The major morbidity rate was comparable between RDP and LDP. RDP was associated with improved rates of conversion, spleen preservation and readmission, to the detriment of longer duration of surgery and hospital stay.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- S Lof
- Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Department of Surgery, Southampton University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK
| | - N van der Heijde
- Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - M Abuawwad
- Department of Surgery, Southampton University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK
| | - B Al-Sarireh
- Department of Surgery, Morriston Hospital, Swansea, UK
| | - U Boggi
- Division of General and Transplant surgery, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy
| | - G Butturini
- Department of Surgery, Pederzoli Hospital, Peschiera, Italy
| | - G Capretti
- Pancreatic Surgery, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy
| | - A Coratti
- Department of Surgical Oncology and Robotics, Careggi University Hospital, Florence, Italy
| | - R Casadei
- Department of Surgery, S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, Bologna, Italy
| | - M D'Hondt
- Department of Digestive and Hepatobiliary/Pancreatic Surgery, AZ Groeninge Hospital, Kortrijk, Belgium
| | - A Esposito
- Department of Surgery, Pancreas Institute, Verona University Hospital, Verona, Italy
| | - G Ferrari
- Department of Oncological and Minimally Invasive Surgery, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Milan, Italy
| | - G Fusai
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - A Giardino
- Department of Surgery, Pederzoli Hospital, Peschiera, Italy
| | - B Groot Koerkamp
- Department of Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - T Hackert
- Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - S Kamarajah
- Department of Surgery, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle, UK
| | - E F Kauffmann
- Division of General and Transplant surgery, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy
| | - T Keck
- Clinic for Surgery, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Lübeck, Germany
| | - R Marudanayagam
- Department of Surgery, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Trust, Birmingham, UK
| | - F Nickel
- Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - A Manzoni
- Department of Surgery, Fondazione Poliambulanza - Istituto Ospedaliero, Brescia, Italy
| | - P Pessaux
- Department of Digestive and Endocrine Surgery, Nouvel Hôpital Civil - IHU Strasbourg, Institute of Image-Guided Surgery, Strasbourg, France
| | - A Pietrabissa
- Department of Surgery, Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo and University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy
| | - E Rosso
- Department of Surgery, Elsan Pôle Santé Sud, Le Mans, France
| | - R Salvia
- Department of Surgery, Pancreas Institute, Verona University Hospital, Verona, Italy
| | - Z Soonawalla
- Department of Surgery, Oxford University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK
| | - S White
- Department of Surgery, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle, UK
| | - A Zerbi
- Pancreatic Surgery, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy
| | - M G Besselink
- Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - M Abu Hilal
- Department of Surgery, Southampton University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK
- Department of Surgery, Fondazione Poliambulanza - Istituto Ospedaliero, Brescia, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
24
|
Lof S, Vissers FL, Klompmaker S, Berti S, Boggi U, Coratti A, Dokmak S, Fara R, Festen S, D'Hondt M, Khatkov I, Lips D, Luyer M, Manzoni A, Rosso E, Saint-Marc O, Besselink MG, Abu Hilal M. Risk of conversion to open surgery during robotic and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy and effect on outcomes: international propensity score-matched comparison study. Br J Surg 2021; 108:80-87. [PMID: 33640946 DOI: 10.1093/bjs/znaa026] [Citation(s) in RCA: 31] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/17/2020] [Revised: 04/23/2020] [Accepted: 09/09/2020] [Indexed: 12/16/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) is increasingly being performed because of perceived patient benefits. Whether conversion of MIPD to open pancreatoduodenectomy worsens outcome, and which risk factors are associated with conversion, is unclear. METHODS This was a post hoc analysis of a European multicentre retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing MIPD (2012-2017) in ten medium-volume (10-19 MIPDs annually) and four high-volume (at least 20 MIPDs annually) centres. Propensity score matching (1 : 1) was used to compare outcomes of converted and non-converted MIPD procedures. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify risk factors for conversion, with results presented as odds ratios (ORs) with 95 per cent confidence intervals (c.i). RESULTS Overall, 65 of 709 MIPDs were converted (9.2 per cent) and the overall 30-day mortality rate was 3.8 per cent. Risk factors for conversion were tumour size larger than 40 mm (OR 2.7, 95 per cent c.i.1.0 to 6.8; P = 0.041), pancreatobiliary tumours (OR 2.2, 1.0 to 4.8; P = 0.039), age at least 75 years (OR 2.0, 1.0 to 4.1; P = 0.043), and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (OR 5.2, 2.5 to 10.7; P < 0.001). Medium-volume centres had a higher risk of conversion than high-volume centres (15.2 versus 4.1 per cent, P < 0.001; OR 4.1, 2.3 to 7.4, P < 0.001). After propensity score matching (56 converted MIPDs and 56 completed MIPDs) including risk factors, rates of complications with a Clavien-Dindo grade of III or higher (32 versus 34 per cent; P = 0.841) and 30-day mortality (12 versus 6 per cent; P = 0.274) did not differ between converted and non-converted MIPDs. CONCLUSION Risk factors for conversion during MIPD include age, large tumour size, tumour location, laparoscopic approach, and surgery in medium-volume centres. Although conversion during MIPD itself was not associated with worse outcomes, the outcome in these patients was poor in general which should be taken into account during patient selection for MIPD.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- S Lof
- Department of Surgery, Southampton University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK.,Department of Surgery, Cancer Centre Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - F L Vissers
- Department of Surgery, Cancer Centre Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - S Klompmaker
- Department of Surgery, Cancer Centre Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - S Berti
- Department of Surgery, Sant'Andrea Hospital La Spezia, La Spezia, Italy
| | - U Boggi
- Department of Surgery, Universitá di Pisa, Pisa, Italy
| | - A Coratti
- Department of Oncology and Robotic Surgery, Careggi University Hospital, Florence, Italy
| | - S Dokmak
- Department of Surgery, Hospital of Beaujon, Clichy, France
| | - R Fara
- Department of Surgery, Hôpital Européen Marseille, Marseille, France
| | - S Festen
- Department of Surgery, OLVG, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - M D'Hondt
- Department of Digestive and Hepatobiliary/Pancreatic Surgery, Groeninge Hospital, Kortrijk, Belgium
| | - I Khatkov
- Department of Surgery, Moscow Clinical Scientific Centre, Moscow, Russia
| | - D Lips
- Department of Gastro-intestinal and Oncological Surgery, Medisch Spectrum Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands
| | - M Luyer
- Department of Surgery, Catharina Hospital Eindhoven, Eindhoven, the Netherlands
| | - A Manzoni
- Department of Surgery, Fondazione Poliambulanza Istituto Ospedaliero, Brescia, Italy
| | - E Rosso
- Department of Surgery, Pôle Santé Sud, Le Mans, France
| | - O Saint-Marc
- Department of Surgery, Centre Hospitalier Regional d'Orleans, Orleans, France
| | - M G Besselink
- Department of Surgery, Cancer Centre Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - M Abu Hilal
- Department of Surgery, Southampton University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK.,Department of Surgery, Fondazione Poliambulanza Istituto Ospedaliero, Brescia, Italy
| | | |
Collapse
|
25
|
Chao YK, Tsai CY, Illias AM, Chen CY, Chiu CH, Chuang WY. A standardized procedure for upper mediastinal lymph node dissection improves the safety and efficacy of robotic McKeown oesophagectomy. Int J Med Robot 2021; 17:e2244. [PMID: 33591632 DOI: 10.1002/rcs.2244] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/20/2020] [Revised: 02/10/2021] [Accepted: 02/12/2021] [Indexed: 11/08/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) palsy is a common complication of upper mediastinal lymph node dissection (UMLND) in the context of oesophageal cancer surgery. In an effort to reduce its occurrence, we developed a standardised surgical procedure that allows flexible suspension of the left RLN during robotic McKeown oesophagectomy. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients who received robotic McKeown oesophagectomy for cancer were divided into two groups (pre and poststandardisation). Perioperative outcomes were retrospectively compared. RESULTS The pre and poststandardisation groups consisted of 44 and 42 patients, respectively. There were no significant intergroup differences in terms of number of dissected lymph nodes. Compared with the prestandardisation group, patients treated after standardisation had a markedly lowered incidence of left RLN palsy (20.5% vs. 4.8%, respectively, p = 0.029) and a reduced mean thoracic operating time (161.05 vs. 131 min, respectively, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION Our standardised surgical approach is efficient and may increase the safety of UMLND.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yin-Kai Chao
- Division of Thoracic Surgery, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital-Linko, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan
| | - Chun-Yi Tsai
- Department of General Surgery, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital-Linkou, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan
| | - Amina M Illias
- Department of Anesthesiology, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital-Linkou, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan.,Graduate Institute of Clinical Medical Sciences, College of Medicine, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan
| | - Chun-Yu Chen
- Department of Anesthesiology, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital-Linkou, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan
| | - Chien-Hung Chiu
- Division of Thoracic Surgery, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital-Linko, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan
| | - Wen-Yu Chuang
- Department of Pathology, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital-Linko, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan
| |
Collapse
|
26
|
Ban D, Garbarino GM, Ishikawa Y, Honda G, Jang JY, Kang CM, Maekawa A, Murase Y, Nagakawa Y, Nishino H, Ohtsuka T, Yiengpruksawan A, Endo I, Tsuchida A, Nakamura M. Surgical approaches for minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy: A systematic review. JOURNAL OF HEPATO-BILIARY-PANCREATIC SCIENCES 2021; 29:151-160. [PMID: 33527758 DOI: 10.1002/jhbp.902] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/28/2020] [Revised: 12/23/2020] [Accepted: 01/18/2021] [Indexed: 12/21/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) was initially performed for benign tumors, but recently its indications have steadily broadened to encompass other conditions including pancreatic malignancies. Thorough anatomical knowledge is mandatory for precise surgery in the era of minimally invasive surgery. However, expert consensus regarding anatomical landmarks to facilitate the safe performance of MIDP is still lacking. METHODS A systematic literature search was performed using keywords to identify articles regarding the vascular anatomy and surgical approaches/techniques for MIDP. RESULTS All of the systematic reviews revealed that MIDP was not associated with an increase in postoperative complications. Moreover, most showed that MIDP resulted in less blood loss than open surgery. Regarding surgical approaches for MIDP, a standardized stepwise procedure improved surgical outcomes, including blood loss, operative time, and major complications. There are two approaches to the splenic vessels, superior and inferior; however, no study has ever directly compared them with respect to clinical outcomes. The morphology of the splenic artery affects the difficulty of approaching the artery's root. To select an appropriate dissecting layer when performing posterior resection, thorough knowledge of the anatomy of the fascia, left renal vein/artery, and left adrenal gland is needed. CONCLUSIONS In MIDP, a standardized approach and precise knowledge of anatomy facilitates safe surgery and has the advantage of a shorter learning curve. Anatomical features and landmarks are particularly important in cases of radical MIDP and splenic vessel preserving MIDP.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daisuke Ban
- Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Giovanni Maria Garbarino
- Department of Medical Surgical Science and Translational Medicine, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy
| | - Yoshiya Ishikawa
- Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Graduate School of Medicine, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Goro Honda
- Department of Surgery, Institute of Gastroenterology, Tokyo Women's Medical University, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Jin-Young Jang
- Department of Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Chang Moo Kang
- Department of Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Aya Maekawa
- Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Graduate School of Medicine, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Yoshiki Murase
- Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Graduate School of Medicine, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Yuichi Nagakawa
- Department of Gastrointestinal and Pediatric Surgery, Tokyo Medical University, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Hitoe Nishino
- Department of Gastrointestinal and Pediatric Surgery, Tokyo Medical University, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Takao Ohtsuka
- First Department of Surgery, Kagoshima University School of Medicine, Kagoshima, Japan
| | - Anusak Yiengpruksawan
- Minimally Invasive Surgery Division, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
| | - Itaru Endo
- Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Yokohama City University Graduate School of Medicine, Yokohama, Japan
| | - Akihiko Tsuchida
- Department of Gastrointestinal and Pediatric Surgery, Tokyo Medical University, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Masafumi Nakamura
- Department of Surgery and Oncology, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan
| | | |
Collapse
|
27
|
Long-term survival after minimally invasive resection versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary cancers: a systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression. HPB (Oxford) 2021; 23:197-205. [PMID: 33077373 DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2020.09.023] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/02/2020] [Accepted: 09/29/2020] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND It remains unclear whether minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) influences long-term survival in periampullary cancers. This review aims evaluate long-term survival between MIPD and OPD for periampullary cancers. METHODS A systematic review was performed to identify studies comparing long-term survival after MIPD and OPD. The I2 test was used to test for statistical heterogeneity and publication bias using Egger test. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed for all-cause 5-year (main outcome) and 3-year survival, and disease-specific 5-year and 3-year survival. Meta-regression was performed for the 5-year and 3-year survival outcomes with adjustment for study (region, design, case matching), hospital (centre volume), patient (ASA grade, gender, age), and tumor (stage, neoadjuvant therapy, subtype (i.e. ampullary, distal bile duct, duodenal, pancreatic)). Sensitivity analyses performed on studies including pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) only. RESULTS The review identified 31 relevant studies. Among all 58,622 patients, 8716 (14.9%) underwent MIPD and 49,875 (85.1%) underwent OPD. Pooled analysis revealed similar 5-year overall survival after MIPD compared with OPD (HR: 0.78, 95% CI 0.50-1.22, p = 0.2). Meta-regression indicated case matching, and ASA Grade II and III as confounding covariates. The statistical heterogeneity was limited (I2 = 12, χ2 = 0.26) and the funnel plot was symmetrical both according to visual and statistical testing (Egger test = 0.32). Sensitivity subset analyses for PDAC demonstrated similar 5-year overall survival after MIPD compared with OPD (HR 0.69, 95% CI: 0.32-1.50, p = 0.3). CONCLUSION Long-term survival after MIPD is non-inferior to OPD. Thus, MIPD can be recommended as a standard surgical approach for periampullary cancers.
Collapse
|
28
|
Dittrich L, Biebl M, Malinka T, Knoop M, Pratschke J. Minimally invasive pancreatic surgery—will robotic surgery be the future? Eur Surg 2021. [DOI: 10.1007/s10353-020-00689-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/23/2022]
Abstract
SummaryDue to the complexity of the procedures and the texture of the organ itself, pancreatic surgery remains a challenge in the field of visceral surgery. During the past decade, a minimally invasive approach to pancreatic surgery has gained distribution in clinical routine, extending from left-sided procedures to pancreatic head resections. While a laparoscopic approach has proven beneficial for many patients with left-sided pancreatic pathologies, the complex reconstruction in pancreas head resections remains worrisome with the laparoscopic approach. The robotic technique was established to overcome such technical constraints while preserving the advantages of the laparoscopic approach. Even though robotic systems are still in development, especially in pancreatoduodenectomy, the current literature demonstrates the feasibility of this approach and stable clinical and oncological outcomes compared to the open technique, albeit only under the condition of such operations being performed by specialist teams in a high-volume setting (>20 robotic pancreaticoduodenectomies per year). The aim of this review is to analyze the current evidence regarding a minimally invasive approach to pancreatic surgery and to review the potential of a robotic approach. Presently, there is still a scarcity of sound evidence and long-term oncological data regarding the role of minimally invasive and robotic pancreatic surgery in the literature, especially in the setting of pancreaticoduodenectomy.
Collapse
|
29
|
Goh BKP, Lee CY, Koh YX, Teo JY, Kam JH, Cheow PC, Chung AYF, Chan CY, Lee SY. Use of Reinforced Staplers Decreases the Rate of Postoperative Pancreatic Fistula Compared to Bare Staplers After Minimally Invasive Distal Pancreatectomies. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2021; 31:1124-1129. [PMID: 33449857 DOI: 10.1089/lap.2020.0754] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
Background: Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is the most common and important cause of morbidity after distal pancreatectomy. Various transection and closure techniques of the pancreatic stump have been proposed with no robust evidence unanimously supporting one technique over the other. This study aims to compare the outcomes of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) performed with reinforced stapler (RS) versus bare stapler (BS) with particular attention to the POPF. Methods: Retrospective review of 90 consecutive elective MIDP performed at a single institution between 2014 and 2019 was performed. The primary outcome was POPF as defined by the latest International Study Group of Pancreatic Fistula classification. MIDP with RS was adopted by two surgeons who subsequently performed all their consecutive surgeries with RS. Results: There were 25 and 65 patients who underwent MIDP with RS and BS, respectively. There were 8 (8.9%) open conversions and 17 (18.9%) patients experienced a POPF. Patients who underwent MIDP with RS had a significantly lower POPF rate (4% versus 24.6%, P = .025), lower major (>grade 2) morbidity rate (4% versus 21.5%, P = .046), and lower readmission rate (4% versus 27.7%, P = .014). On multivariate analysis, only the use of BS and obesity (body mass index ≥27.5) was independently associated with the development of a POPF. Conclusion: MIDP performed with RS was associated with a significantly lower rate of POPF, major morbidity, and readmissions compared to BS. The use of RS was protective against POPF.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Brian K P Goh
- Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Transplant Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.,Duke-NUS Medical School, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Chuan-Yaw Lee
- Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Transplant Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Ye-Xin Koh
- Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Transplant Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Jin-Yao Teo
- Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Transplant Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.,Duke-NUS Medical School, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Juinn-Huar Kam
- Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Transplant Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.,Duke-NUS Medical School, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Peng-Chung Cheow
- Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Transplant Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.,Duke-NUS Medical School, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Alexander Y F Chung
- Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Transplant Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.,Duke-NUS Medical School, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Chung-Yip Chan
- Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Transplant Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.,Duke-NUS Medical School, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Ser-Yee Lee
- Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Transplant Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.,Duke-NUS Medical School, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
| |
Collapse
|
30
|
Lin X, Lin R, Lu F, Yang Y, Wang C, Fang H, Huang H. "Kimura-first" strategy for robotic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy: experiences from 61 consecutive cases in a single institution. Gland Surg 2021; 10:186-200. [PMID: 33633975 PMCID: PMC7882308 DOI: 10.21037/gs-20-576] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/22/2020] [Accepted: 09/30/2020] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Robotic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (RSPDP) is an ideal procedure for benign and low-grade malignant tumors in the distal pancreas, and two splenic preservation techniques (the Kimura and Warshaw techniques) can be used for RSPDP. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of the "Kimura-first" strategy for RSPDP and to investigate the risk factors affecting the preservation of the spleen and splenic vessels. METHODS The electronic medical records of patients who underwent robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) between October 2016 and December 2019 at our institution were retrospectively reviewed. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to identify the risk factors influencing preservation of the spleen and splenic vessels during RDP. RESULTS Sixty-one patients scheduled for RSPDP who received RDP were included in this study [Kimura technique, 41 patients; Warshaw technique, 11 patients; and robotic distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy (RDPS), 9 patients]. The overall splenic preservation rate with RDP was 85.2% (52/61). The preservation rate of splenic vessels with the Kimura technique with RSPDP was 78.8% (41/52). The RSPDP group had remarkably less estimated blood loss (EBL; median 50 vs. 300 mL, P=0.000) and a lower morbidity rate (13.5% vs. 44.4%, P=0.047) than the RDPS group. The logistic regression models showed that obvious splenic vessel compression by the tumor was an independent risk factor for splenic vessel preservation with RSPDP (OR 0.021, 95% CI: 0.002-0.271, P=0.003) and RDP (OR 0.019, 95% CI: 0.002-0.176, P=0.000). CONCLUSIONS The "Kimura-first" strategy is feasible and safe for RSPDP, with high rates of splenic and splenic vessel preservation. Obvious splenic vessel compression by the tumor can be used as a predictor of splenic vessel preservation with planned RDP.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Xianchao Lin
- Department of General Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, Fujian, China
| | - Ronggui Lin
- Department of General Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, Fujian, China
| | - Fengchun Lu
- Department of General Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, Fujian, China
| | - Yuanyuan Yang
- Department of General Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, Fujian, China
| | - Congfei Wang
- Department of General Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, Fujian, China
| | - Haizong Fang
- Department of General Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, Fujian, China
| | - Heguang Huang
- Department of General Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, Fujian, China
| |
Collapse
|
31
|
Kamarajah SK, Abu Hilal M, White SA. Does center or surgeon volume influence adoption of minimally invasive versus open pancreatoduodenectomy? A systematic review and meta-regression. Surgery 2020; 169:945-953. [PMID: 33183790 DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2020.09.019] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/02/2020] [Revised: 08/29/2020] [Accepted: 09/17/2020] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND There has been increasing uptake of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy during the past decade, but it remains a highly specialized procedure as benefits over open pancreatoduodenectomy remain contentious. This study aimed to evaluate current evidence on minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy versus open pancreatoduodenectomy in terms of impact of center volume on outcomes. METHODS A systematic review of articles on comparative cohort and registry studies on minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy versus open pancreatoduodenectomy published until 31st December 2019 were identified, and meta-analyses were performed. Primary endpoints were International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistula grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula and 30-day mortality. RESULTS After screening 7,390 studies, 43 comparative cohort studies (8,755 patients) with moderate methodological quality and 3 original registry studies (43,735 patients) were included. For the cohort studies, the median annual hospital minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy volume was 10. No significant differences were found in grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula (odds ratio: 0.98, 95% confidence interval: 0.78-1.23) or 30-day mortality (odds ratio: 1.14, 95% confidence interval: 0.65-2.01) between minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy when compared with open. No publication biases were present and meta-regression identified no confounding for grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula, center volume or 30-day mortality. Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy was only strongly associated with significantly lower rates of postoperative pulmonary complications and surgical site infection, shorter length of stay, and significantly higher rates of R0 margin resections. CONCLUSION Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy remains noninferior to open pancreatoduodenectomy for grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula but is strongly associated with significantly lower rates of postoperative pulmonary complications and surgical site infection. Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy can be adopted safely with good outcomes irrespective of annual center resection volume.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sivesh K Kamarajah
- Department of HPB and Transplant Surgery, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear, United Kingdom; Institute of Cellular Medicine, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear, United Kingdom.
| | - Mohammed Abu Hilal
- Department of Surgery, Southampton University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom
| | - Steven A White
- Department of HPB and Transplant Surgery, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear, United Kingdom; Institute of Cellular Medicine, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
32
|
Kamarajah SK, Karri S, Bundred JR, Evans RPT, Lin A, Kew T, Ekeozor C, Powell SL, Singh P, Griffiths EA. Perioperative outcomes after laparoscopic cholecystectomy in elderly patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 2020; 34:4727-4740. [PMID: 32661706 PMCID: PMC7572343 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-020-07805-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 27] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/12/2020] [Accepted: 06/25/2020] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is increasingly performed in an ever ageing population; however, the risks are poorly quantified. The study aims to review the current evidence to quantify further the postoperative risk of cholecystectomy in the elderly population compared to younger patients. METHOD A systematic literature search of PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library databases were conducted including studies reporting laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the elderly population. A meta-analysis was reported in accordance with the recommendations of the Cochrane Library and PRISMA guidelines. Primary outcome was overall complications and secondary outcomes were conversion to open surgery, bile leaks, postoperative mortality and length of stay. RESULTS This review identified 99 studies incorporating 326,517 patients. Increasing age was significantly associated with increased rates of overall complications (OR 2.37, CI95% 2.00-2.78), major complication (OR 1.79, CI95% 1.45-2.20), risk of conversion to open cholecystectomy (OR 2.17, CI95% 1.84-2.55), risk of bile leaks (OR 1.50, CI95% 1.07-2.10), risk of postoperative mortality (OR 7.20, CI95% 4.41-11.73) and was significantly associated with increased length of stay (MD 2.21 days, CI95% 1.24-3.18). CONCLUSION Postoperative outcomes such as overall and major complications appear to be significantly higher in all age cut-offs in this meta-analysis. This study demonstrated there is a sevenfold increase in perioperative mortality which increases by tenfold in patients > 80 years old. This study appears to confirm preconceived suspicions of higher risks in elderly patients undergoing cholecystectomy and may aid treatment planning and informed consent.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sivesh K Kamarajah
- Department of Hepatobiliary, Pancreatic and Transplant Surgery, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle University NHS Foundation Trust Hospitals, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK
- Institute of Cellular Medicine, University of Newcastle, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK
| | - Santhosh Karri
- College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - James R Bundred
- College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Richard P T Evans
- Department of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Area 6, 7th Floor, Mindelsohn Way, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2WB, UK
- Institute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Aaron Lin
- College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Tania Kew
- College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Chinenye Ekeozor
- College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Susan L Powell
- Department of Geriatric Medicine, Solihull Hospital, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK
| | - Pritam Singh
- Trent Oesophago-Gastric Unit, City Hospital Campus, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Hucknall Road, Nottingham, NG5 1PB, UK
- Regional Oesophago-Gastric Unit, Royal Surrey County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Egerton Road, Guildford, GU2 7XX, UK
| | - Ewen A Griffiths
- Department of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Area 6, 7th Floor, Mindelsohn Way, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2WB, UK.
- Institute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
33
|
Abstract
BACKGROUND Although only a low percentage of abdominal surgical interventions are performed using a robotic platform, the total number has significantly increased in recent years and robotic surgery (RS) is no longer limited only to university hospitals. Despite the increasing popularity and many innovations in the field of robotic surgery with new devices, the data situation is confusing. OBJECTIVE This review deals with the current areas of application of robotic devices in abdominal surgery and whether there are any advantages compared to laparoscopic surgery (LS). MATERIAL AND METHODS The current international literature was evaluated and is critically discussed with a particular focus on clinical trials. RESULTS While the disadvantages include high costs and longer times of surgery, the advantages are a stable optical platform and the high mobility even in confined spaces; however, no high-quality, randomized controlled trial in abdominal surgery is currently available that could demonstrate an advantage of RS compared to LS. CONCLUSION Although no clear advantages of RS for the patients could so far be demonstrated, it seems to be at least equivalent to LS. Undisputed is the level of comfort for the surgeon. Once the costs of RS can be reduced, LS will probably be replaced for most indications.
Collapse
|
34
|
Comparison of 3 Minimally Invasive Methods Versus Open Distal Pancreatectomy: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 2020; 31:104-112. [PMID: 32890249 PMCID: PMC8096312 DOI: 10.1097/sle.0000000000000846] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/28/2020] [Accepted: 07/06/2020] [Indexed: 01/22/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
|
35
|
Park G, Choi SH, Lee JH, Lim JH, Lee H, Lee JH, Kang CM. Safety and Feasibility of Robotic Reduced-Port Distal Pancreatectomy: a Multicenter Experience of a Novel Technique. J Gastrointest Surg 2020; 24:2015-2020. [PMID: 31388883 DOI: 10.1007/s11605-019-04330-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/23/2018] [Accepted: 07/12/2019] [Indexed: 01/31/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND A reduced-port approach including single-site surgery has been used for distal pancreatectomy. However, triangulation is difficult in reduced-port laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy, and instrument crowding, and collision may occur, so this approach has not been widely used. Recently, an innovative technique for distal pancreatectomy using a robotic single-site surgical system was introduced. Herein, we evaluate the safety and feasibility of this technique. METHODS Twenty-seven patients with a pancreatic tail mass underwent robotic single-site plus one-port distal pancreatectomy at six centers. We collected clinicopathologic data and evaluated the short-term perioperative outcomes of robotic single-site plus one-port distal pancreatectomy. RESULTS We evaluated 26 patients who underwent robotic single-site plus one-port distal pancreatectomy excluding one patient who needed more ports because of fatty abdomen. The mean age and body mass index were 47.3 years (range 21-74) and 22.6 kg/m2 (range 15.8-28.8), respectively. The most common pathologic diagnosis was solid papillary neoplasm followed by a neuroendocrine tumor. The mean operating time was 201 min. The mean length of hospital stay after surgery was 7 days (range 4-10). The rate of spleen preservation was 34.6% (9/26). Six patients had postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) grade A, and no patients had POPF grade B or C. Only one patient had class II morbidity. CONCLUSION Robotic single-site plus one-port distal pancreatectomy is safe and feasible in terms of short-term outcomes. This technique could be performed in select cases to expand the surgical boundaries of the robotic single-site platform. Further studies are needed with more cases to investigate long-term outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Guisuk Park
- Division of Hepatobiliary and Pancreas Surgery, Department of Surgery, Asan Medical Center, 88, Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul, 05505, Republic of Korea
| | - Sung Hoon Choi
- Division of HBP Surgery, Department of Surgery, Cha Bundang Medical Center, Bundang, South Korea
| | - Jin Ho Lee
- Department of Surgery, National Health Insurance Service Ilsan Hospital, Goyang, South Korea
| | - Jin Hong Lim
- Division of HBP Surgery, Department of Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, 41, Yeondaedongmun-gil, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, 03721, South Korea
| | - Huisong Lee
- Department of Surgery, Ewha Womans University School of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Jae Hoon Lee
- Division of Hepatobiliary and Pancreas Surgery, Department of Surgery, Asan Medical Center, 88, Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul, 05505, Republic of Korea.
| | - Chang Moo Kang
- Division of HBP Surgery, Department of Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, 41, Yeondaedongmun-gil, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, 03721, South Korea.
| |
Collapse
|
36
|
Lee SQ, Kabir T, Koh YX, Teo JY, Lee SY, Kam JH, Cheow PC, Jeyaraj PR, Chow PKH, Ooi LL, Chung AYF, Chan CY, Goh BKP. A single institution experience with robotic and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies. Ann Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 2020; 24:283-291. [PMID: 32843593 PMCID: PMC7452804 DOI: 10.14701/ahbps.2020.24.3.283] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/10/2020] [Revised: 04/18/2020] [Accepted: 04/29/2020] [Indexed: 01/08/2023] Open
Abstract
Backgrounds/Aims This study aims to describe our experience with minimally-invasive distal pancreatectomies, with emphasis on the comparison between robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP). Methods Retrospective review of 102 consecutive RDP and LDP from 2006 to 2019 was performed. Results There were 27 and 75 patients who underwent RDP and LDP, respectively. There were 12 (11.8%) open conversions and 16 (15.7%) patients had major (>grade 2) morbidities. Patients who underwent RDP had significantly higher rates of splenic preservation (44.4% vs. 13.3%, p=0.002), higher rates of splenic-vessel preservation (40.7% vs. 9.3%, p=0.001), higher median difficulty score (5 vs. 3, p=0.002) but longer operation time (385 vs. 245 minutes, p<0.001). The rate of open conversion tended to be lower with RDP (3.7% vs. 14.7%, p=0.175). Conclusions In our institution practice, both RDP and LDP were safe and effective. The use of RDP appeared to be complementary to LDP, allowing us to perform more difficult procedures with comparable postoperative outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shi Qing Lee
- Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Transplant Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore.,Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore
| | - Tousif Kabir
- Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Transplant Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore
| | - Ye-Xin Koh
- Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Transplant Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore
| | - Jin-Yao Teo
- Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Transplant Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore.,Duke-NUS Medical School, National University of Singapore, Singapore
| | - Ser-Yee Lee
- Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Transplant Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore.,Duke-NUS Medical School, National University of Singapore, Singapore
| | - Juinn-Huar Kam
- Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Transplant Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore.,Duke-NUS Medical School, National University of Singapore, Singapore
| | - Peng-Chung Cheow
- Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Transplant Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore.,Duke-NUS Medical School, National University of Singapore, Singapore
| | - Prema Raj Jeyaraj
- Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Transplant Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore.,Duke-NUS Medical School, National University of Singapore, Singapore
| | - Pierce K H Chow
- Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Transplant Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore.,Duke-NUS Medical School, National University of Singapore, Singapore
| | - London L Ooi
- Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Transplant Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore.,Duke-NUS Medical School, National University of Singapore, Singapore
| | - Alexander Y F Chung
- Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Transplant Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore.,Duke-NUS Medical School, National University of Singapore, Singapore
| | - Chung-Yip Chan
- Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Transplant Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore.,Duke-NUS Medical School, National University of Singapore, Singapore
| | - Brian K P Goh
- Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Transplant Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore.,Duke-NUS Medical School, National University of Singapore, Singapore
| |
Collapse
|
37
|
Kamarajah SK, Bundred J, Manas D, Jiao LR, Hilal MA, White SA. Robotic Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Liver Resections: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Scand J Surg 2020; 110:290-300. [PMID: 32762406 DOI: 10.1177/1457496920925637] [Citation(s) in RCA: 42] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Theoretical advantages of robotic surgery compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery include improved instrument dexterity, 3D visualization, and better ergonomics. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine advantages of robotic surgery over laparoscopic surgery in patients undergoing liver resections. METHOD A systematic literature search was conducted for studies comparing robotic assisted or totally laparoscopic liver resection. Meta-analysis of intraoperative (operative time, blood loss, transfusion rate, conversion rate), oncological (R0 resection rates), and postoperative (bile leak, surgical site infection, pulmonary complications, 30-day and 90-day mortality, length of stay, 90-day readmission and reoperation rates) outcomes was performed using a random effects model. RESULT Twenty-six non-randomized studies including 2630 patients (950 robotic and 1680 laparoscopic) were included, of which 20% had major robotic liver resection and 14% had major laparoscopic liver resection. Intraoperatively, robotic liver resection was associated with significantly less blood loss (mean: 286 vs 301 mL, p < 0.001) but longer operating time (mean: 281 vs 221 min, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in conversion rates or transfusion rates between robotic liver resection and laparoscopic liver resection. Postoperatively, there were no significant differences in overall complications, bile leaks, and length of hospital stay between robotic liver resection and laparoscopic liver resection. However, robotic liver resection was associated with significantly lower readmission rates than laparoscopic liver resection (odds ratio: 0.43, p = 0.005). CONCLUSION Robotic liver resection appears to offer some advantages compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery, although both techniques appear equivalent. Importantly, the quality of evidence is generally limited to cohort studies and a high-quality randomized trial comparing both techniques is needed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- S K Kamarajah
- Department of Hepatobiliary, Pancreatic and Transplant Surgery, Department of Surgery, The Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.,Institute of Cellular Medicine, University of Newcastle, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - J Bundred
- College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - D Manas
- Institute of Cellular Medicine, University of Newcastle, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - L R Jiao
- Department of Surgery and Cancer, HPB Surgical Unit, Imperial College, Hammersmith Hospital Campus, London, UK
| | - M A Hilal
- Department of Surgery, Southampton University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK
| | - S A White
- Department of Hepatobiliary, Pancreatic and Transplant Surgery, Department of Surgery, The Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.,Institute of Cellular Medicine, University of Newcastle, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| |
Collapse
|
38
|
Beyond the Genomic Mutation: Rethinking the Molecular Biomarkers of K-RAS Dependency in Pancreatic Cancers. Int J Mol Sci 2020; 21:ijms21145023. [PMID: 32708716 PMCID: PMC7404119 DOI: 10.3390/ijms21145023] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/15/2020] [Revised: 07/13/2020] [Accepted: 07/14/2020] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
Oncogenic v-Ki-ras2 Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homolog (K-RAS) plays a key role in the development and maintenance of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). The targeting of K-RAS would be beneficial to treat tumors whose growth depends on active K-RAS. The analysis of K-RAS genomic mutations is a clinical routine; however, an emerging question is whether the mutational status is able to identify tumors effectively dependent on K-RAS for tailoring targeted therapies. With the emergence of novel K-RAS inhibitors in clinical settings, this question is relevant. Several studies support the notion that the K-RAS mutation is not a sufficient biomarker deciphering the effective dependency of the tumor. Transcriptomic and metabolomic profiles of tumors, while revealing K-RAS signaling complexity and K-RAS-driven molecular pathways crucial for PDAC growth, are opening the opportunity to specifically identify K-RAS-dependent- or K-RAS-independent tumor subtypes by using novel molecular biomarkers. This would help tumor selection aimed at tailoring therapies against K-RAS. In this review, we will present studies about how the K-RAS mutation can also be interpreted in a state of K-RAS dependency, for which it is possible to identify specific K-RAS-driven molecular biomarkers in certain PDAC subtypes, beyond the genomic K-RAS mutational status.
Collapse
|
39
|
Trends of robotic-assisted surgery for thyroid, colorectal, stomach and hepatopancreaticobiliary cancer: 10 year Korea trend investigation. Asian J Surg 2020; 44:199-205. [PMID: 32571714 DOI: 10.1016/j.asjsur.2020.05.029] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/06/2020] [Revised: 05/05/2020] [Accepted: 05/13/2020] [Indexed: 01/21/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The current position of robotic surgery in the field of minimally invasive surgery remains ambiguous. We evaluated long-term trends of robotic general surgery and the future direction of its development. METHODS Data on robotic cancer surgeries between 2005 and 2014 were retrospectively collected by volunteer institutions in the Republic of Korea. Spearman's correlation and logistic regression analyses were used to compare robotic and laparoscopic surgery trends in general surgery. RESULTS The odds that robotic surgery was performed instead of laparoscopic surgery significantly decreased in the fields of colorectal, stomach, and hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery (odds ratio [OR]: 0.95, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.93-0.97; OR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.88-0.92; and OR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.65-0.78, respectively), except for thyroid surgery (OR: 1.28, 95% CI: 1.25-1.30). Of the total numbers of each procedure, proportions of robotic intersphincteric resections, abdominoperineal resections, and pylorus-preserving surgery performed significantly increased (r = 0.98, P < .001; r = 0.78, P = .01; and r = 0.86, P = .007, respectively). CONCLUSIONS The use of robotic surgery failed to preponderate that of laparoscopic surgery, except for thyroid surgery. Robotic surgery is increasingly preferred for limited fields or complex surgeries, but the use of robotics in simple surgeries has decreased.
Collapse
|
40
|
Zhao ZM, Jiang N, Gao YX, Yin ZZ, Zhao GD, Tan XL, Xu Y, Liu R. Clinical diagnosis and management of pancreatic mucinous cystadenoma and cystadenocarcinoma: Single-center experience with 82 patients. World J Gastrointest Oncol 2020; 12:642-650. [PMID: 32699579 PMCID: PMC7340995 DOI: 10.4251/wjgo.v12.i6.642] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/30/2020] [Revised: 05/18/2020] [Accepted: 05/22/2020] [Indexed: 02/05/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Mucinous cystic neoplasm (MCN) of the pancreas is characterized by mucin-producing columnar epithelium and dense ovarian-type stroma and at risk for malignant transformation. Early diagnosis and treatment of MCN are particularly important.
AIM To investigate the clinical characteristics of and management strategies for pancreatic mucinous cystadenoma (MCA) and mucinous cystadenocarcinoma (MCC).
METHODS The clinical and pathological data of 82 patients with pancreatic MCA and MCC who underwent surgical resection at our department between April 2015 and March 2019 were retrospectively analyzed.
RESULTS Of the 82 patients included in this study, 70 had MCA and 12 had MCC. Tumor size of MCC was larger than that of MCA (P = 0.049). Age and serum levels of tumor markers carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), carbohydrate antigen (CA) 19-9, and CA12-5 were significantly higher in MCC than in MCA patients (P = 0.005, 0.026, and 0.037, respectively). MCA tumor size was positively correlated with serum CA19-9 levels (r = 0.389, P = 0.001). Compared with MCC, MCA had a higher minimally invasive surgery rate (P = 0.014). In the MCA group, the rate of major complications was 5.7% and that of clinically relevant pancreatic fistula was 8.6%; the corresponding rates in the MCC group were 16.7% and 16.7%, respectively.
CONCLUSION Tumor size, age, and serum CEA, CA19-9, and CA12-5 levels may contribute to management of patients with MCN. Surgical resection is the primary treatment modality for MCC and MCA.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zhi-Ming Zhao
- Second Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, The First Medical Center of Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing 100853, China
| | - Nan Jiang
- Second Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, The First Medical Center of Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing 100853, China
| | - Yuan-Xing Gao
- Second Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, The First Medical Center of Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing 100853, China
| | - Zhu-Zeng Yin
- Second Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, The First Medical Center of Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing 100853, China
| | - Guo-Dong Zhao
- Second Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, The First Medical Center of Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing 100853, China
| | - Xiang-Long Tan
- Second Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, The First Medical Center of Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing 100853, China
| | - Yong Xu
- Second Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, The First Medical Center of Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing 100853, China
| | - Rong Liu
- Second Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, The First Medical Center of Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing 100853, China
| |
Collapse
|
41
|
Critical appraisal of gastric conduit ischaemic conditioning (GIC) prior to oesophagectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Surg 2020; 77:77-82. [PMID: 32198097 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2020.03.020] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/16/2019] [Revised: 03/12/2020] [Accepted: 03/13/2020] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Anastomotic leaks remain a major complication following oesophagectomy, accounting for high morbidity and mortality. Recently, gastric ischaemic conditioning (GIC) has been proposed to improve anastomotic integrity through neovascularisation of the gastric conduit. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to determine the impact of GIC on postoperative outcomes following oesophagectomy. METHODS A systematic literature search was performed to identify studies reporting GIC for any indication of oesophageal resection up to April 25, 2019. The primary outcome was anastomotic leak. Secondary outcomes were conduit necrosis, anastomotic strictures, overall and major complications or in-hospital mortality. Meta-analyses were conducted using random-effects modelling. RESULTS Nineteen studies reported on GIC, of which 13 were comparative studies. GIC was performed through ligation in 13 studies and embolisation in six studies. GIC did not appear to reduce anastomotic leakages (OR 0.80, CI95: 0.51-1.24, p = 0.3), anastomotic strictures (OR 0.75, CI95: 0.35-1.60, p = 0.5), overall complications (OR 1.02, CI95: 0.48-2.16, p = 0.9), major complications (OR 1.06, CI95: 0.53-2.11, p = 0.9), or in-hospital mortality (OR 0.70, CI95: 0.32-1.53, p = 0.4). However, GIC was associated with reduced rates of conduit necrosis (OR 0.30, CI95: 0.11-0.77, p = 0.013). CONCLUSION GIC does not appear to reduce overall rates of anastomotic leakage after oesophagectomy but seems to reduce severity of leakages. More in depth studies are recommended.
Collapse
|
42
|
Critical appraisal on the impact of preoperative rehabilitation and outcomes after major abdominal and cardiothoracic surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Surgery 2020; 167:540-549. [DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2019.07.032] [Citation(s) in RCA: 47] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/22/2019] [Revised: 07/15/2019] [Accepted: 07/29/2019] [Indexed: 12/26/2022]
|
43
|
A systematic review and network meta-analysis of different surgical approaches for pancreaticoduodenectomy. HPB (Oxford) 2020; 22:329-339. [PMID: 31676255 DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2019.09.016] [Citation(s) in RCA: 28] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/30/2019] [Revised: 09/16/2019] [Accepted: 09/29/2019] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) is a demanding surgical procedure, thus explaining its slow expansion and limited popularity amongst Hepato-Pancreatico-Biliary (HPB) surgeons. However, three main advantages of robotic assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) including improved dexterity, 3D vision less surgical fatigue, may overcome some of the hurdles and ultimately lead to a wider adoption. This systematic review and network meta-analysis aims to evaluate the current literature on open and MIPD. METHODS A systematic literature search was conducted for studies reporting robotic, laparoscopic and open surgery for PD. Network meta-analysis of intraoperative (operating time, blood loss, transfusion rate), postoperative (overall and major complications, pancreatic fistula, delayed gastric emptying, length of hospital stay) and oncological outcomes (R0 resection, lymphadenectomy) were performed. RESULTS Sixty-one studies including 62,529 patients were included in the network meta-analysis, of which 3% (n = 2131) were totally robotic (TR) and 10% (n = 6514) were totally laparoscopic (TL). There were no significant differences between surgical techniques for major complications, overall and grade B/C fistula, biliary leak, mortality and R0 resections. Transfusion rates were significantly lower in TR compared to TL and open. Operative time for TR was longer compared with open and TL. Both TL and TR were associated with significantly lower rates of wound infections, pulmonary complications, shorter length of stay and higher lymph nodes examined when compared to open. TR was associated with significantly lower conversion rates than TL. CONCLUSION In summary, this network meta-analysis highlights the variability in techniques within MIPD and compares other variations to the conventional open PD. Current evidence appears to demonstrate MIPD, both laparoscopic and robotic techniques are associated with improved rates of surgical site infections, pulmonary complications, and a shorter hospital stay, with no compromise in oncological outcomes for cancer resections.
Collapse
|
44
|
Najafi N, Mintziras I, Wiese D, Albers MB, Maurer E, Bartsch DK. A retrospective comparison of robotic versus laparoscopic distal resection and enucleation for potentially benign pancreatic neoplasms. Surg Today 2020; 50:872-880. [PMID: 32016613 DOI: 10.1007/s00595-020-01966-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/06/2019] [Accepted: 01/05/2020] [Indexed: 02/08/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE The present study aimed to compare robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic distal pancreatic resection and enucleation for potentially benign pancreatic neoplasms. METHODS Patients were retrieved from a prospectively maintained database. Demographic data, tumor types, and the perioperative outcomes were retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS In a 10-year period, 75 patients (female, n = 44; male, n = 31; median age, 53 years [range, 9-84 years]) were identified. The majority of patients had pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (n = 39, 52%) and cystic neoplasms (n = 23, 31%) with a median tumor size of 17 (3-60) mm. Nineteen (25.3%) patients underwent enucleation (robotic, n = 11; laparoscopic, n = 8) and 56 (74.7%) patients underwent distal pancreatic resection (robotic, n = 24; laparoscopic, n = 32), of those 48 (85%) underwent spleen-preserving procedures. Eight (10.7%) procedures had to be converted to open surgery. The rate of vessel preservation in distal pancreatectomy was significantly higher in robotic-assisted procedures (62.5% vs. 12.5%, p = 0.01). Twenty-six (34.6%) patients experienced postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo grade > 3). Twenty (26.7%) patients developed a pancreatic fistula type B. There was no mortality. After a median follow-up period of 58 months (range 2-120 months), one patient (1.3%) developed local recurrence (glucagonoma) after enucleation, which was treated with a Whipple procedure. CONCLUSION The robotic approach is comparably safe, but increases the rate of splenic vessel preservation and reduces the risk of conversion to open surgery.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nawid Najafi
- Department of Visceral-, Thoracic- and Vascular Surgery, Philipps-University Marburg, Baldingerstrasse, 35043, Marburg, Germany.
| | - I Mintziras
- Department of Visceral-, Thoracic- and Vascular Surgery, Philipps-University Marburg, Baldingerstrasse, 35043, Marburg, Germany
| | - D Wiese
- Department of Visceral-, Thoracic- and Vascular Surgery, Philipps-University Marburg, Baldingerstrasse, 35043, Marburg, Germany
| | - M B Albers
- Department of Visceral-, Thoracic- and Vascular Surgery, Philipps-University Marburg, Baldingerstrasse, 35043, Marburg, Germany
| | - E Maurer
- Department of Visceral-, Thoracic- and Vascular Surgery, Philipps-University Marburg, Baldingerstrasse, 35043, Marburg, Germany
| | - D K Bartsch
- Department of Visceral-, Thoracic- and Vascular Surgery, Philipps-University Marburg, Baldingerstrasse, 35043, Marburg, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
45
|
Kamarajah SK, Wilson CH, Bundred JR, Lin A, Sen G, Hammond JS, French JJ, Manas DM, White SA. A systematic review and network meta-analysis of parenchymal transection techniques during hepatectomy: an appraisal of current randomised controlled trials. HPB (Oxford) 2020; 22:204-214. [PMID: 31668587 DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2019.09.014] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/05/2019] [Revised: 09/21/2019] [Accepted: 09/25/2019] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Major liver resection can lead to significant morbidity and mortality. Blood loss is one of the most important factors predicting a good outcome. Although various transection methods have been reported, there is no consensus on the best technique. This systematic review and network meta-analysis aims to characterise and identify the best reported technique for elective parenchymal liver transection based on published randomised controlled trials (RCT's). METHODS A systematic review was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central to identify RCT's up to 5th June 2019 that examined parenchymal transection for liver resection. Data including study characteristics and outcomes including intraoperative (blood loss, operating time) and postoperative measures (overall and major complications, bile leaks) were extracted. Indirect comparisons of all regimens were simultaneously compared using random-effects network meta-analyses (NMA) which maintains randomisation within trials. RESULTS This study identified 22 RCT's involving 2360 patients reporting ten parenchymal transection techniques. Bipolar cautery has lower blood loss and shorter operating time than stapler (mean difference: 85 mL; 22min) and Tissue Link (mean difference: 66 mL; 29min). Bipolar cautery was ranked first for blood loss and operating time followed by stapler and TissueLink. Harmonic scalpel is associated with lower overall complications than Hydrojet (Odds ratio (OR): 0.48), BiClamp forceps (OR: 0.46) and clamp crushing (OR: 0.41). CONCLUSION Bipolar cautery techniques appear to best at reducing blood loss and associated with shortest operating time. In contrast, Harmonic scalpel appears best for overall and major complications. Given the paucity of data and selective outcome reporting, it is still hard to identify what is the best technique for liver resection. Therefore, further high-quality large-scale RCT's are still needed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sivesh K Kamarajah
- Department of HPB and Transplant Surgery, The Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear, United Kingdom; Institute of Cellular Medicine, University of Newcastle, Newcastle upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear, United Kingdom.
| | - Colin H Wilson
- Department of HPB and Transplant Surgery, The Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear, United Kingdom; Institute of Cellular Medicine, University of Newcastle, Newcastle upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear, United Kingdom
| | - James R Bundred
- College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
| | - Aaron Lin
- College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
| | - Gourab Sen
- Department of HPB and Transplant Surgery, The Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear, United Kingdom
| | - John S Hammond
- Department of HPB and Transplant Surgery, The Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear, United Kingdom
| | - Jeremy J French
- Department of HPB and Transplant Surgery, The Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear, United Kingdom
| | - Derek M Manas
- Department of HPB and Transplant Surgery, The Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear, United Kingdom
| | - Steven A White
- Department of HPB and Transplant Surgery, The Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear, United Kingdom; Institute of Cellular Medicine, University of Newcastle, Newcastle upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
46
|
Bundred J, Kamarajah SK, Roberts KJ. Body composition assessment and sarcopenia in patients with pancreatic cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. HPB (Oxford) 2019; 21:1603-1612. [PMID: 31266698 DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2019.05.018] [Citation(s) in RCA: 64] [Impact Index Per Article: 12.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/12/2019] [Revised: 05/21/2019] [Accepted: 05/27/2019] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Numerous studies have suggested an association between sarcopenia in pancreatic cancer and adverse outcomes. This systematic review examines the evidence for the impact of sarcopenia on post-operative complications and survival METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted to identify randomised and non-randomised studies of sarcopenia in pancreatic cancer. Meta-analyses of intra- and post-operative outcomes were performed (operating time, all complications, major complications, pancreatic fistulae, peri-operative mortality, overall survival). RESULTS Forty-two studies reported the assessment of body composition in 7619 patients. Methods used to assess body composition in patients with pancreatic cancers were computerized tomography (n = 34), bioelectrical impedance analysis (n = 7), and dual-energy-X-ray-absorptiometry (n = 1). Only 10 studies reported the impact of pre-operative sarcopenia upon post-operative outcomes. Sarcopenia was associated with increased peri-operative mortality (OR: 2.40, CI95%:1.19-4.85, p < 0.01) and decreased overall survival by univariable (HR: 1.95, CI95%:1.35-2.81, p < 0.001) and multivariable analysis (HR: 1.78, CI95%:1.54-2.05). Sarcopenia was not significantly associated with all complications (OR: 0.96, CI95%:0.78-1.19) or pancreatic fistula (OR: 0.95, CI95%: 0.59-1.54). CONCLUSIONS Assessment of sarcopenia in pancreatic cancer provides prognostic value but, more importantly, may provide a basis for therapeutic intervention. However, variation in the methods of assessing and reporting sarcopenia in this patient group limits the assessment of post-operative outcomes currently.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- James Bundred
- College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, United Kingdom
| | - Sivesh K Kamarajah
- Department of Hepatobiliary, Pancreatic and Transplant Surgery, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle University NHS Trust Hospitals, Newcastle, United Kingdom; Institute of Cellular Medicine, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, United Kingdom
| | - Keith J Roberts
- University of Birmingham and Consultant Surgeon Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, United Kingdom.
| |
Collapse
|
47
|
Goh HL, Hawkins L, Kamarajah SK, Karandikar S, Goldstein M. Is water-soluble contrast enema examination for integrity of rectal anastomosis necessary prior to ileostomy reversal? JGH OPEN 2019; 4:417-421. [PMID: 32514447 PMCID: PMC7273697 DOI: 10.1002/jgh3.12267] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/07/2018] [Revised: 04/15/2019] [Accepted: 09/04/2019] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
Abstract
Background and Aim Routine use of water-soluble contrast enema (WSCE) to assess anastomotic integrity is debated. This study aimed to evaluate the role of WSCE to assess anastomotic integrity following anterior resections (AR) with defunctioning stoma prior to reversal and identify factors to limit its selective use. Methods This retrospective study evaluated all WSCE performed over a 7-year period at a high-volume colorectal unit. Risk factors for radiological abnormality/leak, including malignancy, chemoradiotherapy, and immediate postoperative complications, were recorded. A gastrointestinal specialist radiologist and surgeon validated all WSCEs reported as abnormal. Results Of the 486 WSCE studies identified, 92 were excluded (repeat studies (n = 51), pediatric cases [n = 2], no AR [n = 39]). A total of 394 WSCE studies were evaluated (260 cancer; 134 noncancer patients); 14% (37/260) of cancer patients and 8% (10/134) of noncancer patients had abnormal studies (P = 0.072). Of the 37 abnormal studies in cancer patients, 73% (27/37) radiological leaks were found, and 41% (n = 11/27) of these patients had postoperative complications. Of the 10 abnormal studies in noncancer patients, 20% (2/10) radiological leaks were found, but none of these patients had postoperative complications. Overall leak rates were 7% (29/394), and rates were significantly higher in cancer patients than noncancer patients (10 vs 2%, P = 0.005). Conclusion Routine use of WSCE may not be necessary prior to reversal. WSCE should be selectively used in event of postoperative leak or complications. Noncancer resections are less likely demonstrate a leak.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hui Lu Goh
- Heartlands Hospital University Hospitals Birmingham Foundation NHS Trust Birmingham UK
| | - Lauren Hawkins
- Heartlands Hospital University Hospitals Birmingham Foundation NHS Trust Birmingham UK
| | - Sivesh K Kamarajah
- Department of HPB and Transplant Surgery The Freeman Hospital Newcastle upon Tyne UK.,Institute of Cellular Medicine University of Newcastle Newcastle upon Tyne UK
| | - Sharad Karandikar
- Heartlands Hospital University Hospitals Birmingham Foundation NHS Trust Birmingham UK
| | - Mark Goldstein
- Heartlands Hospital University Hospitals Birmingham Foundation NHS Trust Birmingham UK
| |
Collapse
|