Comparison of robotic vs laparoscopic vs open distal pancreatectomy. A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Perioperative Blood Transfusions and Cancer Progression: A Narrative Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To examine the most recent evidence about known controversies on the effect of perioperative transfusion on cancer progression.

RECENT FINDINGS

Laboratory evidence suggests that transfusion-related immunomodulation can be modified by blood management and storage practices, but it is likely of less intensity than the effect of the surgical stress response. Clinical evidence has questioned the independent effect of blood transfusion on cancer progression for some cancers but supported it for others. Despite major changes in surgery and anesthesia, cancer surgery remains a major player in perioperative blood product utilization. Prospective data is still required to strengthen or refute existing associations. Transfusion-related immunomodulation in cancer surgery is well-documented, but the extent to which it affects cancer progression is unclear. Associations between transfusion and cancer progression are disease-specific. Increasing evidence shows autologous blood transfusion may be safe in cancer surgery.

Postoperative outcomes and costs of laparoscopic versus robotic distal pancreatectomy: a propensity-matched analysis

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.

Effect of laparoscopic and open distal pancreatectomy on postoperative wound complications in patients with pancreatic cancer: A meta-analysis

At present, it is regarded as a safe and efficient operation to treat terminal pancreatic disease. In this paper, we present a summary of the results of the clinical trials that have been conducted to evaluate the efficacy of laparoscopic and open-access pancreatic resection for pancreatic carcinoma of the end of the pancreas. Systematic review of the comparison between laparoscopy and open-access pancreatic resection was conducted. Comparative studies published before October 2023 were included. The selection of the studies was done according to a particular classification and exclusion criterion. A few of our results, which were post-surgery, were associated with injury, were compared. Where appropriate, the reliability of the data has been corroborated by a sensitive analysis. Six trials of 2075 patients with pancreatic cancer who underwent distal pancreatic resection to be included in the definitive data analysis. Among them, 447 were treated with open-access surgery and 296 were treated with laparoscope. Six trials showed that there was no statistically significant difference in the risk of postoperative wound infection in patients with pancreas cancer who received a distal pancreatectomy between laparoscopy and open surgery(OR, 1.66; 95% CI, 0.76-3.61 p = 0.20). Four trials did not reveal any statistically significant differences in the risk of postoperative haemorrhage among patients with pancreas cancer who received a distal pancreatectomy between laparoscopy and open surgery (OR, 1.84; 95% CI, 0.54-6.26 p = 0.33). Both trials did not reveal any statistically significant difference in the duration of operation for patients with pancreas cancer who received a distal pancreatectomy between laparoscopy and open surgery (MD, 13.58; 95% CI, -7.31-34.46 p = 0.2). Based on these meta-analyses, the use of laparoscopy or open surgery was not associated with an increase in the risk of postoperative infection or haemorrhage. Furthermore, the duration of the two operations did not differ significantly. These two procedures appear to be a safe and viable choice in the treatment of pancreatic carcinoma. Nevertheless, a randomized, controlled study should be performed to verify the validity of this observation.

Prince and princesses: The current status of robotic surgery in surgical oncology

Robotic surgery has experienced a dramatic increase in utilization across general surgery over the last two decades, including in surgical oncology. Although urologists and gynecologists were the first to show that this technology could be utilized in cancer surgery, the robot is now a powerful tool in the treatment of gastrointestinal, hepato-pancreatico-biliary, colorectal, endocrine, and soft tissue malignancies. While long-term outcomes are still pending, short-term outcomes have showed promise for this technologic advancement of cancer surgery.

Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy in obese patients

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.

Distal pancreatectomy with or without radical approach, vascular resections and splenectomy: Easier does not always mean easy

Because distal pancreatectomy (DP) has no reconstructive steps and less frequent vascular involvement, it is thought to be the easier counterpart of pancreaticoduodenectomy. This procedure has a high surgical risk and the overall incidences of perioperative morbidity (mainly pancreatic fistula), and mortality are still high, in addition to the challenges that accompany delayed access to adjuvant therapies (if any) and prolonged impairment of daily activities. Moreover, surgery to remove malignancy of the body or tail of the pancreas is associated with poor long-term oncological outcomes. From this perspective, new surgical approaches, and aggressive techniques, such as radical antegrade modular pancreato-splenectomy and DP with celiac axis resection, could lead to improved survival in those affected by more locally advanced tumors. Conversely, minimally invasive approaches such as laparoscopic and robotic surgeries and the avoidance of routine concomitant splenectomy have been developed to reduce the burden of surgical stress. The purpose of ongoing surgical research has been to achieve significant reductions in perioperative complications, length of hospital stays and the time between surgery and the beginning of adjuvant chemotherapy. Because a dedicated multidisciplinary team is crucial to pancreatic surgery, hospital and surgeon volumes have been confirmed to be associated with better outcomes in patients affected by benign, borderline, and malignant diseases of the pancreas. The purpose of this review is to examine the state of the art in distal pancreatectomies, with a special focus on minimally invasive approaches and oncological-directed techniques. The widespread reproducibility, cost-effectiveness and long-term results of each oncological procedure are also taken into deep consideration.

Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: A propensity score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery is becoming increasingly popular in the field of pancreatic surgery. However, there are few studies of robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and feasibility of RDP for PDAC.

METHODS

Patients who underwent RDP or laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) for PDAC between January 2015 and September 2020 were reviewed. Propensity score matching analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Of the 335 patients included in the study, 24 underwent RDP and 311 underwent LDP. A total of 21 RDP patients were matched 1:1 with LDP patients. RDP was associated with longer operative time (209.7 vs. 163.2 min; P = 0.003), lower open conversion rate (0% vs. 4.8%; P < 0.001), higher cost (15 722 vs. 12 699 dollars; P = 0.003), and a higher rate of achievement of an R0 resection margin (90.5% vs. 61.9%; P = 0.042). However, postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B or C showed no significant inter-group difference (9.5% vs. 9.5%). The median disease-free survival (34.5 vs. 17.3 months; P = 0.588) and overall survival (37.7 vs. 21.9 months; P = 0.171) were comparable between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

RDP is associated with longer operative time, a higher cost of surgery, and a higher likelihood of achieving R0 margins than LDP.

Comparison of infectious complications after spleen preservation versus splenectomy during laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for benign or low-grade malignant pancreatic tumors: A multicenter, propensity score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have reported contrasting results regarding the advantages of spleen preservation during laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) for preventing infectious complications.

METHODS

A total of 3787 patients who underwent LDP for benign or low-grade malignant pancreatic disease in 92 centers across Korea and Japan were included in this retrospective study. Postoperative infectious complications and other complications were compared between LDP with splenectomy (LDPS) and LDP with spleen preservation (LSPDP) by propensity score matching (PSM) analysis.

RESULTS

After PSM, the LSPDP group had a lower rate of overall infectious complications (P = .079) and a significantly lower rate of intra-abdominal abscess (P = .014) compared with the LDPS group. Within the LSPDP group, the vessel preservation subgroup had a significantly higher rate of infectious complications (P = .002) compared with the vessel resection subgroup. Low-volume centers had a higher rate of intra-abdominal abscess than high-volume centers in the LSPDP group (P = .001) and the splenic vessel preservation subgroup (P = .003).

CONCLUSIONS

Spleen preservation in LDP for benign or borderline malignant pancreatic diseases was advantageous in lowering the risk of infectious complications, specifically intra-abdominal abscess. However, the risk of intra-abdominal abscess may differ according to the level of surgeon's experience.

A comparison of robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a single surgeon's robotic experience in a high-volume center

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery is the most recent advanced minimally invasive approach for distal pancreatectomy. However, its benefits over laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) remain undetermined. Previous studies were limited by their small sample size or variations in surgeon skills. This study aimed to compare robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) performed by a single surgeon with LDP performed by skilled laparoscopic surgeons in a high-volume center.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed consecutive RDP performed by a single surgeon between December 2020 and November 2021 with LDP performed by experienced surgeons during the same period in a high-volume center. Patient characteristics and perioperative variables were compared.

RESULTS

The analysis included 55 RDP and 146 LDP procedures. The operative time in the RDP group was significantly shorter than the LDP group (171 vs. 222 min, P < 0.001), both in spleen-preserved (154 vs. 212 min, P < 0.001) and spleen-removed (192 vs. 230 min, P = 0.005) procedures. The RDP group made more frequent use of the stapler technique for pancreas transection (87.3 vs. 68.5%, P = 0.007), and its estimated blood loss was lower (79 vs. 155 mL, P < 0.001) than the LDP group. The postoperative hospital stay in the RDP group was significantly shorter than the LDP group (8 vs. 12 days, P < 0.001). The groups were similar in their complication distributions.

CONCLUSION

RDP is as safe and feasible a minimally invasive approach as LDP. The advanced manipulation and visualization capabilities of the robotic approach in distal pancreatectomy could help reduce operative time and blood loss, and is related to shorter postoperative hospital stay.

The learning curve for robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy: a single-center experience of 301 cases

Robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) has become a routine procedure in many pancreatic centers. This study aimed to describe a single-center experience with RDP since the first case, identify the learning curves of operation time and complication rate, and discuss the safety and feasibility of RDP.

Methods

We collected and retrospectively analyzed the single-center surgical experience of 301 patients undergoing RDP at Peking Union Medical College Hospital (PUMCH) between 2012 and 2022 and described the change in operation proficiency and occurrence of perioperative complications in this observational study. The learning curve was assessed using the cumulative sum method.

Results

We observed a three-phase pattern of RDP learning with operation time, complications, and postoperative pancreatic fistula as indicators and a two-phase pattern for spleening-preserving success. The mean operation time was 3.9 hours. The incidence rate of clinically significant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CRPOPF) was 17.9% and overall Clavien-Dindo complication rate (≥3) was 16.6%. The change of postoperative complicate rate was correlated with percentage of malignant cases.

Conclusion

In the last decade, an evident decrease was seen in operation time, complication rate, and an increase in the spleen-preserving rate of distal pancreatectomy. With proper training, RDP is a safe and feasible procedure.

Minimally Invasive Pancreatoduodenectomy: Contemporary Practice, Evidence, and Knowledge Gaps

Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy has gained popularity throughout the last decade. For laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy, some high-level evidence exists, but with conflicting results. There are currently no published randomized controlled trials comparing robotic and open pancreatoduodenectomy. Comparative long-term data for patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is lacking to date. Based on the existing evidence, current observed benefits of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy over open pancreatoduodenectomy seem scarce, but retrospective data indicate the safety of these procedures in selected patients. As familiarity with the robotic platform increases, studies have shown an expansion in indications, also including patients with vascular involvement and even indicating favorable results in patients with obesity and high-risk morphometric features. Several ongoing randomized controlled trials aim to investigate potential differences in short- and long-term outcomes between minimally invasive and open pancreatoduodenectomy. Their results are much awaited.

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy: Laparoscopic versus robotic approach-A cohort study

Background and Aims

There is no consensus on the superiority of robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) over laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP).

Methods

Data of patients undergoing RDP and LDP were prospectively collected and compared.

Results

There were 65 RDP and 112 LDP. RDP took a shorter operation time than LDP. Overall, DP with splenectomy took a longer operation time than that with spleen preservation. This difference was only significant in LDP group. In both RDP and LDP groups, splenectomy was associated with increased blood loss, as compared with spleen preservation. No significant differences were observed in surgical morbidity between RDP and LDP. The hospital cost in RDP was almost double that of LDP, with a median of 13,404 versus 7765 USD.

Conclusion

LDP is comparable to RDP in regard to surgical outcomes. LDP with spleen preservation is highly recommended whenever possible and feasible for benign or low malignant lesions in terms of lower costs and less blood loss.

A Prognostic Impact of Splenectomy in Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy on Benign/Borderline Pancreatic Tumors: A Change of the Era

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.

Robotic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy, comparing therapeutic indexes; a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is a challenging procedure with peri-operative complications. Robotic surgery offers improved dexterity, visibility, and accessibility. Recently, many centres have reported improved clinical outcomes for robotic PD. We reviewed the safety and efficacy of robotic PD in comparison to open PD using 'Therapeutic Index' (TI).

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was conducted in various databases. Articles published between January 2010 and March 2021 reporting totally-robotic and open PD were included, according to the PRISMA and AMSTAR-2 guidelines. The Cochrane tool was used for risk of bias assessment. We compared 30-day mortality rates (MR₃₀), lymphadenectomy rates (LR), R0 resection rates (R₀RR) and therapeutic index (TI). STATA 16.1 was used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

The four studies that met inclusion criteria included 5090 PDs, out of which 617 were totally-robotic (RPD) and 4473 were open (OPD). Variance ratio tests demonstrated a)Higher TI for RPD versus OPD (1807.42 vs 1723.37, p = 0.86), b)Significantly smaller MR₃₀ (2.50 vs 19.00, p = 0.0004), c)Significantly lower R₀RR (130.50 vs 939.25, p = 0.00) and d)No significant difference in LR between RPD and OPD (35.63 vs 38.25, p = 0.81). Meta-regression analysis showed a significantly higher TI coefficient of RPD than OPD (0.66 vs -0.40, p = 0.08, α = 0.1).

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests that robotic PD is safe and not inferior to open PD and our analysis RPD demonstrated a higher therapeutic index than OPD. Randomised controlled trials are required to establish the efficacy of robotic PD. Also, standardisation of reporting mortality, survival and oncological outcomes is needed for the effective calculation of TI.

Analysis of safety and efficacy of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy in the treatment of left pancreatic malignant tumors

OBJECTIVE

Distal pancreatectomy is the most extensive operation to treat malignant tumors of the left pancreas; however, malignant pancreatic tumors are prone to early invasion and metastasis.

METHODS

The clinical data of 80 patients undergoing surgical treatment for malignant tumors of the pancreatic body or tail from January 2013 to December 2017 were retrospectively analyzed. The main clinical variables were compared between patients undergoing laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) vs. open distal pancreatectomy (ODP).

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in general patient characteristics, complications, and postoperative survival (χ² = 0.09) between the groups. The operation time in the LDP group was significantly longer than that in the ODP group; however, the LDP group was superior to the ODP group regarding the length of postoperative hospital stay, diet recovery, and rectal exhaust and ambulation times.

CONCLUSION

LDP is a safe and feasible treatment for left pancreatic malignancies, with the same surgical efficacy as ODP. LDP also has the advantages of minimally invasive surgery, such as minimal trauma and enhanced recovery after surgery.

Review of minimally invasive pancreas surgery and opinion on its incorporation into low volume and resource poor centres

Pancreatic surgery has been one of the last areas for the application of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) because there are many factors that make laparoscopic pancreas resections difficult. The concept of service centralization has also limited expertise to a small cadre of high-volume centres in resource rich countries. However, this is not the environment that many surgeons in developing countries work in. These patients often do not have the opportunity to travel to high volume centres for care. Therefore, we sought to review the existing data on MIS for the pancreas and to discuss. In this paper, we review the evolution of MIS on the pancreas and discuss the incorporation of this service into low-volume and resource-poor countries, such as those in the Caribbean. This paper has two parts. First, we performed a literature review evaluating all studies published on laparoscopic and robotic surgery of the pancreas. The data in the Caribbean is examined and we discuss tips for incorporating this operation into resource poor hospital practice. Low pancreatic case volume in the Caribbean, and financial barriers to MIS in general, laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy, enucleation and cystogastrostomy are feasible operations to integrate in to a resource-limited healthcare environment. This is because they can be performed with minimal to no consumables and require an intermediate MIS skillset to complement an open pancreatic surgeon’s peri-operative experience.

Propensity-Score Matched Analyses Comparing Clinical Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Versus Open Distal Pancreatectomies: A Single-Center Experience

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) is being adopted increasingly worldwide. This study aimed to compare the short-term outcomes of patients who underwent MIDP versus open distal pancreatectomy (ODP).

METHODS

A retrospective review of all patients who underwent a DP in our institution between 2005 and 2019 was performed. Propensity score matching based on relevant baseline factors was used to match patients in the ODP and MIDP groups in a 1:1 manner. Outcomes reported include operative duration, blood loss, postoperative length of stay, morbidity, mortality, postoperative pancreatic fistula rates, reoperation and readmission.

RESULTS

In total, 444 patients were included in this study. Of 122 MIDP patients, 112 (91.8%) could be matched. After matching, the median operating time for MIDP was significantly longer than ODP [260 min (200-346.3) vs 180 (135-232.5), p < 0.001], while postoperative stay for MIDP was significantly shorter [median 6 days (5-8) versus 7 days (6-9), p = 0.015]. There were no significant differences noted in any of the other outcomes measured. Over time, we observed a decrease in the operation times of MIDP performed at our institution.

CONCLUSION

Adoption of MIDP offers advantages over ODP in terms of a shorter postoperative hospital stay, without an increase in morbidity and/or mortality but at the expense of a longer operation time.

Recurrence and survival following microwave, radiofrequency ablation, and hepatic resection of colorectal liver metastases: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Gold standard for colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) remains hepatic resection (HR). However, patients with severe comorbidities, unresectable or deep-situated resectable CRLM are candidates for ablation. The aim of the study was to compare recurrence rate and survival benefit of the microwave ablation (MWA), radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and HR by conducting the first network meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Systematic search of the literature was conducted in the electronic databases. Both updated traditional and network meta-analyses were conducted and the results were compared between them.

RESULTS

HR cohort demonstrated significantly less local recurrence rate and better 3- and 5-year disease-free (DFS) and overall survival (OS) compared to MWA and RFA cohorts. HR cohort included significantly younger patients and with significantly lower preoperative carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) by 10.28 ng/mL compared to RFA cohort. Subgroup analysis of local recurrence and OS of solitary and ≤ 3 cm CRLMs did not demonstrate any discrepancies when compared with the whole sample.

CONCLUSIONS

For resectable CRLM the treatment of choice still remains HR. MWA and RFA can be used as a single or adjunct treatment in patients with unresectable CRLM and/or prohibitive comorbidities.

Assessment of difficulty in laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: A modification of the Japanese difficulty scoring system - A single-center high-volume experience

Background

The Japanese difficulty scoring system (DSS) was developed to assess the difficulty of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP). The study aimed to validate a modified DSS (mDSS) in a European high‐volume center.

Methods

Patients' clinical data underwent LDP for benign and malignant pancreatic lesion between September 2013 and February 2020 were reviewed. Expert laparoscopic surgeons performed the procedures. The mDSS consisted of seven variables, such as type of operation, malignancy, neoadjuvant therapy, pancreatic resection line, tumor close to major vessels, tumor extension to peripancreatic tissue, and left‐sided portal hypertension and/or splenomegaly. According to the difficulty level and previous score, the mDSS was subdivided into three classes: low, intermediate, and high. Surrogates of case complexity (operative time, intraoperative blood loss and blood transfusion requirements, conversion rate) were used to validate the new scoring system.

Results

The study population included 140 LDP. Ninety‐five (68%), 35 (25%) and 10 (7%) patients belonged to low, intermediate, and high difficulty groups. The mDSS identified the complexity of the surgical case of the series for all the surrogates of complexity considered, namely conversion rate (P = .004), operative time (P = .033) and intraoperative blood loss (P = .009). No differences were recorded in the postoperative outcomes (P > .05).

Conclusion

The mDSS for LDP better stratified the pancreatic procedures according to their complexity. The new scoring system may allow an appropriate preoperative evaluation of surgical difficulty, facilitating LDP's training program. Future prospective studies are needed to validate the mDSS.

State of the art robotic distal pancreatectomy: a review of the literature

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy has become increasingly used in practice. While laparoscopic approach is the most commonly used technique, robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) has emerged as a safe, feasible and effective approach for distal pancreatectomy. Most studies have shown that RDP improved perioperative surgical outcomes and has equivalent oncologic outcomes to open technique. Widespread adoption is limited by a steep learning curve, higher costs and the need for institutional training protocols in place for safe integration of the platform into practice.

Minimally invasive (laparoscopic and robot-assisted) versus open approach for central pancreatectomies: a single-center experience

BACKGROUND

There continues to be an interest in minimally invasive approaches to pancreatic surgery. At our institution, there has been a progressive change from an open to minimally invasive surgery (MIS) (laparoscopic, robotic, or laparoscopic-robotic) approach for central pancreatectomies (CP). The aim of this study was to evaluate surgical outcomes with open CP (O-CP) versus minimally invasive CP (MI-CP).

METHODS

A retrospective medical review of patients who underwent CP between 1993 and 2018 at Yonsei University Health System, Seoul, Korea was performed. Short-term perioperative outcomes were compared between O-CP and MI-CP.

RESULTS

Thirty-one CPs (11 open, 20 MIS) were identified during the study period. No difference was observed in admission days between O-CP and MI-CP (21.2 vs. 16.7 days, p = 0.340), although operating time was significantly increased in the MI-CP group (296.8 vs. 374.8 min, p = 0.036). Blood loss was significantly less in MI-CP vs. O-CP (807.1 vs. 214.0 mls, p = 0.001), with no difference in post-operative new-onset diabetes (9% vs. 5%). The overall post-operative pancreatic fistula rate was 25.8%, and no significant difference between O-CP and MI-CP or complication rates (45% vs. 40%) was observed.

CONCLUSION

Despite increased operative time, MI-CP is feasible and comparable to conventional O-CP with regard to surgical outcomes in well-selected patients.

Surgical approaches for minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy: A systematic review

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.

Use of Reinforced Staplers Decreases the Rate of Postoperative Pancreatic Fistula Compared to Bare Staplers After Minimally Invasive Distal Pancreatectomies

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.

Perioperative and oncologic outcomes of open, laparoscopic, and robotic distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma

The utilization of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) is increasing, yet debate remains regarding its oncologic safety in the setting of pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Herein we present our institutional experience with robotic (RDP), laparoscopic (LDP), and open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) in the setting of PDAC.Retrospective review of a prospectively collected single institutional database of patients undergoing consecutive ODP, LDP, and RDP for left-sided PDAC between January 2008 and December 2019 at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) was done. Perioperative and postoperative outcomes were compared using non-parametric testing and Fischer exact or chi-squared testing. Kaplan-Meier survival curves for disease-free survival and overall survival were compared by Log-Rank sum test. Backward Cox-proportional hazard regression analysis was used to determine if the operative approach was an independent predictor of recurrence and overall survival.Over 12 years, 146 consecutive distal pancreatectomies for PDAC were performed, of which 28.1% ODP, 60.3% RDP, and 11.6% LDP. There were no statistical differences in patients' baseline characteristics, including gender, comorbidities, prior abdominal surgeries, and AJCC^8th stage (p > 0.05). Postoperatively, there was no difference in the frequency of major complications (p = 0.414), CR-POPF (p = 0.563), or DGE (p = 0.179). The median overall survival was 28.4 months for ODP, 34.6 months for RDP, and 32.5 months for LDP (Log Rank p = 0.914). On multivariate Cox proportional hazard analysis, the surgical approach was not associated with overall survival. This comparative analysis suggests a non-inferiority of RDP platforms, compared to LDP and classic ODP. The merits of MIS pancreatic surgery in the setting of PDAC should be evaluated in future prospective studies with care to analyze RDP outcomes separately from LDP.

Fifty Years of Surgery for Pancreatic Cancer

The surgical treatment of pancreatic cancer (PDAC) has seen sweeping changes during the past 5 decades. Up to the middle of the 20th century resection rates were below 5%, but the numbers of curative resections for PDAC are now continuously increasing due to improved neoadjuvant treatment concepts as well as progress in surgical techniques and perioperative management. During the same period, mortality rates after pancreatic surgery have decreased considerably and are now less than 5%. One of the most important cornerstones of reduced mortality has been the concentration of PDAC surgery in specialized centers. In addition, the management of postoperative complications has improved greatly as a result of optimized interdisciplinary teamwork. Adjuvant chemotherapy has become the reference treatment in resected PDAC, achieving significantly prolonged survival. Moreover, the concept of borderline resectable PDAC has emerged to characterize tumors with increased risk for tumor-positive resection margins or worse outcome. The best treatment strategy for borderline resectable PDAC is currently under debate, whereas neoadjuvant therapy has become established as a beneficial treatment option for patients with locally advanced PDAC, enabling conversion surgery in up to 60% of cases. This review article summarizes the principal changes in PDAC surgery during the past 50 years.

Robotic-assisted versus open distal pancreatectomy for benign and low-grade malignant pancreatic tumors: a propensity score-matched study

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to compare the short-term outcomes of open and robotic-assisted distal pancreatectomy (ODP and RDP) for benign and low-grade malignant tumors.

METHODS

The patients who underwent RDP and ODP for benign or low-grade malignant pancreatic tumors at our center were included. After PSM at a 1:1 ratio, the perioperative variations in the two cohorts were compared.

RESULTS

After 1:1 PSM, 219 cases of RDP and ODP were recorded. The RDP cohort showed advantages in the operative duration [120 (90-150) min vs 175 (130-210) min, P < 0.001], estimated blood loss [50 (30-175) ml vs 200 (100-300) ml, P < 0.001], spleen preservation rate (63.5% vs 26.5%, P < 0.001), infection rate (4.6% vs 12.3%, P = 0.006), and gastrointestinal function recovery [3 (2-4) vs. 3 (3-5), P = 0.019]. There were no significant differences in postoperative pancreatic fistula, postoperative hemorrhage, and delayed gastric emptying. Multivariate analysis showed that RDP (HR 0.24; 95% CI 0.16-0.36, P < 0.001), age (HR 1.02; 95% CI 1.00-1.03, P = 0.033), tumor size (HR 1.28; 95% CI 1.17-1.40, P < 0.001), pathological inflammatory neoplasm type (HR 5.12; 95% CI 2.22-11.81, P < 0.001), and estimated blood loss (HR 1.003; 95% CI 1.001-1.004, P < 0.001) were independent predictors of spleen preservation; RDP (HR 0.27; 95% CI 0.17-0.43, P < 0.001), age (HR 1.02; 95% CI 1.00-1.03, P = 0.022), elevated CA 19-9 level (HR 2.55; 95% CI 1.02-6.39, P = 0.046), tumor size (HR 1.44; 95% CI 1.29-1.61, P < 0.001), pathological inflammatory neoplasm type (HR 4.48; 95% CI 1.69-11.85, P = 0.003), and estimated blood loss (HR 1.003; 95% CI 1.001-1.004, P < 0.001) were independent predictors of spleen preservation with the Kimura technique.

CONCLUSION

RDP has advantages in the operative time, blood loss, spleen preservation, infection rate, and gastrointestinal function recovery over ODP in treating benign and low-grade malignant pancreatic tumors. The robotic-assisted approach was an independent predictor of spleen preservation and use of the Kimura technique.

Current Status of Laparoscopic and Robotic Pancreatic Surgery and Its Adoption in Singapore

Despite the potential clinical advantages offered by laparoscopic pancreatic surgery (LPS), the main obstacle to its widespread adoption is the technically demanding nature of the procedure and its steep learning curve. LPS and robotic pancreatic surgery (RPS) have been proven to result in superior short-term perioperative outcomes and equivalent long-term oncological outcomes compared to the conventional open approach, with the caveat that they are performed by expert surgeons who have been trained to perform such procedures. The primary challenge faced by most pancreatic surgeons is the steep learning curve associated with these complex procedures and the need to undergo surgical training, especially with regards to laparoscopic and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. Current evidence suggests that RPS may help to shorten the lengthy learning curve required for LPS. More robust evidence—in the form of large randomised controlled trials—is needed to determine whether LPS and RPS can be safely adopted universally. Ann Acad Med Singapore 2020;49:377–83 Key words: Laparoscopic pancreatectomy, Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy, Minimally invasive pancreatic surgery, Robotic pancreatectomy, Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy

Open and Minimal Approaches to Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma

Surgical options and approaches to pancreatic cancer are changing in the current era. Neoadjuvant treatment strategies for pancreatic cancer combined with the increased use of minimal access surgical techniques mean that the modern pancreatic surgeon requires mastering a number of surgical approaches with to optimally manage patients. Whilst traditional open surgery remains the most frequent approach for surgery, the specific steps during surgery may need to be modified in light of the aforementioned neoadjuvant treatments. Robotic and laparoscopic approaches to pancreatic resection are feasible, but these surgical methods remain in their infancy. In this review article, we summarise the current surgical approaches to pancreatic cancer and how these are adapted to the minimal access setting with discussion of the patient outcome data.

Revisiting the potential advantage of robotic surgical system in spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy over conventional laparoscopic approach

Background

This study aimed to compare success rate of spleen preservation between robotic and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (DP).

Methods

Between November 2007 and March 2018, forty-one patients underwent the conventional laparoscopic DP (Lap group) and the other 37 patients underwent robotic DP (Robot group). The perioperative clinicopathologic variables were compared.

Results

The robotic procedure was chosen by younger patients compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery (42.9±14.0 vs. 51.3±14.6 years, P=0.016). The mean operation time was longer (313 vs. 246 min, P=0.000), but the mean tumor size was smaller in Robot group (2.7±1.2 vs. 4.2±3.3 cm, P=0.018). The overall spleen-preserving rate was higher in the Robot group (91.9% vs. 68.3%, P=0.012). However, with accumulating laparoscopic experiences (after 16th case), the statistical differences in spleen preservation rate between the Robot and Lap groups had diminished (P=0.428).

Conclusions

The present results suggest a robot can be helpful to save the spleen during DP for benign and borderline malignancy. However, a surgeon highly experienced in the laparoscopic approach can also produce a high success rate of spleen preservation, similar to that shown with the robotic approach.

A systematic review and network meta-analysis of different surgical approaches for pancreaticoduodenectomy

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.