1
|
Emmen AMLH, Zwart MJW, Khatkov IE, Boggi U, Groot Koerkamp B, Busch OR, Saint-Marc O, Dokmak S, Molenaar IQ, D'Hondt M, Ramera M, Keck T, Ferrari G, Luyer MDP, Moraldi L, Ielpo B, Wittel U, Souche FR, Hackert T, Lips D, Can MF, Bosscha K, Fara R, Festen S, van Dieren S, Coratti A, De Hingh I, Mazzola M, Wellner U, De Meyere C, van Santvoort HC, Aussilhou B, Ibenkhayat A, de Wilde RF, Kauffmann EF, Tyutyunnik P, Besselink MG, Abu Hilal M. Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy: a pan-European multicenter propensity-matched study. Surgery 2024; 175:1587-1594. [PMID: 38570225 DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2024.02.015] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/30/2023] [Revised: 01/30/2024] [Accepted: 02/14/2024] [Indexed: 04/05/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The use of robot-assisted and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy is increasing, yet large adjusted analyses that can be generalized internationally are lacking. This study aimed to compare outcomes after robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy in a pan-European cohort. METHODS An international multicenter retrospective study including patients after robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy from 50 centers in 12 European countries (2009-2020). Propensity score matching was performed in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome was major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo ≥III). RESULTS Among 2,082 patients undergoing minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy, 1,006 underwent robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and 1,076 laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy. After matching 812 versus 812 patients, the rates of major morbidity (31.9% vs 29.6%; P = .347) and 30-day/in-hospital mortality (4.3% vs 4.6%; P = .904) did not differ significantly between robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy, respectively. Robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with a lower conversion rate (6.7% vs 18.0%; P < .001) and higher lymph node retrieval (16 vs 14; P = .003). Laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with shorter operation time (446 minutes versus 400 minutes; P < .001), and lower rates of postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C (19.0% vs 11.7%; P < .001), delayed gastric emptying grade B/C (21.4% vs 7.4%; P < .001), and a higher R0-resection rate (73.2% vs 84.4%; P < .001). CONCLUSION This European multicenter study found no differences in overall major morbidity and 30-day/in-hospital mortality after robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy compared with laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy. Further, laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with a lower rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula, delayed gastric emptying, wound infection, shorter length of stay, and a higher R0 resection rate than robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy. In contrast, robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with a lower conversion rate and a higher number of retrieved lymph nodes as compared with laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anouk M L H Emmen
- Department of General Surgery, Istituto Ospedaliero Fondazione Poliambulanza, Brescia, Italy; Amsterdam UMC, location University of Amsterdam, Department of Surgery, the Netherlands; Cancer Center Amsterdam, the Netherlands. http://www.twitter.com/AnoukEmmen
| | - Maurice J W Zwart
- Amsterdam UMC, location University of Amsterdam, Department of Surgery, the Netherlands; Cancer Center Amsterdam, the Netherlands. http://www.twitter.com/mauricezwart
| | - Igor E Khatkov
- Department of Surgery, Moscow Clinical Scientific Center, Russia
| | - Ugo Boggi
- Division of General and Transplant Surgery, University of Pisa, Italy
| | - Bas Groot Koerkamp
- Department of Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Olivier R Busch
- Amsterdam UMC, location University of Amsterdam, Department of Surgery, the Netherlands; Cancer Center Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Olivier Saint-Marc
- Service de Chirurgie Digestive, Endocrinienne et Thoracique, Center Hospitalier Universitaire Orleans, France
| | - Safi Dokmak
- Department of HPB surgery and liver transplantation, Beaujon Hospital, Clichy, France. University Paris Cité
| | - I Quintus Molenaar
- Department of Surgery, Regional Academic Cancer Center Utrecht, St. Antonius Hospital and University Medical Center, the Netherlands
| | - Mathieu D'Hondt
- Department of Digestive and Hepatobiliary/Pancreatic Surgery, Groeninge Hospital Kortrijk, Belgium
| | - Marco Ramera
- Department of General Surgery, Istituto Ospedaliero Fondazione Poliambulanza, Brescia, Italy
| | - Tobias Keck
- Clinic for Surgery, University of Schleswig-Holstein Campus Lübeck, Germany
| | - Giovanni Ferrari
- Department of Oncological and Minimally Invasive Surgery, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Milan, Italy
| | - Misha D P Luyer
- Department of Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, the Netherlands
| | - Luca Moraldi
- Department of Oncology and Robotic Surgery, Careggi University Hospital, Florence, Italy
| | - Benedetto Ielpo
- Department of Surgery, HPB unit, University Mar Hospital, Parc Salut, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Uwe Wittel
- Department of Surgery, University of Freiburg, Germany
| | - Francois-Regis Souche
- Department de Chirurgie Digestive (A), Mini-invasive et Oncologigue, Hôspital Saint-Eloi, Montpellier, France
| | - Thilo Hackert
- Dept. of General, Visceral and Thoracic Surgery, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany
| | - Daan Lips
- Department of Surgery, Medisch Spectrum Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands
| | | | - Koop Bosscha
- Department of Surgery, Jeroen Bosch Ziekenhuis, s-Hertogenbosch, the Netherlands
| | - Regis Fara
- Department of Surgery, Hôpital Européen Marseille, France
| | | | - Susan van Dieren
- Amsterdam UMC, location University of Amsterdam, Department of Surgery, the Netherlands; Cancer Center Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Andrea Coratti
- Department of Oncology and Robotic Surgery, Careggi University Hospital, Florence, Italy
| | - Ignace De Hingh
- Department of Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, the Netherlands
| | - Michele Mazzola
- Department of Oncological and Minimally Invasive Surgery, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Milan, Italy
| | - Ulrich Wellner
- Clinic for Surgery, University of Schleswig-Holstein Campus Lübeck, Germany
| | - Celine De Meyere
- Department of Digestive and Hepatobiliary/Pancreatic Surgery, Groeninge Hospital Kortrijk, Belgium
| | - Hjalmar C van Santvoort
- Department of Surgery, Regional Academic Cancer Center Utrecht, St. Antonius Hospital and University Medical Center, the Netherlands
| | - Béatrice Aussilhou
- Department of HPB surgery and liver transplantation, Beaujon Hospital, Clichy, France. University Paris Cité
| | - Abdallah Ibenkhayat
- Service de Chirurgie Digestive, Endocrinienne et Thoracique, Center Hospitalier Universitaire Orleans, France
| | - Roeland F de Wilde
- Department of Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | | | - Pavel Tyutyunnik
- Department of Surgery, Moscow Clinical Scientific Center, Russia
| | - Marc G Besselink
- Amsterdam UMC, location University of Amsterdam, Department of Surgery, the Netherlands; Cancer Center Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
| | - Mohammad Abu Hilal
- Department of General Surgery, Istituto Ospedaliero Fondazione Poliambulanza, Brescia, Italy.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Amiri R, Zwart MJW, Jones LR, Abu Hilal M, Beerlage HP, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Lameris WW, Bemelman WA, Besselink MG. Surgeon Preference and Clinical Outcome of 3D Vision Compared to 2D Vision in Laparoscopic Surgery: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials. ANNALS OF SURGERY OPEN 2024; 5:e415. [PMID: 38911624 PMCID: PMC11191999 DOI: 10.1097/as9.0000000000000415] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/21/2023] [Accepted: 03/11/2024] [Indexed: 06/25/2024] Open
Abstract
Objective To assess the added value of 3-dimensional (3D) vision, including high definition (HD) technology, in laparoscopic surgery in terms of surgeon preference and clinical outcome. Background The use of 3D vision in laparoscopic surgery has been suggested to improve surgical performance. However, the added value of 3D vision remains unclear as a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing 3D vision including HD technology in laparoscopic surgery is currently lacking. Methods A systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines with a literature search up to May 2023 using PubMed and Embase (PROSPERO, CRD42021290426). We included RCTs comparing 3D versus 2-dimensional (2D) vision in laparoscopic surgery. The primary outcome was operative time. Meta-analyses were performed using the random effects model to estimate the pooled effect size expressed in standard mean difference (SMD) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The level of evidence and quality was assessed according to the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Results Overall, 25 RCTs with 3003 patients were included. Operative time was reduced by 3D vision (-8.0%; SMD, -0.22; 95% CI, -0.37 to -0.06; P = 0.007; n = 3003; 24 studies; I 2 = 75%) compared to 2D vision. This benefit was mostly seen in bariatric surgery (-16.3%; 95% CI, -1.28 to -0.21; P = 0.006; 2 studies; n = 58; I 2 = 0%) and general surgery (-6.7%; 95% CI, -0.34 to -0.01; P = 0.036; 9 studies; n = 1056; I 2 = 41%). Blood loss was nonsignificantly reduced by 3D vision (SMD, -0.33; 95% CI, -0.68 to 0.017; P = 0.060; n = 1830; I 2 = 92%). No differences in the rates of morbidity (14.9% vs 13.5%, P = 0.644), mortality (0% vs 0%), conversion (0.8% vs 0.9%, P = 0.898), and hospital stay (9.6 vs 10.5 days, P = 0.078) were found between 3D and 2D vision. In 15 RCTs that reported on surgeon preference, 13 (87%) reported that the majority of surgeons favored 3D vision. Conclusions Across 25 RCTs, this systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated shorter operative time with 3D vision in laparoscopic surgery, without differences in other outcomes. The majority of surgeons participating in the RCTs reported in favor of 3D vision.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rawin Amiri
- From the Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Maurice J. W. Zwart
- From the Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Leia R. Jones
- From the Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Department of Surgery, Istituto Fondazione Poliambulanza, Brescia, Italy
| | - Mohammad Abu Hilal
- Department of Surgery, Istituto Fondazione Poliambulanza, Brescia, Italy
| | - Harrie P. Beerlage
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Department of Urology, Amsterdam UMC, Location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Mark I. van Berge Henegouwen
- From the Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Wytze W. Lameris
- From the Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Willem A. Bemelman
- From the Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Marc G. Besselink
- From the Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
van Ramshorst TME, van Hilst J, Bannone E, Pulvirenti A, Asbun HJ, Boggi U, Busch OR, Dokmak S, Edwin B, Hogg M, Jang JY, Keck T, Khatkov I, Kohan G, Kokudo N, Kooby DA, Nakamura M, Primrose JN, Siriwardena AK, Toso C, Vollmer CM, Zeh HJ, Besselink MG, Abu Hilal M. International survey on opinions and use of robot-assisted and laparoscopic minimally invasive pancreatic surgery: 5-year follow up. HPB (Oxford) 2024; 26:63-72. [PMID: 37739876 DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2023.09.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/16/2023] [Revised: 08/14/2023] [Accepted: 09/04/2023] [Indexed: 09/24/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Evidence on the value of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery (MIPS) has been increasing but it is unclear how this has influenced the view of pancreatic surgeons on MIPS. METHODS An anonymous survey was sent to members of eight international Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Associations. Outcomes were compared with the 2016 international survey. RESULTS Overall, 315 surgeons from 47 countries participated. The median volume of pancreatic resections per center was 70 (IQR 40-120). Most surgeons considered minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) superior to open (ODP) (94.6%) and open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) superior to minimally invasive (MIPD) (67.9%). Since 2016, there has been an increase in the number of surgeons performing both MIDP (79%-85.7%, p = 0.024) and MIPD (29%-45.7%, p < 0.001), and an increase in the use of the robot-assisted approach for both MIDP (16%-45.6%, p < 0.001) and MIPD (23%-47.9%, p < 0.001). The use of laparoscopy remained stable for MIDP (91% vs. 88.1%, p = 0.245) and decreased for MIPD (51%-36.8%, p = 0.024). CONCLUSION This survey showed considerable changes of MIPS since 2016 with most surgeons considering MIDP superior to ODP and an increased use of robot-assisted MIPS. Surgeons prefer OPD and therefore the value of MIPD remains to be determined in randomized trials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tess M E van Ramshorst
- Department of General Surgery, Istituto Ospedaliero Fondazione Poliambulanza, Brescia, Italy; Amsterdam UMC, Location University of Amsterdam, Department of Surgery, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Cancer Center Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
| | - Jony van Hilst
- Amsterdam UMC, Location University of Amsterdam, Department of Surgery, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Cancer Center Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Surgery, OLVG, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Elisa Bannone
- Department of General Surgery, Istituto Ospedaliero Fondazione Poliambulanza, Brescia, Italy
| | - Alessandra Pulvirenti
- Department of General Surgery, Istituto Ospedaliero Fondazione Poliambulanza, Brescia, Italy
| | - Horacio J Asbun
- Division of Hepatobiliary and Pancreas Surgery, Miami Cancer Institute, Miami, FL, USA
| | - Ugo Boggi
- Department of Surgery, University Hospital of Pisa, Pisa, Italy
| | - Olivier R Busch
- Amsterdam UMC, Location University of Amsterdam, Department of Surgery, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Cancer Center Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Safi Dokmak
- Department of HPB Surgery and Liver Transplantation, APHP Beaujon Hospital - University of Paris Cité, Clichy, France
| | - Bjørn Edwin
- The Intervention Centre and Department of HPB Surgery, Oslo University Hospital, Also Institute of Medicine, University of Oslo, Norway
| | - Melissa Hogg
- Department of Surgery, NorthShore University Health System, Evanston, IL, USA
| | - Jin-Young Jang
- Department of Surgery, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Tobias Keck
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Centre Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany
| | - Igor Khatkov
- Department of Surgery, Moscow Clinical Scientific Center, Moscow, Russia
| | - Gustavo Kohan
- Department of Surgery, Hospital Cosme Argerich, University of Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina
| | - Norihiro Kokudo
- Department of Surgery, National Center for Global Health and Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
| | - David A Kooby
- Department of Surgery, Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University Hospital, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Masafumi Nakamura
- Department of Surgery and Oncology, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan
| | - John N Primrose
- Department of Surgery, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - Ajith K Siriwardena
- Regional Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Unit, Manchester Royal Infirmary, Manchester, UK
| | - Christian Toso
- Division of Abdominal Surgery, University Hospitals of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Charles M Vollmer
- Department of Surgery, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Herbert J Zeh
- Department of Surgery, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA
| | - Marc G Besselink
- Amsterdam UMC, Location University of Amsterdam, Department of Surgery, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Cancer Center Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
| | - Mohammad Abu Hilal
- Department of General Surgery, Istituto Ospedaliero Fondazione Poliambulanza, Brescia, Italy.
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Ahmad MA, Weiler Y, Joyeux L, Eixarch E, Vercauteren T, Ourselin S, Deprest J, Vander Poorten E. 3D vs. 2D simulated fetoscopy for spina bifida repair: a quantitative motion analysis. Sci Rep 2023; 13:20951. [PMID: 38016964 PMCID: PMC10684542 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-47531-9] [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: 02/19/2023] [Accepted: 11/14/2023] [Indexed: 11/30/2023] Open
Abstract
3D imaging technology is becoming more prominent every day. However, more validation is needed to understand the actual benefit of 3D versus conventional 2D vision. This work quantitatively investigates whether experts benefit from 3D vision during minimally invasive fetoscopic spina bifida (fSB) repair. A superiority study was designed involving one expert team ([Formula: see text] procedures prior) who performed six 2D and six 3D fSB repair simulations in a high-fidelity animal training model, using 3-port access. The 6D motion of the instruments was recorded. Among the motion metrics are total path length, smoothness, maximum speed, the modified Spectral Arc Length (SPARC), and Log Dimensionless Jerk (LDLJ). The primary clinical outcome is operation time (power 90%, 5% significance) using Sealed Envelope Ltd. 2012. Secondary clinical outcomes are water tightness of the repair, CO[Formula: see text] insufflation volume, and OSATS score. Findings show that total path length and LDLJ are considerably different. Operation time during 3D vision was found to be significantly shorter compared to 2D vision ([Formula: see text] vs. [Formula: see text] min; p [Formula: see text] 0.026). These results suggest enhanced performance with 3D vision during interrupted suturing in fetoscopic SBA repair. To confirm these results, a larger-scale follow-up study involving multiple experts and novice surgeons is recommended.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mirza Awais Ahmad
- Department of Mechanical Engineering Sciences, Catholic University of Leuven, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
- Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Hospital of Leuven, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
| | - Yolan Weiler
- Department of Mechanical Engineering Sciences, Catholic University of Leuven, 3000, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Luc Joyeux
- Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Hospital of Leuven, 3000, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Elisenda Eixarch
- BCNatal Fetal Medicine Research Center, Hospital Clinic, Hospital Sant Joan de Déu, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
- Institut d'Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi i Sunyer (IDIBAPS), Centre for Biomedical Research on Rare Diseases (CIBERER), Barcelona, Spain
| | - Tom Vercauteren
- Department of Imaging and Biomedical Engineering, Kings College, London, WC2R 2LS, UK
| | - Sebastien Ourselin
- Department of Imaging and Biomedical Engineering, Kings College, London, WC2R 2LS, UK
| | - Jan Deprest
- Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Hospital of Leuven, 3000, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Emmanuel Vander Poorten
- Department of Mechanical Engineering Sciences, Catholic University of Leuven, 3000, Leuven, Belgium
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Mizunuma K, Kurashima Y, Poudel S, Watanabe Y, Noji T, Nakamura T, Okamura K, Shichinohe T, Hirano S. Surgical skills assessment of pancreaticojejunostomy using a simulator may predict patient outcomes: A multicenter prospective observational study. Surgery 2023; 173:1374-1380. [PMID: 37003952 DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2023.02.027] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/10/2022] [Revised: 12/30/2022] [Accepted: 02/23/2023] [Indexed: 04/03/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Pancreatoduodenectomy, an advanced surgical procedure with a high complication rate, requires surgical skill in performing pancreaticojejunostomy, which correlates with operative outcomes. We aimed to analyze the correlation between pancreaticojejunostomy assessment conducted in a simulator environment and the operating room and patient clinical outcomes. METHODS We recruited 30 surgeons (with different experience levels in pancreatoduodenectomy) from 11 institutes. Three trained blinded raters assessed the videos of the pancreaticojejunostomy procedure performed in the operating room using a simulator according to an objective structured assessment of technical skill and a newly developed pancreaticojejunostomy assessment scale. The correlations between the assessment score of the pancreaticojejunostomy performed in the operating room and using the simulator and between each assessment score and patient outcomes were calculated. The participants were also surveyed regarding various aspects of the simulator as a training tool. RESULTS There was no correlation between the average score of the pancreaticojejunostomy performed in the operating room and that in the simulator environment (r = 0.047). Pancreaticojejunostomy scores using the simulator were significantly lower in patients with postoperative pancreatic fistula than in those without postoperative pancreatic fistula (P = .05). Multivariate analysis showed that pancreaticojejunostomy assessment scores were independent factors in postoperative pancreatic fistula (P = .09). The participants highly rated the simulator and considered that it had the potential to be used for training. CONCLUSION There was no correlation between pancreaticojejunostomy surgical performance in the operating room and the simulation environment. Surgical skills evaluated in the simulation setting could predict patient surgical outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kenichi Mizunuma
- Department of Gastroenterologial Surgery II, Hokkaido University Faculty of Medicine, Sapporo, Japan
| | - Yo Kurashima
- Department of Gastroenterologial Surgery II, Hokkaido University Faculty of Medicine, Sapporo, Japan; Clinical Simulation Center, Hokkaido University Graduate School of Medicine, Sapporo, Japan
| | - Saseem Poudel
- Department of Gastroenterologial Surgery II, Hokkaido University Faculty of Medicine, Sapporo, Japan.
| | - Yusuke Watanabe
- Clinical Research and Medical Innovation Center, Institute of Health Science Innovation for Medical Care, Hokkaido University Hospital, Sapporo, Japan
| | - Takehiro Noji
- Department of Gastroenterologial Surgery II, Hokkaido University Faculty of Medicine, Sapporo, Japan
| | - Toru Nakamura
- Department of Gastroenterologial Surgery II, Hokkaido University Faculty of Medicine, Sapporo, Japan
| | - Keisuke Okamura
- Department of Gastroenterologial Surgery II, Hokkaido University Faculty of Medicine, Sapporo, Japan
| | - Toshiaki Shichinohe
- Department of Gastroenterologial Surgery II, Hokkaido University Faculty of Medicine, Sapporo, Japan
| | - Satoshi Hirano
- Department of Gastroenterologial Surgery II, Hokkaido University Faculty of Medicine, Sapporo, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Karadza E, Haney CM, Limen EF, Müller PC, Kowalewski KF, Sandini M, Wennberg E, Schmidt MW, Felinska EA, Lang F, Salg G, Kenngott HG, Rangelova E, Mieog S, Vissers F, Korrel M, Zwart M, Sauvanet A, Loos M, Mehrabi A, de Santibanes M, Shrikhande SV, Abu Hilal M, Besselink MG, Müller-Stich BP, Hackert T, Nickel F. Development of biotissue training models for anastomotic suturing in pancreatic surgery. HPB (Oxford) 2023:S1365-182X(23)00041-2. [PMID: 36828741 DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2023.02.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/29/2022] [Revised: 12/11/2022] [Accepted: 02/06/2023] [Indexed: 02/26/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Anastomotic suturing is the Achilles heel of pancreatic surgery. Especially in laparoscopic and robotically assisted surgery, the pancreatic anastomosis should first be trained outside the operating room. Realistic training models are therefore needed. METHODS Models of the pancreas, small bowel, stomach, bile duct, and a realistic training torso were developed for training of anastomoses in pancreatic surgery. Pancreas models with soft and hard textures, small and large ducts were incrementally developed and evaluated. Experienced pancreatic surgeons (n = 44) evaluated haptic realism, rigidity, fragility of tissues, and realism of suturing and knot tying. RESULTS In the iterative development process the pancreas models showed high haptic realism and highest realism in suturing (4.6 ± 0.7 and 4.9 ± 0.5 on 1-5 Likert scale, soft pancreas). The small bowel model showed highest haptic realism (4.8 ± 0.4) and optimal wall thickness (0.1 ± 0.4 on -2 to +2 Likert scale) and suturing behavior (0.1 ± 0.4). The bile duct models showed optimal wall thickness (0.3 ± 0.8 and 0.4 ± 0.8 on -2 to +2 Likert scale) and optimal tissue fragility (0 ± 0.9 and 0.3 ± 0.7). CONCLUSION The biotissue training models showed high haptic realism and realistic suturing behavior. They are suitable for realistic training of anastomoses in pancreatic surgery which may improve patient outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emir Karadza
- Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery at Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Caelan M Haney
- Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery at Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Eldridge F Limen
- Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery at Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Philip C Müller
- Department of Surgery and Transplantation, Swiss HPB and Transplantation Center, University Hospital Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland
| | - Karl-Friedrich Kowalewski
- Department of Urology and Urooncological Surgery, University Medical Center Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany
| | - Marta Sandini
- Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery at Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Erica Wennberg
- Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery at Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Mona W Schmidt
- Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Medical Center Mainz, Mainz, Germany
| | - Eleni A Felinska
- Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery at Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Franziska Lang
- Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery at Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Gabriel Salg
- Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery at Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Hannes G Kenngott
- Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery at Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Elena Rangelova
- Section for Upper Abdominal Surgery at Department of Surgery, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - Sven Mieog
- Department of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands
| | - Frederique Vissers
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Maarten Korrel
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Maurice Zwart
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Alain Sauvanet
- Department of HPB Surgery, Hôpital Beaujon, Clichy-Paris, France
| | - Martin Loos
- Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery at Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Arianeb Mehrabi
- Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery at Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Martin de Santibanes
- Department of Surgery, Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina
| | | | - Mohammad Abu Hilal
- Department of Surgery, Instituto Fondazione Poliambulanza, Brescia, Italy
| | - Marc G Besselink
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Beat P Müller-Stich
- Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery at Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Thilo Hackert
- Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery at Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Felix Nickel
- Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery at Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Zwart MJW, Jones LR, Fuente I, Balduzzi A, Takagi K, Novak S, Stibbe LA, de Rooij T, van Hilst J, van Rijssen LB, van Dieren S, Vanlander A, van den Boezem PB, Daams F, Mieog JSD, Bonsing BA, Rosman C, Festen S, Luyer MD, Lips DJ, Moser AJ, Busch OR, Abu Hilal M, Hogg ME, Stommel MWJ, Besselink MG. Performance with robotic surgery versus 3D- and 2D-laparoscopy during pancreatic and biliary anastomoses in a biotissue model: pooled analysis of two randomized trials. Surg Endosc 2022; 36:4518-4528. [PMID: 34799744 PMCID: PMC9085660 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-021-08805-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/27/2021] [Accepted: 10/17/2021] [Indexed: 01/29/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Robotic surgery may improve surgical performance during minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy as compared to 3D- and 2D-laparoscopy but comparative studies are lacking. This study assessed the impact of robotic surgery versus 3D- and 2D-laparoscopy on surgical performance and operative time using a standardized biotissue model for pancreatico- and hepatico-jejunostomy using pooled data from two randomized controlled crossover trials (RCTs). METHODS Pooled analysis of data from two RCTs with 60 participants (36 surgeons, 24 residents) from 11 countries (December 2017-July 2019) was conducted. Each included participant completed two pancreatico- and two hepatico-jejunostomies in biotissue using 3D-robotic surgery, 3D-laparoscopy, or 2D-laparoscopy. Primary outcomes were the objective structured assessment of technical skills (OSATS: 12-60) rating, scored by observers blinded for 3D/2D and the operative time required to complete both anastomoses. Sensitivity analysis excluded participants with excess experience compared to others. RESULTS A total of 220 anastomoses were completed (robotic 80, 3D-laparoscopy 70, 2D-laparoscopy 70). Participants in the robotic group had less surgical experience [median 1 (0-2) versus 6 years (4-12), p < 0.001], as compared to the laparoscopic group. Robotic surgery resulted in higher OSATS ratings (50, 43, 39 points, p = .021 and p < .001) and shorter operative time (56.5, 65.0, 81.5 min, p = .055 and p < .001), as compared to 3D- and 2D-laparoscopy, respectively, which remained in the sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSION In a pooled analysis of two RCTs in a biotissue model, robotic surgery resulted in better surgical performance scores and shorter operative time for biotissue pancreatic and biliary anastomoses, as compared to 3D- and 2D-laparoscopy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Maurice J. W. Zwart
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117 (ZH-7F), 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Leia R. Jones
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117 (ZH-7F), 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands ,grid.415090.90000 0004 1763 5424Department of General Surgery, Instituto Ospedaliero Fondazione Poliambulanza, Brescia, Italy
| | - Ignacio Fuente
- grid.414775.40000 0001 2319 4408Department of Surgery, Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina
| | - Alberto Balduzzi
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117 (ZH-7F), 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands ,grid.411475.20000 0004 1756 948XGeneral and Pancreatic Surgery Department, Pancreas Institute, University and Hospital Trust of Verona, Verona, Italy
| | - Kosei Takagi
- grid.5645.2000000040459992XDepartment of Surgery, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands ,grid.261356.50000 0001 1302 4472Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Transplant, and Surgical Oncology, Okayama University, Okayama, Japan
| | - Stephanie Novak
- grid.412689.00000 0001 0650 7433Department of Surgery, Hillman Cancer Center, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA USA
| | - Luna A. Stibbe
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117 (ZH-7F), 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Thijs de Rooij
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117 (ZH-7F), 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Jony van Hilst
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117 (ZH-7F), 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - L. Bengt van Rijssen
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117 (ZH-7F), 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Susan van Dieren
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117 (ZH-7F), 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Aude Vanlander
- grid.5342.00000 0001 2069 7798Department of Surgery, University Hospital Ghent, University of Ghent, Ghent, Belgium
| | - Peter B. van den Boezem
- grid.10417.330000 0004 0444 9382Department of Surgery, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Freek Daams
- grid.12380.380000 0004 1754 9227Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, VU University, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - J. Sven D. Mieog
- grid.10419.3d0000000089452978Department of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Bert A. Bonsing
- grid.10419.3d0000000089452978Department of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Camiel Rosman
- grid.10417.330000 0004 0444 9382Department of Surgery, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Sebastiaan Festen
- grid.440209.b0000 0004 0501 8269Department of Surgery, OLVG, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Misha D. Luyer
- grid.413532.20000 0004 0398 8384Department of Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
| | - Daan J. Lips
- grid.415214.70000 0004 0399 8347Department of Surgery, Medisch Spectrum Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands
| | - Arthur J. Moser
- grid.38142.3c000000041936754XDepartment of Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA USA
| | - Olivier R. Busch
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117 (ZH-7F), 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Mohammad Abu Hilal
- grid.415090.90000 0004 1763 5424Department of General Surgery, Instituto Ospedaliero Fondazione Poliambulanza, Brescia, Italy
| | - Melissa E. Hogg
- grid.240372.00000 0004 0400 4439Department of Surgery, Northshore University Health System, Chicago, IL USA
| | - Martijn W. J. Stommel
- grid.10417.330000 0004 0444 9382Department of Surgery, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Marc G. Besselink
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117 (ZH-7F), 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | | |
Collapse
|
8
|
Restaino S, Vargiu V, Rosati A, Bruno M, Dinoi G, Cola E, Moroni R, Scambia G, Fanfani F. 4K versus 3D total laparoscopic hysterectomy by resident in training: a prospective randomised trial. Facts Views Vis Obgyn 2021; 13:221-229. [PMID: 34555876 PMCID: PMC8823275 DOI: 10.52054/fvvo.13.3.027] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/05/2022] Open
Abstract
Background The introduction of ultra-high-definition laparoscopic cameras (4K), by providing stronger monocular depth perception, could challenge the existing 3D technology. There are few available studies on this topic, especially in gynaecological setting. Objectives Prospective, single institution, randomised clinical trial (NCT04209036). Materials and Methods The two laparoscopes utilised were the 0°ULTRA Telescopes with 4K technology and the 0°3D-HD by Olympus. The surgeons were all trainees and in their last year of residency and who had obtained the certificate of first or second level of the Gynaecological Endoscopic Surgical Education and Assessment program - GESEA program. Twenty-nine patients with benign uterine pathology were enrolled. Main outcome measures To compare if the use three-dimensional (3D) versus ultra-high-definition laparoscopic vision system (4K) for total laparoscopic hysterectomy performed by trainees was associated with a shorter operative time. Results The 3D vision system did not prove to be superior to the 4K vision system. Operators reported significantly more vision-related side effects when using 3D than 4K. Completing the GESEA training program was the only factor with a positive and statistically significant impact on the overall time of the procedure, especially when greater dexterity and tissue handling were required. Conclusions Neither technology used proved superior to the other, although operators showed a preference for 4K over 3D due to the lower number of visual side effects. Attendance at courses on laparoscopic simulators and training programs allowed trainees to demonstrate excellent surgical skills.
Collapse
|
9
|
Wu J, Xiang Y, You G, Liu Z, Lin R, Yao X, Yang Y. An essential technique for modern hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery: minimally invasive biliary reconstruction. Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2021; 15:243-254. [PMID: 33356656 DOI: 10.1080/17474124.2021.1847081] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/22/2022]
Abstract
Introduction: Minimally invasive reconstruction of the biliary tract is complex and involves multiple steps. The procedure is challenging and has been an essential technique in modern hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery in recent years. Additionally, the quality of the reconstruction directly affects long-and short-term complications and affects the prognosis and quality of life. Various minimally invasive reconstruction methods have been developed to improve the reconstruction effect; however, the optimal method remains controversial. Areas covered: In this study, were viewed published studies of minimally invasive biliary reconstruction within the last 5 years and discussed the current status and main complications of minimally invasive biliary reconstruction. More importantly, we introduced the current reconstruction strategies and technical details of minimally invasive biliary reconstruction, which may be potentially helpful for surgeons to choose reconstruction methods and improve reconstruction quality. Expert opinion: Although several improved and modified methods for biliary reconstruction have been developed recently, no single approach is optimal or adaptable to all situations. Patient-specific selection of appropriate technical strategies according to different situations combined with sophisticated and skilled minimally invasive techniques effectively improves the quality of anastomosis and reduces complications.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jiacheng Wu
- Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Second Hospital of Jilin University , Changchun, China.,Jilin Engineering Laboratory for Translational Medicine of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Diseases , Changchun, China
| | - Yien Xiang
- Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Second Hospital of Jilin University , Changchun, China.,Jilin Engineering Laboratory for Translational Medicine of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Diseases , Changchun, China
| | - Guangqiang You
- Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Second Hospital of Jilin University , Changchun, China
| | - Zefeng Liu
- Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Second Hospital of Jilin University , Changchun, China
| | - Ruixin Lin
- Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Second Hospital of Jilin University , Changchun, China
| | - Xiaoxiao Yao
- Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Second Hospital of Jilin University , Changchun, China
| | - Yongsheng Yang
- Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Second Hospital of Jilin University , Changchun, China
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Added value of 3D-vision during robotic pancreatoduodenectomy anastomoses in biotissue (LAEBOT 3D2D): a randomized controlled cross-over trial. Surg Endosc 2020; 35:2928-2935. [PMID: 32661707 PMCID: PMC8116254 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-020-07732-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/03/2020] [Accepted: 06/09/2020] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND We tested the added value of 3D-vision on procedure time and surgical performance during robotic pancreatoduodenectomy anastomoses in biotissue. Robotic surgery has the advantage of articulating instruments and 3D-vision. Consensus is lacking on the added value of 3D-vision during laparoscopic surgery. Given the improved dexterity with robotic surgery, the added value of 3D-vision may be even less with robotic surgery. METHODS In this experimental randomized controlled cross-over trial, 20 surgeons and surgical residents from 5 countries performed robotic pancreaticojejunostomy and hepaticojejunostomy anastomoses in a biotissue organ model using the da Vinci® system and were randomized to start with either 3D- or 2D-vision. Primary endpoint was the time required to complete both anastomoses. Secondary endpoint was the objective structured assessment of technical skill (OSATS; range 12-60) rating; scored by two observers blinded to 3D/2D. RESULTS Robotic 3D-vision reduced the combined operative time from 78.1 to 57.3 min (24.6% reduction, p < 0.001; 20.8 min reduction, 95% confidence intervals 12.8-28.8 min). This reduction was consistent for both anastomoses and between surgeons and residents, p < 0.001. Robotic 3D-vision improved OSATS performance by 6.1 points (20.8% improvement, p = 0.003) compared to 2D (39.4 to 45.1 points, ± 5.5). CONCLUSION 3D-vision has a considerable added value during robotic pancreatoduodenectomy anastomoses in biotissue in both time reduction and improved surgical performance as compared to 2D-vision.
Collapse
|
11
|
Wu J, Zhang G, Yao X, Xiang Y, Lin R, Yang Y, Zhang X. Achilles'heel of laparoscopic pancreatectomy: reconstruction of the remnant pancreas. Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2020; 14:527-537. [PMID: 32567383 DOI: 10.1080/17474124.2020.1775582] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/08/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Laparoscopic pancreatic reconstruction is a challenging procedure and is considered the Achilles' heel of laparoscopic pancreatectomy. Multiple techniques of laparoscopic pancreatic reconstruction have been reported, but the optimal technique remains unclear. AREAS COVERED This paper provides a brief introduction to the developmental status and major related complications of laparoscopic pancreatic reconstruction. We reviewed all published literature on the technology of laparoscopic pancreatic reconstruction within the last 5 years and herein discuss the advantages and disadvantages of different reconstruction methods. We also discuss several details of different reconstruction techniques in terms of their significance to the operation and complications. EXPERT OPINION No individual method of laparoscopic pancreatic reconstruction is considered optimal for all conditions. The reconstruction strategy should be based on the surgeon's proficiency with laparoscopic technology and the patient's individual risk factors. Personalized methods of pancreatic reconstruction may more effectively reduce morbidity and mortality.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jiacheng Wu
- Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Second Hospital of Jilin University , 130041, Changchun, China, East Asia.,Jilin Engineering Laboratory for Translational Medicine of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Diseases , 130041, Changchun, China, East Asia
| | - Guofeng Zhang
- Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Second Hospital of Jilin University , 130041, Changchun, China, East Asia
| | - Xiaoxiao Yao
- Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Second Hospital of Jilin University , 130041, Changchun, China, East Asia
| | - Yien Xiang
- Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Second Hospital of Jilin University , 130041, Changchun, China, East Asia.,Jilin Engineering Laboratory for Translational Medicine of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Diseases , 130041, Changchun, China, East Asia
| | - Ruixin Lin
- Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Second Hospital of Jilin University , 130041, Changchun, China, East Asia
| | - Yongsheng Yang
- Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Second Hospital of Jilin University , 130041, Changchun, China, East Asia
| | - Xuewen Zhang
- Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Second Hospital of Jilin University , 130041, Changchun, China, East Asia.,Jilin Engineering Laboratory for Translational Medicine of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Diseases , 130041, Changchun, China, East Asia
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Koppatz HE, Harju JI, Sirén JE, Mentula PJ, Scheinin TM, Sallinen VJ. Three-dimensional versus two-dimensional high-definition laparoscopy in transabdominal preperitoneal inguinal hernia repair: a prospective randomized controlled study. Surg Endosc 2019; 34:4857-4865. [PMID: 31754852 PMCID: PMC7572346 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-019-07266-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/14/2019] [Accepted: 11/12/2019] [Indexed: 12/21/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Three-dimensional (3D) laparoscopy improves technical efficacy in laboratory environment, but evidence for clinical benefit is lacking. The aim of this study was to determine whether the 3D laparoscopy is beneficial in transabdominal preperitoneal laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair (TAPP). METHOD In this prospective, single-blinded, single-center, superior randomized trial, patients scheduled for TAPP were randomly allocated to either 3D or two-dimensional (2D) TAPP laparoscopic approaches. Patients were excluded if secondary operation was planned, the risk of conversion was high, or the surgeon had less than five previous 3D laparoscopic procedures. Patients were operated on by 13 residents and 3 attendings. The primary endpoint was operation time. The study was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02367573). RESULTS Total 278 patients were randomized between 5th February 2015 and 23rd October 2017. Median operation time was shorter in the 3D group (56.0 min vs. 68.0 min, p < 0.001). 10 (8%) patients in 3D group and 6 (5%) patients in 2D group had clinically significant complications (Clavien-Dindo 2 or higher) (p = 0.440). Rate of hernia recurrence was similar between groups at 1-year follow-up. In the subgroup analyses, operation time was shorter in 3D laparoscopy among attendings, residents, female surgeons, surgeons with perfect stereovision, surgeons with > 50 3D laparoscopic procedures, surgeons with any experience in TAPP, patients with body mass indices < 30, and bilateral inguinal hernia repairs. CONCLUSION 3D laparoscopy is beneficial and shortens operation time but does not affect safety or long-term outcomes of TAPP.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hanna E Koppatz
- Department of Abdominal Surgery, Helsinki University Hospital and University of Helsinki, Haartmaninkatu 4, 00029, Helsinki, Finland
| | - Jukka I Harju
- Department of Abdominal Surgery, Helsinki University Hospital and University of Helsinki, Haartmaninkatu 4, 00029, Helsinki, Finland
| | - Jukka E Sirén
- Department of Abdominal Surgery, Helsinki University Hospital and University of Helsinki, Haartmaninkatu 4, 00029, Helsinki, Finland
| | - Panu J Mentula
- Department of Abdominal Surgery, Helsinki University Hospital and University of Helsinki, Haartmaninkatu 4, 00029, Helsinki, Finland
| | - Tom M Scheinin
- Department of Abdominal Surgery, Helsinki University Hospital and University of Helsinki, Haartmaninkatu 4, 00029, Helsinki, Finland
| | - Ville J Sallinen
- Department of Abdominal Surgery, Helsinki University Hospital and University of Helsinki, Haartmaninkatu 4, 00029, Helsinki, Finland. .,Department of Transplantation and Liver Surgery, Helsinki University Hospital and University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
| |
Collapse
|