Mitigation of the Robotic Pancreaticoduodenectomy Learning Curve through comprehensive training

Safety of robotic cholecystectomy as index training procedure: the UK experience

AIMS

To evaluate the safety profile of robotic cholecystectomy performed within the United Kingdom (UK) Robotic Hepatopancreatobiliary (HPB) training programme.

METHODS

A retrospective evaluation of prospectively collected data from eleven centres participating in the UK Robotic HPB training programme was conducted. All adult patients undergoing robotic cholecystectomy for symptomatic gallstone disease or gallbladder polyp were considered. Bile duct injury, conversion to open procedure, conversion to subtotal cholecystectomy, length of hospital stay, 30-day re-admission, and post-operative complications were the evaluated outcome parameters.

RESULTS

A total of 600 patients were included. The median age was 53 (IQR 65-41) years and the majority (72.7%; 436/600) were female. The main indications for robotic cholecystectomy were biliary colic (55.5%, 333/600), cholecystitis (18.8%, 113/600), gallbladder polyps (7.7%, 46/600), and pancreatitis (6.2%, 37/600). The median length of stay was 0 (IQR 0-1) days. Of the included patients, 88.5% (531/600) were discharged on the day of procedure with 30-day re-admission rate of 5.5% (33/600). There were no bile duct injuries and the rate of conversion to open was 0.8% (5/600) with subtotal cholecystectomy rate of 0.8% (5/600).

CONCLUSION

The current study confirms that robotic cholecystectomy can be safely implemented to routine practice with a low risk of bile duct injury, low bile leak rate, low conversion to open surgery, and low need for subtotal cholecystectomy.

Task division by multiple console surgeons is beneficial for safe robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy implementation and education

BACKGROUND

The optimal approach for the safe implementation and education of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) remains unclear. Prolonged operation time may cause surgeon fatigue and result in perioperative complications. To solve this issue, our department adopted task division by the console surgeon turnover between resection and reconstruction in 2022.

METHODS

This study retrospectively investigated consecutive patients who underwent RPD from November 2009 (initial introduction of RPD) to December 2023. The analysis excluded patients who underwent concomitant resection of other organs. The cases performed by a single console surgeon (single approach) were compared with those performed by two or more console surgeons (multiple approach).

RESULTS

This study analyzed 85 consecutive RPD cases, including 51 with the single approach and 34 with the multiple approach. The operation time was significantly shorter (832 vs. 618 min, p < 0.001), and the postoperative major complication was less frequent (45% vs. 12%, p = 0.003) in the multiple approach group, although less experienced surgeons performed the multiple approach (number of RPD experiences: 19 cases vs. 5 cases, p < 0.001). The console surgeon turnover between the resection and reconstruction resulted in a safe pancreatojejunostomy performed by the less experienced surgeon (number of pancreatic reconstruction experiences: 6.5 vs. 14 cases, p = 0.010). Surgeons who started RPD with a multiple approach observed a reduction in surgical time and a lower incidence of complications earlier than those who started with a single approach.

CONCLUSION

Task division during the early introduction phase of RPD using the multiple approach demonstrated potential contributions to improved surgical outcomes and enhanced educational benefits.

Deconstructing the Operative Times of Robotic Pancreaticoduodenectomy

INTRODUCTION

Despite numerous benefits offered, robotic procedures take longer than "open" procedures. With the intent to reduce operative duration, we examined the degree each operative step contributes to operative duration in robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

With IRB approval, we prospectively followed 88 patients to determine the duration of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy, and the duration of 12 key steps. Each operative step was regressed against the operation date, from most distant to most recent operation date. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD) for illustrative purposes.

RESULTS

Patients were 73 (71 ± 10.2) years old; 53% were men. Total time patient spent in the operating room was 471 (488 ± 93.3) minutes. Total operative time was 399 (421 ± 90.7) minutes. Total console time was 293 (297 ± 68.0) minutes. The 3 longest portions of the operation were (1) mobilization of the specimen and specimen extraction; (2) construction of the duodenojejunostomy; and (3) closure.

CONCLUSION

A third of the operative time is spent off the console. Over half of the steps required more than 20 minutes each to complete. Since robotic operations are associated with shorter LOS and without increased complication rates relative to "open" operations, salutary benefit can be gained by decreasing operative times of robotic procedures. Operative duration is an important metric that needs to be addressed. We need to target the most time-consuming steps, and break them into smaller pieces, to reach optimal efficiency and provide the benefits of decreased operative duration to the patients, hospitals, and providers.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Safety and learning curve analysis of robotic-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy: experience of a single surgeon

Although prior studies have discussed learning curves (LC) of robotic-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD), a recognized definition is lacking. This study analyzed the clinical outcomes of 85 consecutive RPD cases performed by a single surgeon to evaluate the safety and learning curve of RPD using the da Vinci Xi robotic system. There were 51 male and 34 female patients, with a median age of 64 (20-87) years. The average preoperative body weight and BMI were 64.15 ± 11.43 kg and 23.36 ± 3.33 kg/m2, respectively. The clinical outcomes of each patient were analyzed using the textbook outcome(TO), and the learning curve of the RPD was evaluated by calculating the TO rate of patients using the cumulative sum analysis method (CUSUM).The operation time (OT) was 288.92 ± 44.41 min, and the postoperative hospital stay was 10 (1-134) days. In total, 23.52% (20/85), 5.88% (5/85), 2.35% (2/85), and 5.9% (5/85) experienced grade IIIa, IIIb, IV, and V complications. A total of 46 patients achieved TO outcomes (TO group), while 39 did not (non-TO group). The smoking rate in the TO group was lower (P < 0.05) and the albumin level was higher (P < 0.05) than that in the non-TO group. The TO rate became positive after the 56th case, all patients were divided into a learning improvement group (56 cases) and a proficient group (29 cases). The total bilirubin level in the learning improvement group was lower (P < 0.05) and the bleeding volume was higher (P < 0.05).RPD is safe and effective for carefully selected patients. The learning curve was completed after 56 patients.

Implementation of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy at a community tertiary care hospital utilizing a comprehensive curriculum

BACKGROUND

We evaluated the outcomes of a robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) program implemented at a community tertiary care hospital.

METHODS

A retrospective review of 65 RPD cases compared surgical outcomes and performance to benchmark data.

RESULTS

Postoperative complications occurred in 31% (20) of patients vs. ≤73% (variance -42), with grade IV complications in 3% (2) vs. ≤5% (variance -2). Postoperative pancreatic fistula type B frequency was 12% (8) vs. ≤15% (variance -3). One 90-day mortality occurred (1.5% vs. 1.6%). Failure to rescue rate was 7% vs. ≤9% (variance -2), and R1 resection rate was 2% vs. ≤39% (variance -37). There was a downward trend of operative time (rho ​= ​-0.600, P ​< ​0.001), with a learning curve of 27 cases. Median hospital length of stay was 6 days vs. ≤15 days (variance -9).

CONCLUSION

Our comprehensive RPD training program resulted in improved operative performance and outcomes commensurate with benchmark thresholds.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Outcomes of laparoscopic, robotic, and open pancreatoduodenectomy: A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and propensity-score matched studies

BACKGROUND

This network meta-analysis was performed to determine the optimal surgical approach for pancreatoduodenectomy by comparing outcomes after laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy, robotic pancreatoduodenectomy and open pancreatoduodenectomy.

METHODS

A systematic search of the PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science databases was conducted to identify eligible randomized controlled trials and propensity-score matched studies.

RESULTS

Four randomized controlled trials and 23 propensity-score matched studies comprising a total of 4,945 patients were included for analysis. Operation time for open pancreatoduodenectomy was shorter than both laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (mean difference -57.35, 95% CI 26.25-88.46 minutes) and robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (mean difference -91.08, 95% CI 48.61-133.56 minutes), blood loss for robotic pancreatoduodenectomy was significantly less than both laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (mean difference -112.58, 95% CI 36.95-118.20 mL) and open pancreatoduodenectomy (mean difference -209.87, 95% CI 140.39-279.36 mL), both robotic pancreatoduodenectomy and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy were associated with reduced rates of delayed gastric emptying compared with open pancreatoduodenectomy (odds ratio 0.59, 95% CI 0.39-0.90 and odds ratio 0.69, 95% CI 0.50-0.95, respectively), robotic pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with fewer wound infections compared with open pancreatoduodenectomy (odds ratio 0.35, 95% CI 0.18-0.71), and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy patients enjoyed significantly shorter length of stay compared with open pancreatoduodenectomy (odds ratio 0.43, 95% CI 0.28-0.95). There were no differences in other outcomes.

CONCLUSION

This network meta-analysis of high-quality studies suggests that when laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy and robotic pancreatoduodenectomy are performed in high-volume centers, short-term perioperative and oncologic outcomes are largely comparable, if not slightly improved, compared with traditional open pancreatoduodenectomy. These findings should be corroborated in further prospective randomized studies.