Distal pancreatectomy: a single institution's experience in open, laparoscopic, and robotic approaches

Is the robotic approach the future of distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy? A propensity score matched analysis

Our study provides a comparative analysis of the Laparo-Endoscopic Single Site (LESS) and robotic surgical approaches for distal pancreatectomy and splenectomy, examining their cosmetic advantages, patient outcomes, and operative efficiencies through propensity score matching (PSM). We prospectively followed 174 patients undergoing either the LESS or robotic procedure, matched by cell type, tumor size, age, sex, and BMI from 2012 to 2023. Propensity score matching (PSM) was utilized for data adjustment, with results presented as median (mean ± SD). Post-PSM analysis showed no significant differences in age or BMI between the two groups. LESS approach exhibited a shorter operative duration (180(180 ± 52.0) vs. 248(262 ± 78.5) minutes, p = 0.0002), but increased estimated blood loss (200(317 ± 394.4) vs. 100 (128 ± 107.2) mL, p = 0.04). Rates of intraoperative and postoperative complications, length of hospital stay, readmissions within 30 days, in-hospital mortalities, and costs were comparably similar between the two procedures. While the robotic approach led to lower blood loss, LESS was more time-efficient. Patient outcomes were similar in both methods, suggesting that the choice between these surgical techniques should balance cosmetic appeal with technical considerations.

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.

Comparison of perioperative and oncologic outcomes after open, laparoscopic, and robotic distal pancreatectomy: a single-center retrospective study

As minimally invasive surgery gains grounds, surgeons are switching more towards laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) and robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) as opposed to open distal pancreatectomy (ODP). Through this study, we aimed at exploring the differences in perioperative and oncologic outcomes among the three surgical methods. We retrospectively collected data from 303 patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy (DP) at a single high-volume institution between June 2015 and December 2021. We equally compared the perioperative and oncologic outcomes in patients who underwent ODP, LDP, and RDP by analyzing clinicopathologic and survival data. We consecutively included 303 cases in the study: open = 147 (48.5%), laparoscopic = 50 (16.5%), and robotic = 106 (35.0%). The median tumor size was significantly larger in the ODP group (P < 0.001) compared to the others. Cases in the RDP group experienced a longer duration of surgery (P < 0.001), smaller amount of blood loss (P < 0.001), smaller amount of blood transfusion (P = 0.042), and a shorter duration of hospital stay (p = 0.040) compared to cases in the ODP group. There was no significant difference observed when comparing other postoperative outcomes across the groups. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were similar across the significant differences among the three groups. The short-term postoperative and oncologic outcomes observed in the RDP and LDP groups were not inferior to those in the ODP group. The RDP has some perioperative advantages over the ODP. Therefore, RDP and LDP can safely and feasibly be performed in selected pancreatic tumors by experienced pancreatic surgeons.

Role of minimally invasive surgery in the management of localized pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a review

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains a highly lethal malignancy with a minority of patients eligible for curative-intent surgical intervention. Pancreatic resections are technically demanding operations associated with considerable morbidity and mortality. Minimally invasive pancreatic resections (MIPRs), which include laparoscopic and robotic approaches, may enhance postoperative outcomes by lessening physiological impact of open surgery. A limited number of randomized-controlled trials as well as numerous retrospective reports have focused on MIPR outcomes and role in management of a variety of tumors, including PDAC. Today, MIPRs are generally considered acceptable alternatives to open surgery as a trend towards improved short-term metrics is observed. However, several questions remain regarding the oncological adequacy of MIPR's as long-term experience is less extensive compared to open techniques. This review aims to summarize existing evidence on MIPRs with a focus on PDAC.

[Robotic pancreatic surgery]

Robotic operations as a further development of conventional laparoscopic surgery have been introduced for nearly all interventions in visceral surgery during the last decade. They also currently have a high importance and acceptance in pancreatic surgery despite a relevant learning curve and high associated costs. Standard procedures, such as robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) and partial pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) are most frequently performed, whereas extended resections, e.g., vascular reconstructions of the portal vein, are still limited to a small number of centers worldwide. Potential advantages of robotic pancreatic surgery compared to open surgery include, in particular, less blood loss and a faster postoperative recovery of the patients leading to a shorter hospital stay. Compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery, robotic approaches offer advantages with respect to better visualization and three-dimensional dexterity of the instruments; however, the currently published literature comprises only retrospective or prospective observational studies and randomized controlled results are not yet available but first study results in this respect are expected within the next 2-3 years.

A Comparison of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy for Benign or Malignant Lesions: A Meta-Analysis

Background: The momentum of robotic surgery is increasing, and it has great prospects in pancreatic surgery. It has been widely accepted and expanding to more and more centers. Robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) is the most recent advanced minimally invasive approach for pancreatic lesions and malignancies. However, laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) also showed good efficacy. We compared the effect of RDP with LDP using a meta-analysis. Methods: From January 2010 to June 2023, clinical trials of RDP versus LDP were determined by searching PubMed, Medline, and EMBASE. A meta-analysis was conducted to compare the effect of RDP with LDP. This meta-analysis evaluated the R0 resection rate, lymph node metastasis rate, conversion to open surgery rate, spleen preservation rate, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative pancreatic fistula, postoperative hospital stay, 90-day mortality rate, surgical cost, and total cost. Results: This meta-analysis included 38 studies. Conversion to open surgery, blood loss, and 90-day mortality in the RDP group were all significantly less than that in the LDP group (P < .05). There was no difference in lymph node resection rate, R0 resection rate, or postoperative pancreatic fistula between the two groups (P > .05). Spleen preservation rate in the LDP group was higher than that in the RDP group (P < .05). Operation cost and total cost in the RDP group were both more than that in the LDP group (P < .05). It is uncertain which group has an advantage in postoperative hospital stay. Conclusions: To some degree, RDP and LDP were indeed worth comparing in clinical practice. However, it may be difficult to determine which is absolute advantage according to current data. Large sample randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm which is better treatment. PROSPERO ID: CRD4202345576.

The role of minimally invasive surgery in resectable distal pancreatic adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

In distal pancreatectomy (DP) for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), we hypothesize that minimally invasive DP (MIDP) carries short-term benefits over ODP (ODP) in the absence of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF).

METHODS

NSQIP database was queried to select patients who underwent DP for PDAC with available report on POPF. The population was divided into No-POPF vs. POPF groups. In each group, propensity-score matching was applied to compare 30-day outcomes of ODP vs. MIDP.

RESULTS

There were 2,824 patients; 2,332 (82%) had No-POPF and 492 (21%) had POPF. In No-POPF patients, 921 pairs were matched between ODP and MIDP. MIDP patients had slightly longer operations (227 vs. 205 minutes; p < 0.001), but lower rates of surgical site complications (1% vs. 2.9%; p = 0.002), postoperative transfusion (7.1% vs. 11.0%; p = 0.003), overall morbidity (21.1% vs. 26.3%; p = 0.009), and one-day shorter median length of stay (LOS) (5 vs. 6 days; p = 0.001). In the POPF group, 172 pairs were matched. There was no difference in morbidity, mortality, reoperation, LOS, and home discharge. Similar conclusions were drawn in the intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses.

CONCLUSION

POPF is common following DP for PDAC. In the absence of POPF, MIDP is associated with fewer postoperative morbidities and shorter LOS.

Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis including patient subgroups

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RDP) has been suggested to hold some benefits over laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) but consensus and data on specific subgroups are lacking. This systematic review and meta-analysis reports the surgical and oncological outcome and costs between RDP and LDP including subgroups with intended spleen preservation and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).

METHODS

Studies comparing RDP and LDP were included from PubMed, Cochrane Central Register, and Embase (inception-July 2022). Primary outcomes were conversion and unplanned splenectomy. Secondary outcomes were R0 resection, lymph node yield, major morbidity, operative time, intraoperative blood loss, in-hospital mortality, operative costs, total costs and hospital stay.

RESULTS

Overall, 43 studies with 6757 patients were included, 2514 after RDP and 4243 after LDP. RDP was associated with a longer operative time (MD = 18.21, 95% CI 2.18-34.24), less blood loss (MD = 54.50, 95% CI - 84.49-24.50), and a lower conversion rate (OR = 0.44, 95% CI 0.36-0.55) compared to LDP. In spleen-preserving procedures, RDP was associated with more Kimura procedures (OR = 2.23, 95% CI 1.37-3.64) and a lower rate of unplanned splenectomies (OR = 0.32, 95% CI 0.24-0.42). In patients with PDAC, RDP was associated with a higher lymph node yield (MD = 3.95, 95% CI 1.67-6.23), but showed no difference in the rate of R0 resection (OR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.67-1.37). RDP was associated with higher total (MD = 3009.31, 95% CI 1776.37-4242.24) and operative costs (MD = 3390.40, 95% CI 1981.79-4799.00).

CONCLUSIONS

RDP was associated with a lower conversion rate, a higher spleen preservation rate and, in patients with PDAC, a higher lymph node yield and similar R0 resection rate, as compared to LDP. The potential benefits of RDP need to be weighed against the higher total and operative costs in future randomized trials.

Identifying the preoperative factors predicting the surgical difficulty of robotic distal pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND

Few studies have evaluated the preoperative factors predicting the surgical difficulty of robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP). This study aims to explore such factors and provide guidance on the selection of suitable patients to aid surgeons lacking extensive experience in RDP.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted on consecutive patients who underwent RDP to identify preoperative factors predicting surgical difficulty. High surgical difficulty was defined by both operation time and intraoperative estimated blood loss exceeding their median, or by conversion to laparotomy.

RESULTS

A total of 161 patients were ultimately enrolled, including 51 patients with high levels of surgical difficulty. Multivariate analysis revealed that male sex [OR (95% CI): 4.07 (1.77,9.40), p = 0.001], body mass index (BMI) ≥ 25 kg/m² OR (95% CI): 2.27 (1.03,5.00), p = 0.042], tumors located at the neck of the pancreas [OR (95% CI): 4.15 (1.49,11.56), p = 0.006] and splenic artery type B [OR (95% CI): 3.28 (1.09,9.91), p = 0.035] were independent risk factors for surgical difficulty. Regarding postoperative complications, high surgical difficulty was associated with the risk of overall complications and pancreatic fistula (grade B/C) (49.0% vs. 22.7%, p < 0.001; 39.2% vs. 19.1%, p = 0.006).

CONCLUSION

Male sex, body mass index ≥ 25 kg/m2, tumor located at the neck of the pancreas and splenic artery type B are associated with a high RDP difficulty level. These factors can be used preoperatively to assess the difficulty level of surgery, to help surgeons choose patients suitable for them and ensure surgical safety.

Risk factor analysis and prediction of postoperative clinically relevant pancreatic fistula after distal pancreatectomy

OBJECTIVE

Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) following distal pancreatectomy (DP) is a serious complication. In the present study, we aimed to identify the risk factors associated with clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) and establish a nomogram model for predicting CR-POPF after DP.

METHODS

In total, 115 patients who underwent DP at the General Hospital of Northern Theater Command between January 2005 and December 2020 were retrospectively studied. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to identify the independent risk factors associated with CR-POPF. Then, a nomogram was formulated based on the results of multivariable logistic regression analysis. The predictive performance was evaluated with receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Decision curve and clinical impact curve analyses were used to validate the clinical application value of the model.

RESULTS

The incidence of CR-POPF was 33.0% (38/115) in the present study. Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified the following variables as independent risk factors for POPF: body mass index (BMI) (OR 4.658, P = 0.004), preoperative albumin level (OR 7.934, P = 0.001), pancreatic thickness (OR 1.256, P = 0.003) and pancreatic texture (OR 3.143, P = 0.021). We created a nomogram by incorporating the above mentioned risk factors. The nomogram model showed better predictive value, with a concordance index of 0.842, sensitivity of 0.710, and specificity of 0.870 when compared to each risk factor. Decision curve and clinical impact curve analyses also indicated that the nomogram conferred a high clinical net benefit.

CONCLUSION

Our nomogram could accurately and objectively predict the risk of postoperative CR-POPF in individuals who underwent DP, which could help clinicians with early identification of patients who might develop CR-POPF and early development of a suitable fistula mitigation strategy and postoperative management.

Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy on perioperative outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Robotic surgery has become a promising surgical method in minimally invasive pancreatic surgery due to its three-dimensional visualization, tremor filtration, motion scaling, and better ergonomics. Numerous studies have explored the benefits of RDP over LDP in terms of perioperative safety and feasibility, but no consensus has been achieved yet. This article aimed to evaluate the benefits and drawbacks of RDP and LDP for perioperative outcomes. By June 2022, all studies comparing RDP to LDP in the PubMed, the Embase, and the Cochrane Library database were systematically reviewed. According to the heterogeneity, fix or random-effects models were used for the meta-analysis of perioperative outcomes. Odds ratio (OR), weighted mean differences (WMD), and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. A sensitivity analysis was performed to explore potential sources of high heterogeneity and a trim and fill analysis was used to evaluate the impact of publication bias on the pooled results. Thirty-four studies met the inclusion criteria. RDP provides greater benefit than LDP for higher spleen preservation (OR 3.52 95% CI 2.62-4.73, p < 0.0001) and Kimura method (OR 1.93, 95% CI 1.42-2.62, p < 0.0001) in benign and low-grade malignant tumors. RDP is associated with lower conversion to laparotomy (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.33-0.52, p < 0.00001), and shorter postoperative hospital stay (WMD - 0.57, 95% CI - 0.92 to - 0.21, p = 0.002), but it is more costly. In terms of postoperative complications, there was no difference between RDP and LDP except for 30-day mortality (RDP versus LDP, 0.1% versus 1.0%, p = 0.03). With the exception of its high cost, RDP appears to outperform LDP on perioperative outcomes and is technologically feasible and safe. High-quality prospective randomized controlled trials are advised for further confirmation as the quality of the evidence now is not high.

Transition from open to robotic distal pancreatectomy in a low volume pancreatic surgery country: a single Australian centre experience

BACKGROUND

Advances in technology and techniques have allowed for robotic distal pancreatectomies to be readily performed in patients at high volume centres. This study describes the experience of a single surgeon during the learning curve and transition from open to robotic distal pancreatectomy in Australia, a traditionally low volume pancreatic surgery country.

METHODS

All patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy at an Australian-based tertiary referral centre between 2010 and 2021 were reviewed retrospectively. Demographic, clinicopathologic and survival data were analysed to compare perioperative and oncological outcomes between patients who underwent open, laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomies.

RESULTS

A total of 178 distal pancreatectomies were identified for analysis during the study period. Ninety-one open distal pancreatectomies (ODP), 48 laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies (LDP), and 39 robotic distal pancreatectomies (RDP) were performed. Robotic distal pancreatectomy was non-inferior with respect to perioperative outcomes and yielded statistically non-significant advantages over LDP and ODP.

CONCLUSION

RDP is feasible and can be performed safely in well-selected patients during the learning phase at large pancreatic centres in a traditionally low-volume country like Australia. Referral to large pancreatic centres where access to the robotic platform and surgeon experience is not a barrier, and where a robust multidisciplinary team meeting can take place, remains pivotal in the introduction and transition toward the robotic approach for management of patients with pancreatic body or tail lesions.

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.

401 consecutive minimally invasive distal pancreatectomies: lessons learned from 20 years of experience

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to discuss and report the trend, outcomes, and learning curve effect after minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) at two high-volume centres.

METHODS

Patients undergoing MIDP between January 1999 and December 2018 were retrospectively identified from prospectively maintained electronic databases. The entire cohort was divided into two groups constituting the "early" and "recent" phases. The learning curve effect was analyzed for laparoscopic (LDP) and robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP). The follow-up was at least 2 years.

RESULTS

The study population included 401 consecutive patients (LDP n = 300, RDP n = 101). Twelve surgeons performed MIDP during the study period. Although patients were more carefully selected in the early phase, in terms of median age (49 vs. 55 years, p = 0.026), ASA class higher than 2 (3% vs. 9%, p = 0.018), previous abdominal surgery (10% vs. 34%, p < 0.001), and pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) (7% vs. 15%, p = 0.017), the recent phase had similar perioperative outcomes. The increase of experience in LDP was inversely associated with the operative time (240 vs 210 min, p < 0.001), morbidity rate (56.5% vs. 40.1%, p = 0.005), intra-abdominal collection (28.3% vs. 17.3%, p = 0.023), and length of stay (8 vs. 7 days, p = 0.009). Median survival in the PDAC subgroup was 53 months.

CONCLUSION

In the setting of high-volume centres, the surgical training of MIDP is associated with acceptable rates of morbidity. The learning curve can be largely achieved by several team members, improving outcomes over time. Whenever possible resection of PDAC guarantees adequate oncological results and survival.

Is robotic distal pancreatectomy better than laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy after the learning curve? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Aim

The aim of this study was to compare the safety and overall effect of robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) to laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) after the learning curve, especially in perioperative outcome and short-term oncological outcome.

Methods

A literature search was performed by two authors independently using PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science to identify any studies comparing the results of RDP versus LDP published until 5 January 2022. Only the studies where RDP was performed in more than 35 cases were included in this study. We performed a meta-analysis of operative time, blood loss, reoperation, readmission, hospital stay, overall complications, major complications, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), blood transfusion, conversion to open surgery, spleen preservation, tumor size, R0 resection, and lymph node dissection.

Results

Our search identified 15 eligible studies, totaling 4,062 patients (1,413 RDP). It seems that the RDP group had a higher rate of smaller tumor size than the LDP group (MD: −0.15; 95% CI: −0.20 to −0.09; p &lt; 0.00001). Furthermore, compared with LPD, RDP was associated with a higher spleen preservation rate (OR: 2.19; 95% CI: 1.36–3.54; p = 0.001) and lower rate of conversion to open surgery (OR: 0.43; 95% CI: 0.33–0.55; p &lt; 0.00001). Our study revealed that there were no significant differences in operative time, overall complications, major complications, blood loss, blood transfusion, reoperation, readmission, POPF, and lymph node dissection between RDP and LDP.

Conclusions

RDP is safe and feasible for distal pancreatectomy compared with LDP, and it can reduce the rate of conversion to open surgery and increase the rate of spleen preservation, which needs to be further confirmed by quality comparative studies with large samples.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#recordDetails.

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.

Risk factors and consequences of conversion in minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy

Background

Although recent studies have reported potential benefits of laparoscopic approach in distal pancreatectomy, reports of conversion during minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) were limited.

Methods

This was a retrospective study using data from Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital around May 2013 to December 2018. Outcomes of patients who had conversions during MIDP were compared with patients with successful MIDP and with patients undergoing open distal pancreatectomy (ODP).

Results

Two-hundred and eighty-three cases were included in this study: 225 (79.5%) had MIDP, 30 (10.6%) had conversions and 28 (9.9%) had outpatient department. The risk factors for conversion included large lesion size (heart rates [HR]: 5.632, 95% confidencevinterval [CI]: 1.036-1.450, P = 0.018) and pancreatic cancer (HR: 6.957, 95% CI: 1.359-8.022, P = 0.009). Compared with MIDP, those who required conversion were associated with longer operations (P = 0.003), higher blood loss (P < 0.001) and more severe of the complications (P < 0.001). However, no statistically significant differences were found between the conversion group and ODP.

Conclusions

Large lesion size and pancreatic cancer were reported to be independent risk factors for conversion during MIDP. As for post-operative outcomes, the outcomes of successfully MIDP were better than those for conversion. However, conversion did not lead to worsening outcomes when compared with ODP.

The Role of Robotic Visceral Surgery in Patients with Adhesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Abdominal adhesions are a risk factor for conversion to open surgery. An advantage of robotic surgery is the lower rate of unplanned conversions. A systematic review was conducted using the terms “laparoscopic” and “robotic”. Inclusion criteria were: comparative studies evaluating patients undergoing laparoscopic and robotic surgery; reporting data on conversion to open surgery for each group due to adhesions and studies including at least five patients in each group. The main outcomes were the conversion rates due to adhesions and surgeons’ expertise (novice vs. expert). The meta-analysis included 70 studies from different surgical specialities with 14,329 procedures (6472 robotic and 7857 laparoscopic). The robotic approach was associated with a reduced risk of conversion (OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.12–2.10, p = 0.007). The analysis of the procedures performed by “expert surgeons” showed a statistically significant difference in favour of robotic surgery (OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.03–2.12, p = 0.03). A reduced conversion rate due to adhesions with the robotic approach was observed in patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery (OR 2.62, 95% CI 1.20–5.72, p = 0.02). The robotic approach could be a valid option in patients with abdominal adhesions, especially in the subgroup of those undergoing colorectal cancer resection performed by expert surgeons.

Comparative analysis of open, laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatic resection: The United Kingdom's first single-centre experience

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) has potential advantages over its open equivalent open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) for pancreatic disease in the neck, body and tail. Within the United Kingdom (UK), there has been no previous experience describing the role of robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP). This study evaluated differences between ODP, LDP and RDP.

METHODS

Patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy performed in the Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery at the Freeman Hospital between September 2007 and December 2018 were included from a prospectively maintained database. The primary outcome measure was length of hospital stay, and the secondary outcome measures were complication rates graded according to the Clavien-Dindo classification.

RESULTS

Of the 125 patients, the median age was 61 years and 46% were male. Patients undergoing RDP (n = 40) had higher American Society of Anesthesiologists grading III compared to ODP (n = 38) and LDP (n = 47) (57% vs. 37% vs. 38%, P = 0.02). RDP had a slightly lower but not significant conversion rate (10% vs. 13%, P = 0.084), less blood loss (median: 0 vs. 250 ml, P < 0.001) and a higher rate of splenic preservation (30% vs. 2%, P < 0.001) and shorter operative time, once docking time excluded (284 vs. 300 min, P < 0.001) compared to LDP. RDP had a higher R0 resection rate than ODP and LDP (79% vs. 47% vs. 71%, P = 0.078) for neoplasms. RDP was associated with significantly shorter hospital stay than LDP and ODP (8 vs. 9 vs. 10 days, P = 0.001). While there was no significant different in overall complications across the groups, RDP was associated with lower rates of Grade C pancreatic fistula than ODP and LDP (2% vs. 5% vs. 6%, P = 0.194).

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive pancreatic resection offers potential advantages over ODP, with a trend showing RDP to be marginally superior when compared to conventional LDP, but it is accepted that that this is likely to be at greater expense compared to the other current techniques.

Surgery for pancreatic cancer: current controversies and challenges

Two areas that remain the focus of improvement in pancreatic cancer include high post-operative morbidity and inability to uniformly translate surgical success into long-term survival. This narrative review addresses specific aspects of pancreatic cancer surgery, including neoadjuvant therapy, vascular resections, extended pancreatectomy, extent of lymphadenectomy and current status of minimally invasive surgery. R0 resection confers longer disease-free survival and overall survival. Vascular and adjacent organ resections should be undertaken after neoadjuvant therapy, only if R0 resection can be ensured based on high-quality preoperative imaging, and that too, with acceptable post-operative morbidity. Extended lymphadenectomy does not offer any advantage over standard lymphadenectomy. Although minimally invasive distal pancreatectomies offers some short-term benefits over open distal pancreatectomy, safety remains a concern with minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy. Strict adherence to principles and judicious utilization of surgery within a multimodality framework is the way forward.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) are the two principal minimally invasive surgical approaches for patients with pancreatic body and tail adenocarcinoma. The use of RDP and LDP for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains controversial, and which one can provide a better R0 rate is not clear.

Methods

A comprehensive search for studies that compared robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for PDAC published until July 31, 2021, was conducted. Data on perioperative outcomes and oncologic outcomes (R0-resection and lymph node dissection) were subjected to meta-analysis. PubMed, Cochrane Central Register, Web of Science, and EMBASE were searched based on a defined search strategy to identify eligible studies before July 2021.

Results

Six retrospective studies comprising 572 patients (152 and 420 patients underwent RDP and LDP) were included. The present meta-analysis showed that there were no significant differences in operative time, tumor size, and lymph node dissection between RDP and LDP group. Nevertheless, compared with the LDP group, RDP results seem to demonstrate a possibility in higher R0 resection rate (p<0.0001).

Conclusions

This systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that RDP is a technically and oncologically safe and feasible approach for selected PDAC patients. Large randomized and controlled prospective studies are needed to confirm this data.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#recordDetails, identifier [CRD42021269353].

Minimally Invasive Techniques for Pancreatic Resection

There is increasing interest in the role of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for pancreatectomy. Prospective data indicate significant advantages for MIS when performed for left-sided pancreatic pathologies and may be deemed as the standard of care. However, there is reluctance in implementing this technique to pancreaticoduodenectomy because of the complexity of the operation and the mixed results from randomized trials. A detailed description of the technical aspects of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy is presented in this article in addition to a summary of the most important prospective and cohort studies. We also provide insights into patient selection and the learning curve of MIS surgery for pancreatectomy.

Robotic pancreas surgery: an overview of history and update on technique, outcomes, and financials

The use robotics in surgery is gaining momentum. This approach holds substantial promise in pancreas surgery. Robotic surgery for pancreatic lesions and malignancies has become well accepted and is expanding to more and more center annually. The number of centers using robotics in pancreatic surgery is rapidly increasing. The most studied robotic pancreas surgeries are pancreaticoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy. Most studies are in their early phases, but they report that robotic pancreas surgery is safe feasible. Robotic pancreas surgery offers several advantages over open and laparoscopic techniques. Data regarding costs of robotics versus conventional techniques is still lacking. Robotic pancreas surgery is still in its early stages. It holds promise to become the new surgical standard for pancreatic resections in the future, however, more research is still needed to establish its safety, cost effectiveness and efficacy in providing the best outcomes.

Procedure-specific Training for Robot-assisted Distal Pancreatectomy

OBJECTIVE

To train practicing surgeons in robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RADP) and assess the impact on 5 domains of healthcare quality.

BACKGROUND

RADP may reduce the treatment burden compared with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP), but studies on institutional training and implementation programs are scarce.

METHODS

A retrospective, single-center, cohort study evaluating surgical performance during a procedure-specific training program for RADP (January 2006 to September 2017). Baseline and unadjusted outcomes were compared "before training" (ODP only; June 2012). Exclusion criteria were neoadjuvant therapy, vascular- and unrelated organ resection. Run charts evaluated index length of stay (LOS) and 90-day comprehensive complication index. Cumulative sum charts of operating time (OT) assessed institutional learning. Adjusted outcomes after RADP versus ODP were compared using a secondary propensity-score-matched (1:1) analysis to determine clinical efficacy.

RESULTS

After screening, 237 patients were included in the before-training (133 ODP) and after-training (24 ODP, 80 RADP) groups. After initiation of training, mean perioperative blood loss decreased (-255 mL, P<0.001), OT increased (+65 min, P < 0.001), and median LOS decreased (-1 day, P < 0.001). All other outcomes remained similar (P>0.05). Over time, there were nonrandom (P < 0.05) downward shifts in LOS, while comprehensive complication index was unaffected. We observed 3 learning curve phases in OT: accumulation (<31 cases), optimization (case 31-65), and a steady-state (>65 cases). Propensity-score-matching confirmed reductions in index and 90-day LOS and blood loss with similar morbidity between RADP and ODP.

CONCLUSION

Supervised procedure-specific training enabled successful implementation of RADP by practicing surgeons with immediate improvements in length of stay, without adverse effects on safety.

Does a Laparoscopic Approach to Distal Pancreatectomy for Cancer Contribute to Optimal Adjuvant Chemotherapy Utilization?

BACKGROUND

Although laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) versus open approaches (ODP) for pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is associated with reduced morbidity, its impact on optimal adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) utilization remains unclear. Furthermore, it is uncertain whether oncologic resection quality markers are equivalent between approaches.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was queried between 2010 and 2016 for PDAC patients undergoing DP. Effect of LDP vs ODP and institutional case volumes on margin status, hospital stay, 30-day and 90-day mortality, administration of and delay to AC, and 30-day unplanned readmission were analyzed using binary and linear logistic regression. Cox multivariable regression was used to correct for confounders.

RESULTS

The search yielded 3411 patients; 996 (29.2%) had LDP and 2415 (70.8%) had ODP. ODP had higher odds of readmission [odds ratio (OR) 1.681, p = 0.01] and longer hospital stay [β 1.745, p = 0.004]. No difference was found for 30-day mortality [OR 1.689, p = 0.303], 90-day mortality [OR 1.936, p = 0.207], and overall survival [HR 1.231, p = 0.057]. The highest-volume centers had improved odds of AC [OR 1.275, p = 0.027] regardless of approach. LDP conferred lower margin positivity [OR 0.581, p = 0.005], increased AC use [3rd quartile: OR 1.844, p = 0.026; 4th quartile; OR 2.144, p = 0.045], and fewer AC delays [4th quartile: OR 0.786, p = 0.045] in higher-volume centers.

CONCLUSIONS

In selected patients, LDP offers an oncologically safe alternative to ODP for PDAC independent of institutional volume. However, additional oncologic benefit due to optimal AC utilization and lower positive margin rates in higher volume centers suggests that LDP by experienced teams can achieve best possible cancer outcomes.

Robotic gastrointestinal surgery: learning curve, educational programs and outcomes

The use of the robotic platform for gastrointestinal surgery was introduced nearly 20 years ago. However, significant growth and advancement has occurred primarily in the last decade. This is due to several advantages over traditional laparoscopic surgery allowing for more complex dissections and reconstructions. Several randomized controlled trials and retrospective reviews have demonstrated equivalent oncologic outcomes compared to open surgery with improved short-term outcomes. Unfortunately, there are currently no universally accepted or implemented training programs for robotic surgery and robotic surgery experience varies greatly. Additionally, several limitations to the robotic platform exist resulting in a distinct learning curve associated with various procedures. Therefore, implementation of robotic surgery requires a multidisciplinary team approach with commitment and investment from clinical faculty, operating room staff and hospital administrators. Additionally, there is a need for wider distribution of educational modules to train more surgeons and reduce the associated learning curve. This article will focus on the implementation of the robotic platform for surgery of the pancreas, stomach, liver, colon and rectum with an emphasis on the associated learning curve, educational platforms to develop proficiency and perioperative outcomes.

Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: multicentre analysis

BACKGROUND

The role of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy is still unclear, and whether robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) offers benefits over laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is unknown because large multicentre studies are lacking. This study compared perioperative outcomes between RDP and LDP.

METHODS

A multicentre international propensity score-matched study included patients who underwent RDP or LDP for any indication in 21 European centres from six countries that performed at least 15 distal pancreatectomies annually (January 2011 to June 2019). Propensity score matching was based on preoperative characteristics in a 1 : 1 ratio. The primary outcome was the major morbidity rate (Clavien-Dindo grade IIIa or above).

RESULTS

A total of 1551 patients (407 RDP and 1144 LDP) were included in the study. Some 402 patients who had RDP were matched with 402 who underwent LDP. After matching, there was no difference between RDP and LDP groups in rates of major morbidity (14.2 versus 16.5 per cent respectively; P = 0.378), postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C (24.6 versus 26.5 per cent; P = 0.543) or 90-day mortality (0.5 versus 1.3 per cent; P = 0.268). RDP was associated with a longer duration of surgery than LDP (median 285 (i.q.r. 225-350) versus 240 (195-300) min respectively; P < 0.001), lower conversion rate (6.7 versus 15.2 per cent; P < 0.001), higher spleen preservation rate (81.4 versus 62.9 per cent; P = 0.001), longer hospital stay (median 8.5 (i.q.r. 7-12) versus 7 (6-10) days; P < 0.001) and lower readmission rate (11.0 versus 18.2 per cent; P = 0.004).

CONCLUSION

The major morbidity rate was comparable between RDP and LDP. RDP was associated with improved rates of conversion, spleen preservation and readmission, to the detriment of longer duration of surgery and hospital stay.

Laparoscopic versus open radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy for pancreatic cancer: a single-institution comparative study

Background

Laparoscopic distal pancreatosplenectomy is an effective and safe surgical modality for treating benign and borderline distal pancreatic tumors, but rarely for pancreatic cancer. This study aimed to compare the feasibility and safety of laparoscopic and open radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy for pancreatic cancer.

Methods

Fifty-one patients with pancreatic cancer who underwent radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy at Ningbo Medical Center Lihuili Hospital between January 2014 and July 2018 were enrolled. 20 patients underwent laparoscopic radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy and 31 patients received open radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy. Postoperative and short-term outcomes of the two groups of patients were analyzed.

Results

The mean operation time, length of postoperative hospital stay, and overall postoperative morbidity were similar in the two groups (P>0.05). The laparoscopic radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy group lost less blood (252.5±198.3 vs. 472.6±428.0 mL, P=0.037) and had lower transfusion rates (10.0% vs. 35.4%, P=0.041) than the open radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy group. The laparoscopic group also had statistically significantly earlier passing of first flatus (2.5±0.8 vs. 3.2±1.2 days, P=0.028) and first oral intake (2.9±1.0 vs. 3.7±1.6 days, P=0.042). Furthermore, the rates of postoperative pancreatic fistula (45.0% vs. 32.3%) and overall complications (70.0% vs. 74.2%) were not statistically difference between the two groups. The survival rates at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years after surgery were not statistically difference between the laparoscopic and open groups (94.4% vs. 93.5, 67.0% vs. 78.0%, and 50.2% vs. 38.3%, respectively).

Conclusions

The results of this study show that laparoscopic radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy is feasible and safe for the treatment of pancreatic cancer.

Improvement in distal pancreatectomy for tumors in the body and tail of the pancreas

Background

Pancreatic resections are complex and technically challenging surgical procedures. They often come with potential limitations to high-volume centers. Distal pancreatectomy is a relatively simple procedure in most cases. It facilitates the development of up-to-date minimally invasive surgical procedures in pancreatic surgery including laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy and robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy.

Main body

To obtain a desirable long-term prognosis, R0 resection and adequate lymphadenectomy are crucial to the surgical management of pancreatic cancer, and they demand standard procedure and multi-visceral resection if necessary. With respect to combined organ resection, progress has been made in evaluating and determining when and how to preserve the spleen. The postoperative pancreatic fistula, however, remains the most significant complication of distal pancreatectomy, with a rather high incidence. In addition, a safe closure of the pancreatic remnant persists as an area of concern. Therefore, much efforts that focus on the management of the pancreatic stump have been made to mitigate morbidity.

Conclusion

This review summarized the historical development of the techniques for pancreatic resections in recent years and describes the progress. The review eventually looked into the controversies regarding distal pancreatectomy for tumors in the body and tail of the pancreas.

[Evidence for robotics in oncological pancreatic surgery]

Robotic surgical procedures have been implemented and have become an important development in pancreatic surgery with an increasing acceptance worldwide. Nearly all types of pancreatic surgery have now been performed robotically and especially standardized resections, such as distal pancreatectomy (RDP) and partial pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) have gained importance despite a potentially long learning curve and high associated procedural costs. The present review article summarizes the available literature and evidence on the respective procedures focused on their use for indications of malignancy.

Current state of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery

The growth in minimally invasive pancreatic surgery (MIPS) has been accompanied by a recent surge in evidence-based data available to analyze patient outcomes. A small complement of randomized control trials as well as a multitude of observational studies have demonstrated both consistent similarities and differences between MIPS and the open approach, although abundant questions remain. This review highlights the available literature and emphasizes key factors for evaluating laparoscopic and robotic pancreatic surgery.

Risk factors and outcomes of conversion in minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy: a systematic review

Purpose

The reported conversion rates for minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) range widely from 2 to 38%. The identification of risk factors for conversion may help surgeons during preoperative planning and patient counseling. Moreover, the impact of conversion on outcomes of MIDP is unknown.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted as part of the 2019 Miami International Evidence-Based Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreas Resection (IG-MIPR). The PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases were searched for studies concerning conversion to open surgery in MIDP.

Results

Of the 828 studies screened, eight met the eligibility criteria, resulting in a combined dataset including 2592 patients after MIDP. The overall conversion rate was 17.1% (range 13.0–32.7%) with heterogeneity between studies associated with the definition of conversion adopted. Only one study divided conversion into elective and emergency conversion. The main indications for conversion were vascular involvement (23.7%), concern for oncological radicality (21.9%), and bleeding (18.9%). The reported risk factors for conversion included a malignancy as an indication for surgery, the proximity of the tumor to vascular structures in preoperative imaging, higher BMI or visceral fat, and multi-organ resection or extended resection. Contrasting results were seen in terms of blood loss and length of stay in comparing converted MIDP and completed MIDP patients.

Conclusion

The identified risk factors for conversion from this study can be used for patient selection and counseling. Surgeon experience should be considered when contemplating MIDP for a complex patient. Future studies should divide conversion into elective and emergency conversion.

The influence of the preoperative thickness of the abdominal cavity on the gastrojejunal anatomic position and delayed gastric emptying after pancreatoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

We aimed to investigate the hypothesis that preoperative thickness of the abdominal cavity influenced on the gastrojejunostomy position and the incidence of delayed gastric emptying (DGE) after pancreatoduodenectomy.

METHODS

Between January 2009 and December 2018, consecutive patients who underwent subtotal stomach-preserving pancreatoduodenectomy were retrospectively reviewed. Thickness of the abdominal cavity at the level of the celiac axis (TACC) and umbilicus (TACU) were measured using computed tomography before surgery. The ventral deviation of the gastrojejunostomy was evaluated as the sagittal fundus anastomotic angle (SFAA) using sagittal computed tomography images taken after surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 281 patients were included. Of these, clinically relevant DGE (CR-DGE) was observed in 47 patients. TACC was significantly correlated with SFAA (R = 0.53, P < 0.001). Both TACC and SFAA were significantly greater in patients with CR-DGE compared to those without CR-DGE. In contrast, TACU was not associated with SFAA and the incidence of CR-DGE. Multivariate analysis revealed that TACC >110 mm (odds ratio, 3.07; p = 0.002) and pancreatic fistula (odds ratio, 2.71; p = 0.013) were identified as independent risk factors for CR-DGE.

CONCLUSION

Thickness of the upper abdominal cavity had a significant influence on gastrojejunal anatomic position and the development of CR-DGE after pancreatoduodenectomy.

Adoption of Robotic Liver, Pancreatic and Biliary Surgery in Singapore: A Single Institution Experience with Its First 100 Consecutive Cases

Introduction: Presently, robotic hepatopancreatobiliary surgery (RHPBS) is increasingly adopted worldwide. This study reports our experience with the first 100 consecutive cases of RHPBS in Singapore. Methods: Retrospective review of a single-institution prospective database of the first 100 consecutive RHPBS performed over 6 years from February 2013 to February 2019. Eighty-six cases were performed by a single surgeon. Results: The 100 consecutive cases included 24 isolated liver resections, 48 pancreatic surgeries (including 2 bile duct resections) and 28 biliary surgeries (including 8 with concomitant liver resections). They included 10 major hepatectomies, 15 pancreaticoduodenectomies, 6 radical resections for gallbladder carcinoma and 8 hepaticojejunostomies. The median operation time was 383 minutes, with interquartile range (IQR) of 258 minutes and there were 2 open conversions. The median blood loss was 200ml (IQR 350ml) and 15 patients required intra-operative blood transfusion. There were no post-operative 90-day nor in-hospital mortalities but 5 patients experienced major (> grade 3a) morbidities. The median post-operative stay was 6 days (IQR 5 days) and there were 12 post-operative 30-day readmissions. Comparison between the first 50 and the subsequent 50 patients demonstrated a significant reduction in blood loss, significantly lower proportion of malignant indications, and a decreasing frequency in liver resections performed. Conclusion: Our experience with the first 100 consecutive cases of RHPBS confirms its feasibility and safety when performed by experienced laparoscopic hepatopancreatobiliary surgeons. It can be performed for even highly complicated major hepatopancreatobiliary surgery with a low open conversion rate. Keywords: Biliary surgery, hepaticojejunostomy, liver resection, pancreas, pancreaticoduodenectomy

Comparison of 3 Minimally Invasive Methods Versus Open Distal Pancreatectomy: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

The efficacy and safety of open distal pancreatectomy (DP), laparoscopic DP, robot-assisted laparoscopic DP, and robotic DP have not been established. The authors aimed to comprehensively compare these 4 surgical methods using a network meta-analysis.

Safety and Feasibility of Robotic Reduced-Port Distal Pancreatectomy: a Multicenter Experience of a Novel Technique

BACKGROUND

A reduced-port approach including single-site surgery has been used for distal pancreatectomy. However, triangulation is difficult in reduced-port laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy, and instrument crowding, and collision may occur, so this approach has not been widely used. Recently, an innovative technique for distal pancreatectomy using a robotic single-site surgical system was introduced. Herein, we evaluate the safety and feasibility of this technique.

METHODS

Twenty-seven patients with a pancreatic tail mass underwent robotic single-site plus one-port distal pancreatectomy at six centers. We collected clinicopathologic data and evaluated the short-term perioperative outcomes of robotic single-site plus one-port distal pancreatectomy.

RESULTS

We evaluated 26 patients who underwent robotic single-site plus one-port distal pancreatectomy excluding one patient who needed more ports because of fatty abdomen. The mean age and body mass index were 47.3 years (range 21-74) and 22.6 kg/m² (range 15.8-28.8), respectively. The most common pathologic diagnosis was solid papillary neoplasm followed by a neuroendocrine tumor. The mean operating time was 201 min. The mean length of hospital stay after surgery was 7 days (range 4-10). The rate of spleen preservation was 34.6% (9/26). Six patients had postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) grade A, and no patients had POPF grade B or C. Only one patient had class II morbidity.

CONCLUSION

Robotic single-site plus one-port distal pancreatectomy is safe and feasible in terms of short-term outcomes. This technique could be performed in select cases to expand the surgical boundaries of the robotic single-site platform. Further studies are needed with more cases to investigate long-term outcomes.

A single institution experience with robotic and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies

Backgrounds/Aims

This study aims to describe our experience with minimally-invasive distal pancreatectomies, with emphasis on the comparison between robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP).

Methods

Retrospective review of 102 consecutive RDP and LDP from 2006 to 2019 was performed.

Results

There were 27 and 75 patients who underwent RDP and LDP, respectively. There were 12 (11.8%) open conversions and 16 (15.7%) patients had major (>grade 2) morbidities. Patients who underwent RDP had significantly higher rates of splenic preservation (44.4% vs. 13.3%, p=0.002), higher rates of splenic-vessel preservation (40.7% vs. 9.3%, p=0.001), higher median difficulty score (5 vs. 3, p=0.002) but longer operation time (385 vs. 245 minutes, p<0.001). The rate of open conversion tended to be lower with RDP (3.7% vs. 14.7%, p=0.175).

Conclusions

In our institution practice, both RDP and LDP were safe and effective. The use of RDP appeared to be complementary to LDP, allowing us to perform more difficult procedures with comparable postoperative outcomes.

100 Robotic Distal Pancreatectomies: The Future at Hand

INTRODUCTION

This study was undertaken to examine 100 consecutive robotic distal pancreatectomies with splenectomies, and to compare our outcomes to predicted outcomes as calculated using the American college of surgeons national surgical quality improvement program (ACS NSQIP) Surgical Risk Calculator and to the outcomes contained within NSQIP.

METHODS

Outcomes were compared with predicted outcomes, calculated using the ACS NSQIP Surgical Risk Calculator, and with outcomes documented in NSQIP for distal pancreatectomy. For illustrative purposes, data are presented as median (mean ± SD).

RESULTS

Patients who underwent robotic distal pancreatectomy were of age 67 (63 ± 13.4) years with a BMI of 29 (29 ± 6.3) kg/m², with 49% being women. Operative duration was 242 (265 ± 112.2) minutes and estimated blood loss was 110 (211 ± 233.9) mL. Predicted outcomes were similar to those reported in NSQIP. Our actual outcomes were significantly superior to the predicted outcomes for serious complication, any complication, surgical site infection, sepsis, and length of stay. Compared to NSQIP outcomes, our actual outcomes for serious complication, any complication, surgical site infection, sepsis, and delayed gastric emptying were significantly superior. Twelve percent of operations were converted to "open." There were 3 deaths within 30 days, similar to predicted outcomes. Deaths were due to sepsis (2) and respiratory failure (1).

CONCLUSION

Our patients' predicted outcomes were the same as national outcomes; our patients were not a select group. However, their actual outcomes were like or significantly superior than those predicted by NSQIP or reported in NSQIP. We believe that the robot has the future of distal pancreatectomy with or without splenectomy.

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

Conversion to open laparotomy during laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: lessons from a single-center experience in 70 consecutive patients

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to determine the factors influencing conversion from laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) to open surgery, and the effect of such conversion on the outcome.

METHODS

This retrospective single-center study included 70 consecutive patients undergoing LDP. The primary endpoint was the rate of conversion to open surgery during LDP. The secondary endpoints were determining the reasons for conversion to open surgery, with detailed analyses of these cases and a comparison of the surgical outcome with and without conversion.

RESULTS

Seven patients (10%) required conversion to open surgery during LDP. Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) was identified as a risk factor for conversion (p = 0.010). The reasons for conversion included technical difficulty (two bleeding, one severe adhesion) and pancreatic stump-related issues (two margin-positive, two stapling failures). Although the overall morbidity rate (29 vs. 11%, p = 0.48) and the rate of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (14 vs. 5%, p = 0.82) were no different for the patients with or without open conversion, the postoperative hospital stay was significantly longer in the former (median 15 vs. 10 days, p = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Careful preoperative assessment is required when planning LDP for PDAC. Although conversion to open surgery does not result in failure of LDP, efforts to reduce the duration of postoperative hospital stay and the occurrence of complications are desirable to improve the outcome of LDP.

Handheld robotic needle holder training: slower but better

BACKGROUND

Handheld robotic laparoscopic instruments fill the gap between robotic and conventional instruments, combining the advantages of degrees of freedom and low price. The difficulty and value in learning these new instruments require detailed investigation.

METHODS

Forty novice surgeons with no laparoscopic experience were randomly assigned to two groups: conventional instrument group (Group Conv) and robotic instrument group (Group Rob). The same training protocol was used in both groups: after viewing a standard operation film, laparoscopic suture training was administered using the corresponding instruments. After each training period, surgeons were tested using a force-sensing test platform. Maximum force (MF) and impulse (IMP) of operators through each ring were recorded. Learning curves based on MF and IMP for both instruments were compared. Institutional review board approval is not needed for this study.

RESULTS

MF and IMP of both groups decreased with increased training time; the learning curve of Group Conv decreased faster than that of Group Rob. When training time reached 13 h, the MF of Group Rob was significantly lower than that of Group Conv (P < 0.05), while IMP showed no significant difference between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Effective training reduces operator MF and IMP, possibly decreasing damage to tissues with both conventional and handheld robotic needle holders. Group Rob took longer to reach a plateau, but subsequently had lower suture tension than did Group Conv. MF is more sensitive than IMP for measuring performance progress.

Up-to-date comparison of robotic-assisted versus open distal pancreatectomy: A PRISMA-compliant meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Although robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RADP) has been successfully performed since 2003, its advantages over open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) are still uncertain. The objective of this meta-analysis is to compare the clinical and oncologic safety and efficacy of RADP vs ODP.

METHODS

Multiple databases (PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library) were searched to identify studies that compare the outcomes of RADP and ODP (up to February, 2020). Fixed and random effects models were applied according to different conditions.

RESULTS

A total of 7 studies from high-volume robotic surgery centers comprising 2264 patients were included finally. Compared with ODP, RADP was associated with lower estimated blood loss, lower blood transfusion rate, lower postoperative mortality rate, and shorter length of hospital stay. No significant difference was observed in operating time, the number of lymph nodes harvested, positive margin rate, spleen preservation rate, rate of severe morbidity, incidence of postoperative pancreatic fistula, and severe postoperative pancreatic fistula (grade B and C) between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

With regard to perioperative outcomes, RADP is a safe and feasible alternative to ODP in centers with expertise in robotic surgery. However, the evidence is limited and more randomized controlled trials are needed to further clearly define this role.

Critical Appraisal of the Impact of Individual Surgeon Experience on the Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Distal Pancreatectomies: Collective Experience of Multiple Surgeons at a Single Institution

BACKGROUND

Presently, there are limited studies analyzing the learning experience of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomies (MIDPs) and these frequently focused on a single surgeon or institution learning curve. This study aims to critically analyze the impact of individual surgeon experience on the outcomes of MIDP based on the collective experiences of multiple surgeons at a single institution.

METHODS

A retrospective review of 90 consecutive MIDP from 2006 to 2018 was performed. These cases were performed by 13 surgeons over various time periods. The cohort was stratified into 4 groups according to individual surgeon experience. The case experience of these surgeons was as follows: <5 cases (n=8), 6 to 10 cases (n=2), 11 to 15 cases (n=2), and 30 cases (n=1).

RESULTS

The distribution of the 90 cases were as follows: experience <5 cases (n=44), 6 to 10 cases (n=20), 11 to 15 cases (n=11), and 15 cases (n=15). As individual surgeons gained increasing experience, this was significantly associated with increasingly difficult resections performed, increased frequency of the use of robotic assistance and decreasing open conversion rates (20.5% vs. 100% vs. 9.1% vs. 0%, P=0.038). There was no significant difference in other perioperative outcomes. These findings suggest that the outcomes of MIDP in terms of open conversion rate could be optimized after 15 cases. Subset analyses suggested that the learning curve for MIDP of low difficulty was only 5 cases.

CONCLUSION

MIDP can be safely adopted today and the individual surgeon learning curve for MIDP of all difficulties in terms of open conversion rate can be overcome after 15 cases.

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 retrospective comparison of robotic versus laparoscopic distal resection and enucleation for potentially benign pancreatic neoplasms

PURPOSE

The present study aimed to compare robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic distal pancreatic resection and enucleation for potentially benign pancreatic neoplasms.

METHODS

Patients were retrieved from a prospectively maintained database. Demographic data, tumor types, and the perioperative outcomes were retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

In a 10-year period, 75 patients (female, n = 44; male, n = 31; median age, 53 years [range, 9-84 years]) were identified. The majority of patients had pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (n = 39, 52%) and cystic neoplasms (n = 23, 31%) with a median tumor size of 17 (3-60) mm. Nineteen (25.3%) patients underwent enucleation (robotic, n = 11; laparoscopic, n = 8) and 56 (74.7%) patients underwent distal pancreatic resection (robotic, n = 24; laparoscopic, n = 32), of those 48 (85%) underwent spleen-preserving procedures. Eight (10.7%) procedures had to be converted to open surgery. The rate of vessel preservation in distal pancreatectomy was significantly higher in robotic-assisted procedures (62.5% vs. 12.5%, p = 0.01). Twenty-six (34.6%) patients experienced postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo grade > 3). Twenty (26.7%) patients developed a pancreatic fistula type B. There was no mortality. After a median follow-up period of 58 months (range 2-120 months), one patient (1.3%) developed local recurrence (glucagonoma) after enucleation, which was treated with a Whipple procedure.

CONCLUSION

The robotic approach is comparably safe, but increases the rate of splenic vessel preservation and reduces the risk of conversion to open surgery.

Meta-analysis of short-term outcomes comparing robot-assisted and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy

Aim: To evaluate and compare the short-term outcomes of robotic surgery and laparoscopic approach in distal pancreatectomy (DP). Materials & methods: EMBASE, PubMed, the Cochrane Library, CNKI and Wan Fang database were retrieved from the inception of electronic databases to June 2019. All analyses were performed using Stata/SE 15.1 version (StataCorp). Results: Twenty-two papers were included, four of which were prospective studies and the rest were retrospective studies. There was significant difference in spleen preservation rate (odds ratio: 2.020; 95% CI: 1.085-3.758; p = 0.027), operation time (mean difference [MD]: 27.372; 95% CI: 8.236-47.210; p = 0.000), the length of hospital stay (MD: -0.911; 95% CI: -1.287 to -0.535; p = 0.000), conversion rate (rate difference: -0.090; 95% CI: -1.287 to -0.535; p = 0.000), operation cost (MD: 2816.564; 95% CI: 1782.028-3851.064; p = 0.000). However, no significant difference was detected in estimated blood loss, total complication, severe complication, lymph nodules harvest, blood transfusion rate, total pancreatic fistula, severe pancreatic fistula, R0 resection rate and mortality. Conclusion: Both robotic and laparoscopic DP are safe and feasible. Although robotic DP increases the operation cost, the spleen-preserving rate is much higher. Robotic surgery may be an alternative approach to DP.

Outcomes of Elective and Emergency Conversion in Minimally Invasive Distal Pancreatectomy for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: An International Multicenter Propensity Score-matched Study

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of conversion during minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) on outcome by a propensity-matched comparison with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP).

BACKGROUND

MIDP is associated with faster recovery as compared with ODP. The high conversion rate (15%-25%) in patients with PDAC, however, is worrisome and may negatively influence outcome.

METHODS

A post hoc analysis of a retrospective cohort including distal pancreatectomies for PDAC from 34 centers in 11 countries. Patients requiring conversion were matched, using propensity scores, to ODP procedures (1:2 ratio). Indications for conversion were classified as elective conversions (eg, vascular involvement) or emergency conversions (eg, bleeding).

RESULTS

Among 1212 distal pancreatectomies for PDAC, 345 patients underwent MIDP, with 68 (19.7%) conversions, mostly elective (n = 46, 67.6%). Vascular resection (other than splenic vessels) was required in 19.1% of the converted procedures. After matching (61 MIDP-converted vs 122 ODP), conversion did not affect R-status, recurrence of cancer, nor overall survival. However, emergency conversion was associated with increased overall morbidity (61.9% vs 31.1%, P= 0.007) and a trend to worse oncological outcome compared with ODP. Elective conversion was associated with comparable overall morbidity.

CONCLUSIONS

Elective conversion in MIDP for PDAC was associated with comparable short-term and oncological outcomes in comparison with ODP. However, emergency conversions were associated with worse both short- and long-term outcomes, and should be prevented by careful patient selection, awareness of surgeons' learning curve, and consideration of early conversion when unexpected intraoperative findings are encountered.