A policy of omitting an intensive care unit stay after robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy is safe and cost-effective

Clinical impact of lactate on postoperative pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy: A single-center retrospective study of 1,043 patients

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

Several hemodynamic markers have been studied to predict postoperative complication which is a risk factor for poor quality of life and prognosis. The aim of this study was to determine whether postoperative lactate clearance could affect clinical outcome based on complications in one surgical patient group.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed data from all patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) at Samsung Medical Center from January 2015 to December 2019. Differences in baseline characteristics of patients, intraoperative outcome, and postoperative outcome were evaluated according to the presence or absence of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF).

RESULTS

Among a total of 1107 patients, 1043 patients were tested for arterial lactate levels immediately after surgery, and the day after surgery. Immediately postoperative hyperlactatemia (lactate ≥2.0 mmol/L) was not related to CR-POPF (P = 0.269). However, immediately postoperative hyperlactatemia with a negative lactic clearance on postoperative day (POD) 1 was related to CR-POPF (P = 0.003). In multivariate analyses, non-pancreatic cancer (hazard ratio (HR): 2.545, P < 0.001), soft pancreatic texture (HR: 1.884, P < 0.001), and postoperative hyperlactatemia with negative lactate clearance on POD 1 (HR: 1.805, P = 0.008) were independent risk factors for CR-POPF.

CONCLUSIONS

Hyperlactatemia with negative lactate clearance after PD, one of the high-risk surgeries requiring postoperative ICU care, is a risk factor for CR-POPF. In case of immediately postoperative hyperlactatemia after PD, lactate clearance with serial lactate level follow-up can be used for achieving the hemodynamic goal to prevent CR-POPF.

Perioperative Outcomes for Centers Routinely Admitting Postoperative Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair to the ICU

BACKGROUND

Intensive care unit (ICU) admission after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) varies across medical centers. We evaluated the association of postoperative ICU use with perioperative and long-term outcomes after EVAR.

STUDY DESIGN

The Vascular Quality Initiative (2003-2019) was queried for index elective EVARs. Included centers were categorized by percentage of patients with EVARs postoperatively admitted to the ICU; routine ICU (rICU) centers as ≥80% ICU admissions and nonroutine ICU (nrICU) centers as ≤20% ICU admissions. Patients admitted preoperatively or with same day discharge were excluded. Perioperative outcomes and survival were compared between rICU and nrICU centers.

RESULTS

Of 45,310 EVARs in the database, 35,617 were performed at rICU or nrICU centers - 5,443 (15.3%) at 71 rICU centers and 30,174 (84.7%) at 200 nrICU centers. Overall, mean age was 73.4 years and 81.6% were male. Postoperative myocardial infarction, pulmonary complications, stroke, leg ischemia, and in-hospital mortality were similar between rICU and nrICU centers (all p > 0.05). Postoperative length of stay (LOS) was prolonged at rICU centers (mean) (2.2 ± 3.6 vs 2 ± 4.2 days, p < 0.001). One-year survival was similar between rICU and nrICU centers, respectively, (94.9% vs 95.4%, p = 0.085). When compared with nrICU centers, rICU centers had similar 1-year mortality risk (hazard ratio [HR] 1.15, 95% CI 0.99-1.34, p = 0.076), but were associated with longer postoperative LOS (means ratio 1.1, 95% CI 1.08-1.13, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Routine ICU use after EVAR was associated with prolonged postoperative LOS, without improved perioperative/long-term morbidity or mortality. Updated care pathways to include postoperative admission to lower acuity care units may reduce costs without compromising care.

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy may offer improved oncologic outcomes over open surgery: a propensity-matched single-institution study

BACKGROUND

The robotic platform in pancreatic disease has gained popularity in the hepatobiliary community due to significant advantages it technically offers over conventional open and laparoscopic techniques. Despite promising initial studies, there remains scant literature on operative and oncologic outcomes of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) for pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

METHODS

A retrospective review evaluated all RPD performed for pancreatic adenocarcinoma from 2008 to 2019 in a single tertiary institution. RPD cases were matched to open cases (OPD) by demographic and oncologic characteristics and outcomes compared using Mann-Whitney U test, log rank tests, and Kaplan-Meier methods.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight RPD cases were matched to 38 OPD. RPD had significantly higher lymph node (LN) yield (21.5 vs 13.5; p = 0.0036) and no difference in operative time or estimated blood loss (EBL). RPD had significantly lower rate of delayed gastric emptying (DGE) (3% vs 32%; p = 0.0009) but no difference in leaks, infections, hemorrhage, urinary retention ,or ileus. RPD had significantly shorter length of stay (LOS) (7.5 vs. 9; p = 0.0209). There were no differences in 30- or 90-day readmissions or 90-day mortality. There was an equivalent R0 resection rate and LN positivity ratio. There was a trend towards improved median overall survival in RPD (30.4 vs. 23.0 months; p = 0.1105) and longer time to recurrence (402 vs. 284 days; p = 0.7471). OPD had two times the local recurrent rate (16% vs. 8%) but no difference in distant recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

While the feasibility and safety of RPD has been demonstrated, the impact on oncologic outcomes had yet to be investigated. We demonstrate that RPD not only offers similar if not superior immediate post-operative benefit by decreasing DGE but more importantly may offer improved oncologic outcomes. The significantly higher LN yield and decreased inflammatory response demonstrated in robotic surgery may improve overall survival.

Multicomponent hospital-led interventions to reduce hospital stay for older adults following elective surgery: a systematic review

Background

Elective older adult inpatient admissions are increasingly common. Older adults are at an elevated risk of adverse events in hospital, potentially increasing with lengthier hospital stay. Hospital-led organisational strategies may optimise hospital stay for elective older adult inpatients.

Objectives

To evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of hospital-led multicomponent interventions to reduce hospital stay for older adults undergoing elective hospital admissions.

Data sources

Seven bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE, Health Management Information Consortium, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and Allied and Complementary Medicine Database) were searched from inception to date of search (August 2017), alongside carrying out of web searches, citation searching, inspecting relevant reviews, consulting stakeholders and contacting authors. This search was duplicated, with an additional cost-filter, to identify cost-effectiveness evidence.

Review methods

Comparative studies were sought that evaluated the effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of relevant interventions in elective inpatients with a mean or median age of ≥ 60 years. Study selection, data extraction and quality assessment were completed independently by two reviewers. The main outcome was length of stay, but all outcomes were considered. Studies were sorted by procedure, intervention and outcome categories. Where possible, standardised mean differences or odds ratios were calculated. Meta-analysis was performed when multiple randomised controlled trials had the same intervention, treatment procedure, comparator and outcome. Findings were explored using narrative synthesis.

Findings

A total of 218 articles were included, with 80 articles from 73 effectiveness studies (n = 26,365 patients) prioritised for synthesis, including 34 randomised controlled trials conducted outside the UK and 39 studies from the UK, of which 12 were randomised controlled trials. Fifteen studies included cost-effectiveness data. The evidence was dominated by enhanced recovery protocols and prehabilitation, implemented to improve recovery from either colorectal surgery or lower limb arthroplasty. Six other surgical categories and four other intervention types were identified. Meta-analysis found that enhanced recovery protocols were associated with 1.5 days’ reduction in hospital stay among patients undergoing colorectal surgery (Cohen’sd = –0.51, 95% confidence interval –0.78 to –0.24;p < 0.001) and with 5 days’ reduction among those undergoing upper abdominal surgery (Cohen’sd = –1.04, 95% confidence interval –1.55 to –0.53;p < 0.001). Evidence from the UK was not pooled (owing to mixed study designs), but it echoed findings from the international literature. Length of stay usually was reduced with intervention or was no different. Other clinical outcomes also improved or were no worse with intervention. Patient-reported outcomes were not frequently reported. Cost and cost-effectiveness evidence came from 15 highly heterogeneous studies and was less conclusive.

Limitations

Studies were usually of moderate or weak quality. Some intervention or treatment types were under-reported or absent. The reporting of variance data often precluded secondary analysis.

Conclusions

Enhanced recovery and prehabilitation interventions were associated with reduced hospital stay without detriment to other clinical outcomes, particularly for patients undergoing colorectal surgery, lower limb arthroplasty or upper abdominal surgery. The impacts on patient-reported outcomes, health-care costs or additional service use are not well known.

Future work

Further studies evaluating of the effectiveness of new enhanced recovery pathways are not required in colorectal surgery or lower limb arthroplasty. However, the applicability of these pathways to other procedures is uncertain. Future studies should evaluate the implementation of interventions to reduce service variation, in-hospital patient-reported outcomes, impacts on health and social care service use, and longer-term patient-reported outcomes.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017080637.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Standardization of perioperative care facilitates safe discharge by postoperative day five after pancreaticoduodenectomy

INTRODUCTION

Pancreaticoduodenectomy is a complex surgical procedure associated with high morbidity and prolonged length of stay. Enhanced recovery after surgery principles have reduced complications rate and length of stay for multiple types of operations. We hypothesized that implementation of a standardized perioperative care pathway would facilitate safe discharge by five days after pancreaticoduodenectomy.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy 18 months prior to and 18 months following implementation of a perioperative care pathway at a quaternary center performing high volume pancreatic surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 145 patients underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy (mean age 63 ± 10 years, 52% female), 81 before and 64 following pathway implementation, and the groups were similar in terms of preoperative comorbidities. The percentage of patients discharged within 5 days of surgery increased from 36% to 64% following pathway implementation (p = 0.001), with no observed differences in post-operative serious adverse events (p = 0.34), pancreatic fistula grade B or C (p = 0.28 and p = 0.27 respectively), or delayed gastric emptying (p = 0.46). Multivariate regression analysis showed length of stay ≤5 days three times more likely after pathway implementation. Rates of readmission within 30 days (20% pre- vs. 22% post-pathway (p = 0.75)) and 90 days (27% pre- vs. 36% post-pathway (p = 0.27)) were unchanged after pathway implementation, and were no different between patients discharged before or after day 5 at both 30 days (19% ≤5 days vs. 23% ≥ 6 days (p = 0.68)) and 90 days (32% ≤5 days vs. 30% ≥ 6 days (p = 0.81)).

CONCLUSIONS

Standardizing perioperative care via enhanced recovery protocols for patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy facilitates safe discharge by post-operative day five.

Comprehensive comparative analysis of cost-effectiveness and perioperative outcomes between open, laparoscopic, and robotic distal pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND

NSQIP data show that half of distal pancreatectomies (DP) are performed by a minimally invasive approach (MIS). Advantages have been demonstrated for MIS DP, yet comparative cost data are limited. Outcomes and cost were compared in patients undergoing open (ODP), laparoscopic (LDP), and robotic (RDP) approaches at a single institution.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed on patients undergoing DP between 1/2010-5/2016. Analysis was intention-to-treat, and cost was available after 1/2013.

RESULTS

DP was performed in 374 patients: ODP = 85, LDP = 93, and RDP = 196. Operating time was lowest in the RDP cohort (p < 0.0001). ODP had higher estimated blood loss (p < 0.0001) and transfusions (p < 0.0001) than LDP and RDP. LDP had greater conversions to open procedures than RDP (p = 0.001). Postoperative outcomes were similar between groups. Length of stay was higher in the ODP group (p = 0.0001) than LDP and RDP. Overall cost for the ODP was higher than the RDP and LDP group (p = 0.002). On multivariate analysis, RDP reduced LOS (ODP: Odds = 6.5 [p = 0.0001] and LDP: Odds = 2.1 [p = 0.036]) and total cost (ODP: Odds = 5.7 [p = 0.002] and LDP: Odds = 2.8 [p = 0.042]) independently of all demographics and illness covariates.

CONCLUSIONS

A robotic approach is associated with reduced length of stay and cost compared to open and laparoscopic procedures.

Drivers of Cost for Pancreatic Surgery: It's Not About Hospital Volume

BACKGROUND

Outcomes for pancreatic resection have been studied extensively due to the high morbidity and mortality rates, with high-volume centers achieving superior outcomes. Ongoing investigations include healthcare costs, given the national focus on reducing expenditures. Therefore, we sought to evaluate the relationships between pancreatic surgery costs with perioperative outcomes and volume status.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of 27,653 patients who underwent elective pancreatic resections from October 2013 to June 2017 using the Vizient database. Costs were calculated from charges using cost-charge ratios and adjusted for geographic variation. Generalized linear modeling adjusting for demographic, clinical, and operation characteristics was performed to assess the relationships between cost and length of stay, complications, in-hospital mortality, readmissions, and hospital volume. High-volume centers were defined as hospitals performing ≥ 19 operations annually.

RESULTS

The unadjusted mean cost for pancreatic resection and corresponding hospitalization was $20,352. There were no differences in mean costs for pancreatectomies performed at high- and low-volume centers [- $1175, 95% confidence interval (CI) - $3254 to $904, p = 0.27]. In subgroup analysis comparing adjusted mean costs at high- and low-volume centers, there was no difference among patients without an adverse outcome (- $99, 95% CI - $1612 to 1414, p = 0.90), one or more adverse outcomes (- $1586, 95% CI - $4771 to 1599, p = 0.33), or one or more complications (- $2835, 95% CI - $7588 to 1919, p = 0.24).

CONCLUSIONS

While high-volume hospitals have fewer adverse outcomes, there is no relationship between surgical volume and costs, which suggests that, in itself, surgical volume is not an indicator of improved healthcare efficiency reflected by lower costs. Patient referral to high-volume centers may not reduce overall healthcare expenditures for pancreatic operations.

[Robotic pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy : Video article]

Pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy is one of the most complex procedures in general surgery. Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy was initially described in 1994; however, its worldwide distribution is so far limited to only a few specialist centers. Robotic surgery using the DaVinci® system can overcome many limitations of laparoscopic surgery. The system is a promising tool for a more widespread introduction of minimally invasive surgery for pancreatic diseases. Mortality rates of 0-5% and pancreatic fistula rates of 0-35% are described in the literature; therefore, thorough complication management is crucial in the postoperative course. The video presents a robotic pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary carcinoma in a female patient.

Joint consensus on abdominal robotic surgery and anesthesia from a task force of the SIAARTI and SIC

Minimally invasive surgical procedures have revolutionized the world of surgery in the past decades. While laparoscopy, the first minimally invasive surgical technique to be developed, is widely used and has been addressed by several guidelines and recommendations, the implementation of robotic-assisted surgery is still hindered by the lack of consensus documents that support healthcare professionals in the management of this novel surgical procedure. Here we summarize the available evidence and provide expert opinion aimed at improving the implementation and resolution of issues derived from robotic abdominal surgery procedures. A joint task force of Italian surgeons, anesthesiologists and clinical epidemiologists reviewed the available evidence on robotic abdominal surgery. Recommendations were graded according to the strength of evidence. Statements and recommendations are provided for general issues regarding robotic abdominal surgery, operating theatre organization, preoperative patient assessment and preparation, intraoperative management, and postoperative procedures and discharge. The consensus document provides evidence-based recommendations and expert statements aimed at improving the implementation and management of robotic abdominal surgery.

Robotic vascular resections during Whipple procedure

Indications for resection of pancreatic cancers have evolved to include selected patients with involvement of peri-pancreatic vascular structures. Open Whipple procedures have been the standard approach for patients requiring reconstruction of the portal vein (PV) or superior mesenteric vein (SMV). Recently, high-volume centers are performing minimally invasive Whipple procedures with portovenous resections. Our institution has performed seventy robotic Whipple procedures with concomitant vascular resections. This report outlines our technique.

Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary disease: a comprehensive review of literature and meta-analysis of outcomes compared with open surgery

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) has been gradually attempted. However, whether MIPD is superior, equal or inferior to its conventional open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) is not clear.

METHODS

Studies published up to May 2017 were searched in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Main outcomes were comprehensively reviewed and measured including conversion to open approach, operation time (OP), estimated blood loss (EBL), transfusion, length of hospital stay (LOS), overall complications, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), delayed gastric emptying (DGE), post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), readmission, reoperation and reasons of preoperative death, number of retrieved lymph nodes (RLN), surgical margins, recurrence, and survival. The software of Review Manage version 5.1 was used for meta-analysis.

RESULTS

One hundred studies were included for systematic review and 26 out of them (totally 3402 cases, 1064 for MIPD, 2338 for OPD) were included for meta-analysis. In the early years, most articles were case reports or non-control case series studies, while in the last 6 years high-volume and comparative researches were increasing gradually. Systematic review revealed conversion rates of MIPD to OPD ranged from 0% to 40%. The mean or median OP of MIPD ranged from 276 to 657 min. The total POPF rates vary between 3.8% and 50% observed in all systematic reviewed studies. Meta-analysis demonstrated MIPD had longer OP (WMD = 99.4 min; 95%CI: 46.0 ~ 152.8, P < 0.01), lower blood loss (WMD = -0.54 ml; 95% CI, -0.88 ~ -0.20 ml; P < 0.01), lower transfusion rate (RR = 0.73, 95%CI: 0.57 ~ 0.94, P = 0.02), shorter LOS (WMD = -3.49 days; 95%CI: -4.83 ~ -2.15, P < 0.01). There was no significant difference in time to oral intake, postoperative complications, POPF, reoperation, readmission, perioperative mortality and number of retrieved lymph nodes.

CONCLUSION

Our study demonstrates MIPD is technically feasible and safety on the basis of historical studies. MIPD is associated with less blood loss, faster postoperative recovery, shorter length of hospitalization and longer operation time. These findings are waiting for being confirmed with robust prospective comparative studies and randomized clinical trials.

[Minimally invasive and robot-assisted surgery for pancreatic cystic tumors]

BACKGROUND

The indications for resection of pancreatic cystic lesions (PCL) are often complex and the operative risk has to be balanced against the risk of malignant transformation. The aim of the study was to provide a synopsis of the current treatment results of minimally invasive surgery for PCL.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed using the Medline database (PubMed). Subsequently, the retrieved literature was selectively reviewed.

RESULTS

No published prospective randomized controlled trials have yet addressed the comparison of open and minimally invasive surgery of PCL; however, retrospective case studies have demonstrated the feasibility, safety and a comparable morbidity after minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (DP), pancreatoduodenectomy (PD), central (CP) or total pancreatectomy and enucleation. Whereas most DPs are performed laparoscopically, the experience of minimally invasive PD has been consolidated for the robot-assisted approach but is concentrated in only a few centers. The number of published reports on minimally invasive organ-sparing pancreas procedures (e. g. CP or enucleation) for PCL is scarce; however, the available (selected) results are promising.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive surgery for PCL has the potential to reduce the operative trauma to the patients, while at the same time causing comparable or less morbidity. This requires an increasing specialization of complex minimally invasive resections. The clinical use of robotic systems will grow for the latter cases. A prospective registry of the results should be mandatory for quality management.

Total robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a systematic review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is a complex operation with high perioperative morbidity and mortality, even in the highest volume centers. Since the development of the robotic platform, the number of reports on robotic-assisted pancreatic surgery has been on the rise. This article reviews the current state of completely robotic PD.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed including studies published between January 2000 and July 2016 reporting PDs in which all procedural steps (dissection, resection and reconstruction) were performed robotically.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria, including a total of 738 patients. Data regarding perioperative outcomes such as operative time, blood loss, mortality, morbidity, conversion and oncologic outcomes were analyzed. No major differences were observed in mortality, morbidity and oncologic parameters, between robotic and non-robotic approaches. However, operative time was longer in robotic PD, whereas the estimated blood loss was lower. The conversion rate to laparotomy was 6.5-7.8%.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic PD is feasible and safe in high-volume institutions, where surgeons are experienced and medical staff are appropriately trained. Randomized controlled trials are required to further investigate outcomes of robotic PD. Additionally, cost analysis and data on long-term oncologic outcomes are needed to evaluate cost-effectiveness of the robotic approach in comparison with the open technique.

[Robot-assisted pancreatic resection]

Although robot-assisted pancreatic surgery has been considered critically in the past, it is nowadays an established standard technique in some centers, for distal pancreatectomy and pancreatic head resection. Compared with the laparoscopic approach, the use of robot-assisted surgery seems to be advantageous for acquiring the skills for pancreatic, bile duct and vascular anastomoses during pancreatic head resection and total pancreatectomy. On the other hand, the use of the robot is associated with increased costs and only highly effective and professional robotic programs in centers for pancreatic surgery will achieve top surgical and oncological quality, acceptable operation times and a reduction in duration of hospital stay. Moreover, new technologies, such as intraoperative fluorescence guidance and augmented reality will define additional indications for robot-assisted pancreatic surgery.