The role of robotics in widening the range of application of minimally invasive surgery for pancreaticoduodenectomy

Impact of hepatic artery variation on surgical and oncological outcomes in robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

In patients with hepatic artery variation (HAV), feasibility and justification of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) for periampullary lesions have been not been well established.

METHODS

A total of 600 patients with periampullary lesions receiving RPD or open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) were identified from our prospectively collected computer database. Surgical outcomes, oncological radicality, and survival outcomes after RPD in HAV ( +) and (-) patients were compared.

RESULTS

The incidence of HAV was 16%, including 12.7% in patients with RPD and 23.0% in those with OPD. In the HAV ( +) group, vascular injury rate had no statistical difference between the RPD (3.7%) and OPD (9.1%) patients, P = 0.404. Among the RPD patients, those with HAV ( +) had longer operation time (8.5 ± 2.5 vs. 7.7 ± 2.0 h, P = 0.013) and higher vascular injury (3.8% vs. 0.6%, P = 0.024) when compared with the HAV (-) patients. There was no significant difference between the HAV ( +) and (-) patients with RPD regarding blood loss, open conversion, vascular resection, and surgical mortality and morbidity. There was no survival difference between the HAV ( +) and (-) patients with pancreatic head adenocarcinoma after RPD. There was no survival difference between RPD and OPD in the HAV ( +) group.

CONCLUSIONS

When compared with OPD, RPD is feasible and justifiable without increasing vascular injury rate for patients with HAV ( +). Hepatic artery variation has no negative impact on surgical, oncological, and survival outcomes following an RPD, if it is accurately identified pre-operatively and appropriately managed intraoperatively.

Minimally Invasive Pancreaticoduodenectomy in Elderly versus Younger Patients: A Meta-Analysis

(1) Background: With ageing, the number of pancreaticoduodenectomies (PD) for benign or malignant disease is expected to increase in elderly patients. However, whether minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) should be performed in the elderly is not clear yet and it is still debated. (2) Materials and Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted including seven published articles comparing the technical and post-operative outcomes of MIPD in elderly versus younger patients up to December 2022. (3) Results: In total, 1378 patients were included in the meta-analysis. In term of overall and Clavien-Dindo I/II complication rates, post-operative pancreatic fistula (POPF) grade > A rates and biliary leakage, abdominal collection, post-operative bleeding and delayed gastric emptying rates, no differences emerged between the two groups. However, this study showed slightly higher intraoperative blood loss [MD 43.41, (95%CI 14.45, 72.38) p = 0.003], Clavien-Dindo ≥ III complication rates [OR 1.87, (95%CI 1.13, 3.11) p = 0.02] and mortality rates [OR 2.61, (95%CI 1.20, 5.68) p = 0.02] in the elderly compared with the younger group. Interestingly, as a minor endpoint, no differences in terms of the mean number of harvested lymphnode and of R0 resection rates were found. (4) Conclusion: MIPD seems to be relatively safe; however, there are slightly higher major morbidity, lung complication and mortality rates in elderly patients, who potentially represent the individuals that may benefit the most from the minimally invasive approach.

Laparoscopic Pancreaticodudenectomy for Periampullary Tumor: Should it be a Routine? A Propensity Score-matched Study

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) is a complex and challenging procedure even with experienced surgeons. The aim of this study is to evaluate the feasibility and surgical and oncological outcomes of LPD compared with open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD).

PATIENTS AND METHOD

This is a propensity score-matched analysis for patients with periampullary tumors who underwent PD. Patients underwent LPD and matched group underwent OPD included in the study. The primary outcome measure was the rate of total postoperative morbidities. Secondary outcomes included operative times, hospital stay, wound length and cosmosis, oncological outcomes, recurrence rate, and survival rate.

RESULTS

A total of 111 patients were included in the study (37 LPD and 74 OPD). The conversion rate from LPD to OPD was 4 cases (10.8%). LPD provides significantly shorter hospital stay (7 vs. 10 d; P=0.004), less blood loss (250 vs. 450 mL, P=0.001), less postoperative pain, early oral intake, and better cosmosis. The length of the wound is significantly shorter in LPD. The operative time needed for dissection and reconstruction was significantly longer in LPD group (420 vs. 300 min; P=0.0001). Both groups were comparable as regards lymph node retrieved (15 vs. 14; P=0.21) and R0 rate (86.5% vs. 83.8%; P=0.6). No significant difference was seen as regards postoperative morbidities, re-exploration, readmission, recurrence, and survival rate.

CONCLUSIONS

LPD is a feasible procedure; it provided a shorter hospital stay, less blood loss, earlier oral intake, and better cosmosis than OPD. It had the same postoperative complications and oncological outcomes as OPD.

Long-term survival following minimally invasive extended cholecystectomy for gallbladder cancer: A 7-year experience from the National Cancer Database

BACKGROUND

Open extended cholecystectomy (O-EC) has long been the recommended treatment for resectable gallbladder cancer (GBC), while the minimally-invasive approach for EC (MIS-EC) remains controversial. Our aim was to analyze overall survival of GBC patients treated with MIS-EC vs O-EC at the national level.

METHODS

A retrospective review of the National Cancer Database of patients with resectable GBC (2010-2016) and treated with either MIS-EC or O-EC was performed. Overall survival (OS) was compared by the surgical approach.

RESULTS

A total of 680 patients were identified, of whom 235 (34.6%) underwent MIS-EC. There were no differences in the rates of positive margins between MIS-EC and O-EC (14% vs 19%, respectively; P = .278), and in the mean lymph node yield (6.54 vs 6.66, respectively; P = .914). The median survival following MIS-EC was significantly higher than that of O-EC (39 vs 26 months; P = .048). After stratification by pathological stage and after adjustment, there was no significant difference in OS between the groups (HR = 0.9, 95% CI, 0.6-1.5).

CONCLUSION

In this large national cohort, MIS-EC oncologic outcomes were noninferior to the O-EC. Proficiency with MIS techniques, proper patient selection, and referral to specialized centers may allow a greater benefit from this treatment modality.

Operative results and patient satisfaction after robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

There are no reports available on patient satisfaction and quality-of-life after robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD). This study aimed to evaluate not only surgical outcomes but also patient satisfaction after RPD.

METHODS

Prospectively collected data for RPD were analyzed for surgical outcomes. Questionnaires were sent to patients to assess patient satisfaction regarding RPD.

RESULTS

The study included 105 patients who underwent RPD, with 44 (41.9%) patients presenting with associated surgical complications. There were no significant differences between the without and with complication groups in median console time (390 min. Vs. 373 min.), blood loss (100 mL vs. 100 mL), and harvested lymph node number (14 vs. 15). There was no surgical mortality in this study. Major complications ≥ Clavien-Dindo III occurred in 7.6% of the total 105 RPD patients. The most common complication was chyle leakage (18.1%), followed by postoperative pancreatic fistula (5.7%), intra-abdominal abscess (4.8%), delayed gastric emptying (3.8%), and post pancreatectomy hemorrhage (3.8%). Almost all of the patients responded to this RPD-related survey with "fair" to "excellent" grades for all items, except 1 (<1%) poor grade for operation service and 2 (1.9%) "not good" grades for diet tolerance.

CONCLUSIONS

RPD is a feasible procedure with acceptable surgical outcomes. This patient survey with high patient satisfaction rates indicates that RPD provides acceptable satisfaction results, and the robotic approach for a major operation such as RPD has probably a higher priority than cost concerns. RPD could be recommended not only to surgeons but also to patients in terms of surgical outcomes and patient satisfaction.

Robotic Surgery of the Liver and Biliary Tract

BACKGROUND

The laparoscopic methods for major abdominal surgery are gaining increasing acceptance worldwide. Despite its relatively recent introduction in clinical practice, robotics has been accepted as an effective option to perform high-demanding procedures such as those required in hepatobiliary surgery. Some potential advantages over conventional laparoscopy have been suggested, but its actual role in clinical practice is still to be defined.

METHODS

The objective of this work is to critically review the available evidence on the application of robotic surgery to the liver and biliary tract. PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library electronic databases were systematically searched for studies reporting on robotic hepatobiliary surgery with or without comparison with open surgery or conventional laparoscopy.

RESULTS

This review provides a comprehensive snapshot of the current application of the robot to the surgery of the liver and biliary tract. The overall available data show the noninferiority of the robotic system to conventional open and laparoscopic surgery. A number of studies suggest some potential advantages in performing high-demanding procedures in a minimally invasive fashion.

CONCLUSIONS

The robot can be used to perform various types of liver surgeries quite safely and competently, although the lack of randomized control trials, comparing it with open and laparoscopic surgery, precludes the possibility to reach definitive conclusions.

Surgical and oncological outcomes of our first 59 cases of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy

PURPOSE

Robotics has shown encouraging results for a number of technically demanding abdominal surgeries including pancreaticoduodenectomy, which has originally represented a relative contraindication to the application of the minimally-invasive technique. We aimed to investigate the perioperative, clinicopathologic, and oncological outcomes of robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy by assessing a consecutive series of totally robotic procedures.

METHODS

All consecutive patients who underwent robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy were included in the present analysis. Perioperative, clinicopathologic and oncological outcomes were examined. In order to investigate the role of the learning curve, surgical outcomes were also used to compare the early and the late phase of our experience.

RESULTS

A total of 59 patients underwent surgery. Median hospital stay was 9 days (5 - 110), with an overall morbidity and mortality of 37% and 3%, respectively. Of note, the rate of clinically relevant pancreatic fistula was 11.8%. R0 resections were achieved in 96% of patients and the 3-year disease-free and overall survivals were 37.2 and 61.9%, respectively. Overall, surgical outcomes did not vary significantly between the first and the late phase of the series.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy can be performed competently. It satisfies all features of oncological adequacy and may offer a number of advantages over standard procedures in terms of surgical results.

Comparison between robotic and open pancreaticoduodenectomy with modified Blumgart pancreaticojejunostomy: A propensity score-matched study

BACKGROUND

This study is to clarify the feasibility of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy in terms of surgical risks, clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula, and oncologic outcomes compared with open pancreaticoduodenectomy by using propensity score matching. Traditional open pancreaticoduodenectomy and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy have been compared only in small, retrospective, and nonrandomized cohort studies with variable quality.

METHODS

Prospectively collected data for pancreaticoduodenectomy were evaluated. Comparison between robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy and open pancreaticoduodenectomy was carried out after propensity-score matching. A total of 117 robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy and 128 open pancreaticoduodenectomy cases were performed during the study period. After propensity score matching, 87 cases were included for comparison in each cohort.

RESULTS

Longer operation time, less blood loss, more lymph nodes harvested, and less delayed gastric emptying were noted in the robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy cases. We found no significant difference regarding the overall postoperative complications by Clavien-Dindo classification, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage, wound infection rate, and postoperative hospital stay. Clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula was not significantly different between robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy and open pancreaticoduodenectomy, regardless of the Callery risk factor, with overall clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula of 8.0% by robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy and 12.6% by open pancreaticoduodenectomy after propensity score matching. We found no survival difference between robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy and open pancreaticoduodenectomy when the comparison was specifically performed for each primary periampullary malignancy.

CONCLUSION

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy is associated with less blood loss, less delayed gastric emptying, and more lymph node yield. Propensity scored-matched analysis revealed that robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy is not inferior to open pancreaticoduodenectomy in terms of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula, surgical risks, and survival outcomes.

Robotic longitudinal pancreaticojejunostomy for chronic pancreatitis: Comparison of clinical outcomes and cost to the open approach

BACKGROUND

This study compares clinical and cost outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic (RAL) and open longitudinal pancreaticojejunostomy (LPJ) for chronic pancreatitis.

METHODS

Clinical and cost data were retrospectively compared between open and RAL LPJ performed at a single center from 2008-2015.

RESULTS

Twenty-six patients underwent LPJ: 19 open and 7 RAL. Two robot-assisted cases converted to open were included in the open group for analysis. Patients undergoing RAL LPJ had less intraoperative blood loss, a shorter surgical length of stay, and lower medication costs. Operation supply cost was higher in the RAL group. No difference in hospitalization cost was found.

CONCLUSIONS

Versus the open approach, RAL LPJ performed for chronic pancreatitis shortens hospitalization and reduces medication costs; hospitalization costs are equivalent. A higher operative cost for RAL LPJ is mitigated by a shorter hospitalization. Decreased morbidity and healthcare resource economy support use of the robotic approach for LPJ when appropriate.