Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy with vascular resection: Outcomes and learning curve

Effect of surgical approach on early return to intended oncologic therapy after resection for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

Although robotic pancreatectomy may facilitate an earlier functional recovery, the impact of a robotic pancreatectomy program during its early experience on the timing of return to intended oncologic therapy (RIOT) after surgery is unknown.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, we used propensity score matching with a 1:2 ratio to compare patients who underwent robotic or open surgery (distal pancreatectomy or pancreatoduodenectomy) for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) during the first 3 years of our robotic pancreatectomy experience (January 2018-December 2021). Generalized estimating equations modeling was used to evaluate the effect of surgical approach on early RIOT, defined as adjuvant chemotherapy initiation within 8 weeks after surgery, and late RIOT, defined as initiation within 12 weeks after surgery.

RESULTS

The matched cohort included 26 patients who underwent robotic pancreatectomy and 52 patients who underwent open pancreatectomy. Rates of receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy were 96.2% and 78.9%, respectively. Rate of early RIOT in the robotic group (73.1% was higher than that in the open group (44.2%; P = 0.018). In multivariable analysis, a robotic approach was associated with early RIOT (odds ratio, 3.54; 95% confidence interval 1.08-11.62; P = 0.038). Surgical approach did not impact late RIOT (odds ratio, 3.21; 95% confidence interval 0.71-14.38; P = 0.128).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with open pancreatectomy, robotic pancreatectomy did not delay RIOT. In fact, odds of early RIOT were increased, which supports the oncological safety of our robotic pancreatectomy program during its implementation.

Learning curve stratified outcomes after robotic pancreatoduodenectomy: International multicenter experience

BACKGROUND

Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy is increasingly being implemented worldwide, with good results reported from individual expert centers. However, it is unclear to what extent outcomes will continue to improve during the learning curve, as large international studies are lacking.

METHODS

An international retrospective multicenter case series, including consecutive patients after robotic pancreatoduodenectomy from 18 centers in 8 countries in Europe, Asia, and South America until December 31, 2019, was conducted. A cumulative sum analysis was performed to determine the inflection points for the feasibility (operative time and blood loss) and proficiency (postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C and major morbidity) learning curves. Outcomes were compared in 3 groups on the basis of the learning curve inflection points.

RESULTS

Overall, 2,186 patients after robotic pancreatoduodenectomy were included. The feasibility learning curve was reached after 30-45 robotic pancreatoduodenectomy procedures and the proficiency learning curve after 90 robotic pancreatoduodenectomy procedures. These inflection points created 3 phases, which were associated with major morbidity (24.7%, 23.4%, and 12.3%, P < .001) but not 30-day mortality (2.1%, 2.0%, and 1.5%, P = .670). Other outcomes mostly continued to improve, including median operative time 432, 390, and 300 minutes (P < .0001), conversion 6.0%, 4.7%, and 2.7% (P = .002), bile leakage 7.2%, 4.1%, and 2.4% (P < .001), postpancreatectomy hemorrhage 6.5%, 6.1%, and 1.8% (n = 21) but not R0 resection (pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma only) 78.5%, 73.9%, and 82.8% (P = .35), and 90-day mortality rate 3.1%, 3.5%, and 2.1% (P = .191). Centers performing >20 robotic pancreatoduodenectomies annually had lower rates of conversion, reoperation, and shorter median operative time as compared with centers performing 10-20 robotic pancreatoduodenectomies annually.

CONCLUSION

This international multicenter study demonstrates that most outcomes of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy continued to improve during 3 learning curve phases without a negative effect on 90-day mortality. Randomized studies are needed in high-volume centers that have surpassed the first learning curves, to compare these outcomes with the open approach.

New Frontiers in Pancreatic Cancer Management: Current Treatment Options and the Emerging Role of Neoadjuvant Therapy

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) ranks among the 15 most prevalent cancers globally, characterized by aggressive growth and late-stage diagnosis. Advances in imaging and surgical techniques have redefined the classification of pancreatic PDAC into resectable, borderline resectable, and locally advanced pancreatic cancer. While surgery remains the most effective treatment, only 20% of patients are eligible at diagnosis, necessitating innovative strategies to improve outcomes. Therefore, traditional treatment paradigms, primarily surgical resection for eligible patients, are increasingly supplemented by neoadjuvant therapies (NAT), which include chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or a combination of both. By administering systemic therapy prior to surgery, NAT aims to reduce tumor size and increase the feasibility of complete surgical resection, thus enhancing overall survival rates and potentially allowing more patients to undergo curative surgeries. Recent advances in treatment protocols, such as FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine-nab-paclitaxel, now integral to NAT strategies, have shown promising results in increasing the proportion of patients eligible for surgery by effectively reducing tumor size and addressing micrometastatic disease. Additionally, they offer improved response rates and survival benefits compared to traditional regimes. Despite these advancements, the role of NAT continues to evolve, necessitating ongoing research to optimize treatment regimens, minimize adverse effects, and identify patient populations that would benefit most from these approaches. Through a detailed analysis of current literature and recent clinical trials, this review highlights the transformative potential of NAT in managing PDAC, especially in patients with borderline resectable or locally advanced stages, promising a shift towards more personalized and effective management strategies for PDAC.

Robotic Versus Open Pancreatoduodenectomy With Vein Resection and Reconstruction: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

Objective

This study aimed to compare robotic pancreatoduodenectomy with vein resection (PD-VR) based on the incidence of severe postoperative complications (SPC).

Background

Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy has been gaining momentum in recent years. Vein resection is frequently required in this operation, but no study has compared robotic and open PD-VR using a matched analysis.

Methods

This was an intention-to-treat study designed to demonstrate the noninferiority of robotic to open PD-VR (2011-2021) based on SPC. To achieve a power of 80% (noninferiority margin:10%; α error: 0.05; ß error: 0.20), a 1:1 propensity score-matched analysis required 35 pairs.

Results

Of the 151 patients with PD-VR (open = 115, robotic = 36), 35 procedures per group were compared. Elective conversion to open surgery was required in 1 patient with robotic PD-VR (2.9%). One patient in both groups experienced partial vein thrombosis. SPC occurred in 7 (20.0%) and 6 patients (17.1%) in the robotic and open PD-VR groups, respectively (P = 0.759; OR: 1.21 [0.36-4.04]). Three patients died after robotic PD-VR (8.6%) and none died after open PD-VR (P = 0.239). Robotic PD-VR was associated with longer operative time (611.1 ± 13.9 minutes vs 529.0 ± 13.0 minutes; P < 0.0001), more type 2 vein resection (28.6% vs 5.7%; P = 0.0234) and less type 3 vein resection (31.4% vs 71.4%; P = 0.0008), longer vein occlusion time (30 [25.3-78.3] minutes vs 15 [8-19.5] minutes; P = 0.0098), less blood loss (450 [200-750] mL vs 733 [500-1070.3] mL; P = 0.0075), and fewer blood transfusions (intraoperative: 14.3% vs 48.6%; P = 0.0041) (perioperative: 14.3% vs 60.0%; P = 0.0001).

Conclusions

In this study, robotic PD-VR was noninferior to open PD-VR for SPC. Robotic and open PD-VR need to be compared in randomized controlled trials.

Robotic Vascular Resection in Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: A Systematic Review

(1) Background: This study comprehensively compared robotic pancreatic surgery with vascular resection (RPS-VR) to other surgical procedures in the treatment of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). (2) Methods: A systematic review of relevant literature was conducted to assess a range of crucial surgical and oncological outcomes. (3) Results: Findings indicate that robotic surgery with vascular resections (VRs) significantly prolongs the duration of surgery compared to other surgical procedures, and they notably demonstrate an equal hospital stay. While some studies reported a lower conversion rate and a higher rate of blood loss and blood transfusion in the RPS-VR group, others found no significant disparity. Furthermore, RPS-VR consistently correlated with comparable recurrence rates, free margins R0, postoperative mortality, and complication rates. Concerning the last one, certain reviews reported a higher rate of major complications. Overall survival and disease-free survival remained comparable between the RPS-VR and other surgical techniques in treating PDAC. (4) Conclusions: The analysis emphasizes how RPS-VR is a resembling approach in terms of surgical outcomes and aligns with existing literature findings in this field.

Defining the learning curve for robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy for a single surgeon following experience with laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) has a learning curve of approximately 30-250 cases to reach proficiency. The learning curve for laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) at Duke University was previously defined as 50 cases. This study describes the RPD learning curve for a single surgeon following experience with LPD. LPD and RPD were retrospectively analyzed. Continuous pathologic and perioperative metrics were compared and learning curve were defined with respect to operative time using CUSUM analysis. Seventeen LPD and 69 RPD were analyzed LPD had an inverted learning curve possibly accounting for proficiency attained during the surgeon's fellowship and acquisition of new skills coinciding with more complex patient selection. The learning curve for RPD had three phases: accelerated early experience (cases 1-10), skill consolidation (cases 11-40), and improvement (cases 41-69), marked by reduction in operative time. Compared to LPD, RPD had shorter operative time (379 vs 479 min, p < 0.005), less EBL (250 vs 500, p < 0.02), and similar R0 resection. RPD also had improved LOS (7 vs 10 days, p < 0.007), and lower rates of surgical site infection (10% vs 47%, p < 0.002), DGE (19% vs 47%, p < 0.03), and readmission (13% vs 41%, p < 0.02). Experience in LPD may shorten the learning curve for RPD. The gap in surgical quality and perioperative outcomes between LPD and RPD will likely widen as exposure to robotics in General Surgery, Hepatopancreaticobiliary, and Surgical Oncology training programs increase.

Trends in access to minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancers

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD), including robotic (RPD) and laparoscopy (LPD), is becoming more frequently employed in the management of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), though the majority of operations are still performed via open approach (OPD). Access to technologic advances often neglect the underserved. Whether disparities in access to MIPD exist, remain unclear.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was queried (2010-2020) for patients who underwent pancreatoduodenectomy for PDAC. Cochran-Armitage tests assessed for trends over time. Social determinants of health (SDH) were compared between approaches. Multinomial logistic models identified predictors of MIPD.

RESULTS

Of 16,468 patients, 80.03 % underwent OPD and 19.97 % underwent MIPD (22.60 % robotic; 77.40 % laparoscopic). Black race negatively predicted LPD (vs white (OR 0.822; 95 % CI 0.701-0.964)). Predictors of RPD included Medicare/other government insurance (vs uninsured or Medicaid (OR 1.660; 95 % CI 1.123-2.454)) and private insurance (vs uninsured or Medicaid (OR 1.597; 95 % CI 1.090-2.340)). Early (2010-2014) vs late (2015-2020) diagnosis, stratified by race, demonstrated an increase in Non-White patients undergoing OPD (13.15 % vs 14.63 %; p = 0.016), but not LPD (11.41 % vs 13.57 %;p = 0.125) or RPD (14.15 % vs 15.23 %; p = 0.774).

CONCLUSION

SDH predict surgical approach more than clinical stage, facility type, or comorbidity status. Disparities in race and insurance coverage are different between surgical approaches.

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

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

A novel laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenal training model: optimization of the learning curve and simplification of postoperative complications

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy requires a long learning curve. A preoperative training system was established to optimize the surgeons' learning curve and reduce the incidence rate of complications at the beginning of the curve.

METHODS

The laparoscopic pancreaticojejunostomy model, and choledochojejunostomy and gastrojejunostomy training systems were developed, and corresponding evaluation systems were also defined. Surgeons B and C performed laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy after completing training session. Surgical outcomes, postoperative complications and their learning curves were analyzed.

RESULTS

Patients operated by surgeons B and C experienced shorter operative durations following training session than those in nontrained group (called A) ( P <0.001). B and C began entering the inflection point at the 26th and 20th case in learning curve, respectively. The incidence of postoperative pancreatic fistula in group B was 3.3%, significantly lower than 13.1% in group A ( P =0.047). Patients in group B showed significantly lower incidence of biliary-enteric anastomosis leakage (0% vs. 8.2%, P =0.029) and Clavien-Dindo classification greater than or equal to 3 (3.3% vs. 14.8%, P =0.027) compared with those in group A. The incidence of surgical site infection in groups B (3.3%, P =0.004) and C (4.9%, P =0.012) was significantly lower than that in group A (19.7%). Moreover, the length of postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in groups B (12.5±5.9 days, P =0.002) and C (13.7±6.5 days, P =0.002) compared with group A (16.7±8.5 days).

CONCLUSIONS

The laparoscopic pancreaticojejunostomy training model and evaluation system can shorten the operative duration, lower the risk of postoperative complications, and shorten the length of hospital stay.

Surgical Planning for "Borderline Resectable" and "Locally Advanced" Pancreatic Cancer During Open Pancreatic Resection

Pancreatic resection for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is one of the most complex procedures in abdominal surgery due to the technical and oncological challenges given by its local aggressive growth. The improvement of new multidrug chemotherapy regimens and surgical techniques has increased the caseload of "borderline resectable" (BR) or even "locally advanced" (LA) PDAC candidates for surgical resection. As a result, the increased heterogeneity of surgical scenarios has made it essential to utilize a tailored surgical strategy for each individual case. Notably, the strategy employed to approach and assess the peripancreatic vessels should be weighted according to tumor's location and the site of suspected vascular infiltration. The aim of this paper is to describe the open surgical approach for "BR" or "LA" PDAC used at our Institution and summarizes a "step-up approach" to manage vascular infiltration.

The Feasibility, Proficiency, and Mastery Learning Curves in 635 Robotic Pancreatoduodenectomies Following a Multicenter Training Program: "Standing on the Shoulders of Giants"

OBJECTIVE

To assess the feasibility, proficiency, and mastery learning curves for robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) in "second-generation" RPD centers following a multicenter training program adhering to the IDEAL framework.

BACKGROUND

The long learning curves for RPD reported from "pioneering" expert centers may discourage centers interested in starting an RPD program. However, the feasibility, proficiency, and mastery learning curves may be shorter in "second-generation" centers that participated in dedicated RPD training programs, although data are lacking. We report on the learning curves for RPD in "second-generation" centers trained in a dedicated nationwide program.

METHODS

Post hoc analysis of all consecutive patients undergoing RPD in 7 centers that participated in the LAELAPS-3 training program, each with a minimum annual volume of 50 pancreatoduodenectomies, using the mandatory Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit (March 2016-December 2021). Cumulative sum analysis determined cutoffs for the 3 learning curves: operative time for the feasibility (1) risk-adjusted major complication (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III) for the proficiency, (2) and textbook outcome for the mastery, (3) learning curve. Outcomes before and after the cutoffs were compared for the proficiency and mastery learning curves. A survey was used to assess changes in practice and the most valued "lessons learned."

RESULTS

Overall, 635 RPD were performed by 17 trained surgeons, with a conversion rate of 6.6% (n=42). The median annual volume of RPD per center was 22.5±6.8. From 2016 to 2021, the nationwide annual use of RPD increased from 0% to 23% whereas the use of laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy decreased from 15% to 0%. The rate of major complications was 36.9% (n=234), surgical site infection 6.3% (n=40), postoperative pancreatic fistula (grade B/C) 26.9% (n=171), and 30-day/in-hospital mortality 3.5% (n=22). Cutoffs for the feasibility, proficiency, and mastery learning curves were reached at 15, 62, and 84 RPD. Major morbidity and 30-day/in-hospital mortality did not differ significantly before and after the cutoffs for the proficiency and mastery learning curves. Previous experience in laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy shortened the feasibility (-12 RPDs, -44%), proficiency (-32 RPDs, -34%), and mastery phase learning curve (-34 RPDs, -23%), but did not improve clinical outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

The feasibility, proficiency, and mastery learning curves for RPD at 15, 62, and 84 procedures in "second-generation" centers after a multicenter training program were considerably shorter than previously reported from "pioneering" expert centers. The learning curve cutoffs and prior laparoscopic experience did not impact major morbidity and mortality. These findings demonstrate the safety and value of a nationwide training program for RPD in centers with sufficient volume.

Four-Day Robotic Whipple: Early Discharge after Robotic Pancreatoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

The authors aimed to assess the safety of an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) and early discharge pathway in a robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) program and compared outcomes with an open PD control cohort to identify the synergistic effects of robotic surgery and an ERAS pathway on lengths of stay (LOS).

STUDY DESIGN

Consecutive patients undergoing open or robotic PD from a single surgeon between March 2020 and July 2022 were identified. Logistic regression models were used for adjusted analyses of postoperative outcomes.

RESULTS

There were 134 consecutive PD patients, of which 40 (30%) were performed robotically. Pancreatic adenocarcinoma was the most common indication in both open (56%) and robotic (55%, p = 0.51) groups, with a similar proportion of them being borderline resectable or locally advanced tumors (78% vs 82% in robotic group, p = 0.82). The LOS was significantly shorter in the robotic PD group (median, 5 [IQR 4 to 7] days) when compared with the open PD group (median, 6 [IQR 5 to 8] days, p < 0.001). LOS of 4 days or fewer were observed in 40% of the robotic PD group compared with only 3% of patients in the open PD group (p < 0.001). There was no difference in the overall readmission rate (10% vs 12% in the robotic PD group, p = 0.61). On multivariable logistic regression, robotic PD was independently associated with higher odds of LOS of 4 days or fewer (odds ratio 22.4, p = 0.001) when compared with open PD.

CONCLUSIONS

An ERAS and early discharge pathway could be safely implemented in a robotic PD program. Patients undergoing robotic PD have significantly shorter length of stay without increased complication or readmission rate compared with open PD, with 40% of patients undergoing robotic PD achieving a LOS of 4 days or fewer.

A single-center initial experience on laparoscopic pancreatic operation combined with hepatic arterial resection and reconstruction

Objective

This study aims to summarize our single-center initial experience in laparoscopic pancreatic operation (LPO) combined with hepatic arterial resection and reconstruction, as well as to demonstrate the feasibility, safety, and key surgical procedure for LPO.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed 7 patients who had undergone LPO combined with hepatic arterial resection and reconstruction in our center from January 2021 to December 2022. The clinical data of these 7 patients were collected and analyzed.

Results

In our case series, two patients underwent passive arterial resection and reconstruction due to iatrogenic arterial injury, and five patients underwent forward arterial resection and reconstruction due to arterial invasion. The arterial anastomosis was successful in 5 cases, including 2 cases of end-to-end in situ and 3 cases of arterial transposition, and the vascular reconstruction time was 38.28 ± 15.32 min. There were two conversions to laparotomy. The postoperative recovery of all patients was uneventful, with one liver abscess (Segment 4) and no Clavien III-IV complications. We also share valuable technical feedback and experience gained from the initial practice.

Conclusions

Based on the surgeon's proficiency in open arterial resection and reconstruction and laparoscopic technique. This study demonstrated the feasibility of total laparoscopic hepatic arterial resection and reconstruction in properly selected cases of arterial involvement or iatrogenic arterial injury. Our initial experience provides valuable information for laparoscopic pancreas surgery with arterial resection and reconstruction.

The effect of implant surgery experience on the learning curve of a dynamic navigation system: an in vitro study

BACKGROUND

Dynamic navigation systems have a broad application prospect in digital implanting field. This study aimed to explore and compare the dynamic navigation system learning curve of dentists with different implant surgery experience through dental models.

METHODS

The nine participants from the same hospital were divided equally into three groups. Group 1 (G1) and Group 2 (G2) were dentists who had more than 5 years of implant surgery experience. G1 also had more than 3 years of experience with dynamic navigation, while G2 had no experience with dynamic navigation. Group 3 (G3) consisted of dentists with no implant surgery experience and no experience with dynamic navigation. Each participant sequentially placed two implants (31 and 36) on dental models according to four practice courses (1-3, 4-6, 7-9, 10-12 exercises). Each dentist completed 1-3, 4-6 exercises in one day, and then 7-9 and 10-12 exercises 7 ± 1 days later. The preparation time, surgery time and related implant accuracy were analyzed.

RESULTS

Three groups placed 216 implants in four practice courses. The regressions for preparation time (F = 10.294, R² = 0.284), coronal deviation (F = 4.117, R² = 0.071), apical deviation (F = 13.016, R² = 0.194) and axial deviation (F = 30.736, R² = 0.363) were statistically significant in G2. The regressions for preparation time (F = 9.544, R² = 0.269), surgery time (F = 45.032, R² = 0.455), apical deviation (F = 4.295, R² = 0.074) and axial deviation (F = 21.656, R² = 0.286) were statistically significant in G3. Regarding preparation and surgery time, differences were found between G1 and G3, G2 and G3. Regarding implant accuracy, differences were found in the first two practice courses between G1 and G3.

CONCLUSIONS

The operation process of dynamic navigation system is relatively simple and easy to use. The linear regression analysis showed there is a dynamic navigation learning curve for dentists with or without implant experience and the learning curve of surgery time for dentists with implant experience fluctuates. However, dentists with implant experience learn more efficiently and have a shorter learning curve.

Tips and tricks for robotic pancreatoduodenectomy with superior mesenteric/portal vein resection and reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Open pancreatoduodenectomy with vein resection (OPD-VR) is now standard of care in patients who responded to neoadjuvant therapies. Feasibility of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) with vein resection (RPD-VR) was shown, but no study provided a detailed description of the technical challenges associated with this formidable operation. Herein, we describe the trips and tricks for technically successful RPD-VR.

METHODS

The vascular techniques used in RPD-VR were borrowed from OPD-VR, as well as from our experience with robotic transplantation of both kidney and pancreas. Vein resection was classified into 4 types according to the international study group of pancreatic surgery. Each type of vein resection was described in detail and shown in a video.

RESULTS

Between October 2008 and November 2021, a total of 783 pancreatoduodenectomies were performed, including 233 OPDs-VR (29.7%). RPD was performed in 256 patients (32.6%), and RPDs-VR in 36 patients (4.5% of all pancreatoduodenectomies; 15.4% of all pancreatoduodenectomies with vein resection; 14.0% of all RPDs). In RPD-VR vein resections were: 4 type 1 (11.1%), 10 type 2 (27.8%), 12 type 3 (33.3%) and 10 type 4 (27.8%). Vascular patches used in type 2 resections were made of peritoneum (n = 8), greater saphenous vein (n = 1), and deceased donor aorta (n = 1). Interposition grafts used in type 4 resections were internal left jugular vein (n = 8), venous graft from deceased donor (n = 1) and spiral saphenous vein graft (n = 1). There was one conversion to open surgery (2.8%). Ninety-day mortality was 8.3%. There was one (2.8%) partial vein thrombosis, treated with heparin infusion.

CONCLUSIONS

We have reported 36 technically successful RPDs-VR. We hope that the tips and tricks provided herein can contribute to safer implementation of RPD-VR. Based on our experience, and according to data from the literature, we strongly advise that RPD-VR is performed by expert surgeons at high volume centers.

Feasibility of "cold" triangle robotic pancreatoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

Triangle pancreatoduodenectomy adds to the conventional procedure the en bloc removal of the retroperitoneal lympho-neural tissue included in the triangular area bounded by the common hepatic artery (CHA), the superior mesenteric artery (SMA), and the superior mesenteric vein/portal vein. We herein aim to show the feasibility of "cold" triangle robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (C-Tr-RPD) for pancreatic cancer (PDAC).

METHODS

Cold dissection corresponds to sharp arterial divestment performed using only the tips of robotic scissors. After division of the gastroduodenal artery, triangle dissection begins by lateral-to-medial divestment of the CHA and anterior-to-posterior clearance of the right side of the celiac trunk. Next, after a wide Kocher maneuver, the origin of the SMA, and the celiac trunk are identified. After mobilization of the first jejunal loop and attached mesentery, the SMA is identified at the level of the first jejunal vein and is divested along the right margin working in a distal-to-proximal direction. Vein resection and reconstruction can be performed as required. C-Tr-RPD was considered feasible if triangle dissection was successfully completed without conversion to open surgery or need to use energy devices. Postoperative complications and pathology results are presented in detail.

RESULTS

One hundred twenty-seven consecutive C-Tr-RPDs were successfully performed. There were three conversions to open surgery (2.3%), because of pneumoperitoneum intolerance (n = 2) and difficult digestive reconstruction. Thirty-four patients (26.7%) required associated vascular procedures. No pseudoaneurysm of the gastroduodenal artery was observed. Twenty-eight patients (22.0%) developed severe postoperative complications (≥ grade III). Overall 90-day mortality was 7.1%, declining to 2.3% after completion of the learning curve. The median number of examined lymph nodes was 42 (33-51). The rate of R1 resection (7 margins < 1 mm) was 44.1%.

CONCLUSION

C-Tr-RPD is feasible, carries a risk of surgical complications commensurate to the magnitude of the procedure, and improves staging of PDAC.

Advances in the Surgical Treatment of Pancreatic Cancer

Three recent advances in the surgical approach to pancreatic cancer over the past decade have improved both short- and long-term outcomes for patients with nonmetastatic, operable pancreatic cancer. These include (1) minimally invasive pancreatectomy to reduce operative morbidity while adhering to principles of open oncologic resections, (2) neoadjuvant chemotherapy to treat radiographically occult metastatic disease and improve locoregional control, and (3) applying irreversible electroporation as an adjunct to surgery, allowing a fraction of locally advanced pancreatic cancer to be resected.

Robotic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy with vascular resection for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: surgical and oncological outcomes from pilot experience

PURPOSE

Venous resection and reconstruction (VR) is a feasible surgical technique to achieve optimal outcomes in selected patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) who undergo open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD). However, data regarding patient outcomes in patients who undergo VR in robotic-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) are scarce.

METHODS

All patients with a diagnosis of PDAC who underwent upfront open or robotic pancreatoduodenectomy with VR in a high-volume institution for pancreatic surgery between 2011 and 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. Perioperative and long-term outcomes were compared between the RPD and OPD cohorts.

RESULTS

A total of 84 patients were included in the final analysis, 14 patients underwent RPD with VR and 70 who had OPD with VR. Reconstructed venous patency, postoperative 30-day morbidity, and 90-day mortality were comparable; however, lymph node resection rates were lower in the RPC cohort (p = 0.029). No difference was identified in 3-year survival rates between the two groups (34.0% versus 25.7% respectively, p = 0.667).

CONCLUSION

RPD with VR is a feasible approach for patients with PDAC and venous invasion. Further studies are needed to assess long-term outcomes compared to the open approach.

Robotic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy, comparing therapeutic indexes; a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is a challenging procedure with peri-operative complications. Robotic surgery offers improved dexterity, visibility, and accessibility. Recently, many centres have reported improved clinical outcomes for robotic PD. We reviewed the safety and efficacy of robotic PD in comparison to open PD using 'Therapeutic Index' (TI).

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was conducted in various databases. Articles published between January 2010 and March 2021 reporting totally-robotic and open PD were included, according to the PRISMA and AMSTAR-2 guidelines. The Cochrane tool was used for risk of bias assessment. We compared 30-day mortality rates (MR₃₀), lymphadenectomy rates (LR), R0 resection rates (R₀RR) and therapeutic index (TI). STATA 16.1 was used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

The four studies that met inclusion criteria included 5090 PDs, out of which 617 were totally-robotic (RPD) and 4473 were open (OPD). Variance ratio tests demonstrated a)Higher TI for RPD versus OPD (1807.42 vs 1723.37, p = 0.86), b)Significantly smaller MR₃₀ (2.50 vs 19.00, p = 0.0004), c)Significantly lower R₀RR (130.50 vs 939.25, p = 0.00) and d)No significant difference in LR between RPD and OPD (35.63 vs 38.25, p = 0.81). Meta-regression analysis showed a significantly higher TI coefficient of RPD than OPD (0.66 vs -0.40, p = 0.08, α = 0.1).

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests that robotic PD is safe and not inferior to open PD and our analysis RPD demonstrated a higher therapeutic index than OPD. Randomised controlled trials are required to establish the efficacy of robotic PD. Also, standardisation of reporting mortality, survival and oncological outcomes is needed for the effective calculation of TI.

Robotische Pankreaschirurgie – Lernkurve und Etablierung

Minimalinvasive Resektionstechniken zur Behandlung verschiedener Pathologien des Pankreas sind potenziell vorteilhaft für die behandelten Patienten in Bezug auf Rekonvaleszenzzeit und postoperative Morbidität, stellen jedoch eine besondere technische Herausforderung für den behandelnden Chirurgen dar. Der Einzug der robotischen Technik in die Viszeralchirurgie bietet eine prinzipielle Möglichkeit zur weitreichenden Verbreitung minimalinvasiver Verfahren in der Pankreaschirurgie.

Ziel dieser Arbeit war es, die Entwicklungsmöglichkeiten der robotischen Pankreaschirurgie in Deutschland zu überprüfen. Datengrundlage sind die Qualitätsberichte der Krankenhäuser der Jahre 2015–2019 kombiniert mit einer selektiven Literaturrecherche.

Die Anzahl der vorliegenden Qualitätsberichte reduzierte sich von 2015 bis 2019 von 1635 auf 1594. Im Median führten 96 Kliniken 11–20, 56 Kliniken 21–50 und 15 Kliniken mehr als 50 Pankreaskopfresektionen jährlich durch. Bei den Linksresektionen waren es 35 Kliniken mit 11–20, 14 Kliniken mit 21–50 und 2 Kliniken mit mehr als 50 Eingriffen. Unter Berücksichtigung aller Kliniken, die 5 oder mehr Linksresektionen pro Jahr durchführen, wurden an nur 29 Kliniken minimalinvasive Verfahren eingesetzt. Der Anteil an laparoskopischen Linksresektionen über 50% wurde an nur 7 Kliniken beschrieben.

Nach Datenlage in der Literatur divergieren die Lernkurven für die robotische Pankreaslinks- und Pankreaskopfresektion. Während die Lernkurve für die robotische Pankreaslinksresektion nach etwa 20 Eingriffen durchlaufen ist, hat die Lernkurve für die robotische Pankreaskopfresektion mehrere Plateaus, die etwa nach 30, 100 und 250 Eingriffen erreicht werden.

Aufgrund der dezentralen Struktur der Pankreaschirurgie in Deutschland scheint ein flächendeckendes Angebot robotischer Verfahren aktuell in weiter Ferne. Insbesondere die Etablierung der robotischen Pankreaskopfresektion wird zunächst Zentren mit entsprechend hoher Fallzahl vorbehalten bleiben.

Learning Curves in Open, Laparoscopic, and Robotic Pancreatic Surgery: A Systematic Review and Proposal of a Standardization

Objective

To depict and analyze learning curves for open, laparoscopic, and robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) and distal pancreatectomy (DP).

Background

Formal training is recommended for safe introduction of pancreatic surgery but definitions of learning curves vary and have not been standardized.

Methods

A systematic search on PubMed, Web of Science, and CENTRAL databases identified studies on learning curves in pancreatic surgery. Primary outcome was the number needed to reach the learning curve as defined by the included studies. Secondary outcomes included endpoints defining learning curves, methods of analysis (statistical/arbitrary), and classification of learning phases.

Results

Out of 1115 articles, 66 studies with 14,206 patients were included. Thirty-five studies (53%) based the learning curve analysis on statistical calculations. Most often used parameters to define learning curves were operative time (n = 51), blood loss (n = 17), and complications (n = 10). The number of procedures to surpass a first phase of learning curve was 30 (20-50) for open PD, 39 (11-60) for laparoscopic PD, 25 (8-100) for robotic PD (P = 0.521), 16 (3-17) for laparoscopic DP, and 15 (5-37) for robotic DP (P = 0.914). In a three-phase model, intraoperative parameters improved earlier (first to second phase: operating time -15%, blood loss -29%) whereas postoperative parameters improved later (second to third phase: complications -46%, postoperative pancreatic fistula -48%). Studies with higher sample sizes showed higher numbers of procedures needed to overcome the learning curve (rho = 0.64, P < 0.001).

Conclusions

This study summarizes learning curves for open-, laparoscopic-, and robotic pancreatic surgery with different definitions, analysis methods, and confounding factors. A standardized reporting of learning curves and definition of phases (competency, proficiency, mastery) is desirable and proposed.

Advanced Robotic Surgery: Liver, Pancreas, and Esophagus - The State of the Art?

Background

The trend in performing robotic-assisted operations in visceral surgery has been increasing in the last decade, also reaching the challenging field of hepatic, pancreatic, and esophageal surgery. Nevertheless, solid data about advantages and disadvantages of the robotic approach are still missing. The aim of this review is to analyze the benefit and impact of robotic surgery in the field of hepatic, pancreatic, and esophageal surgery, focusing on the comparison with the conventional laparoscopic or open approach.

Summary

The well-known advantages of laparoscopic surgery in comparison to the open approach are also valid for robotic surgery, with the addition of a 3D-view camera, wristed instrumentation, and an ergonomic console. On the other hand, the use of a robotic system leads to longer operating time and higher costs. Randomized controlled trials comparing the robotic approach with the laparoscopic one are still missing.

Key Message

Recent meta-analyses show promising results of the usage of robotic systems in advanced surgical procedures, like hepatic, pancreatic, and esophageal resections. Further randomized studies are needed to validate the postulated benefit.

Trends in Textbook Outcomes over Time: Are Optimal Outcomes Following Complex Gastrointestinal Surgery for Cancer Increasing?

BACKGROUND

The use of composite measures like "textbook outcome" (TO) may provide a more accurate measure of surgical quality. We sought to determine if TO has improved over time and to characterize the association of achieving a TO with trends in survival among patients undergoing complex gastrointestinal surgery for cancer.

METHODS

Medicare beneficiaries who underwent pancreas, liver, or colon resection for a cancer diagnosis between 2004 and 2016 were identified using the SEER-Medicare database. Rates of TO (no complication, extended length of stay, 90-day readmission, or 90-day mortality) were assessed over time.

RESULTS

Among 94,329 patients, 6765 (7.2%), 1985 (2.1%), and 85,579 (90.7%) patients underwent resection for primary pancreatic, hepatic, or colon cancer, respectively. In total, 53,464 (56.7%) patients achieved a TO; achievement of TO varied by procedure (pancreatectomy: 48.1% vs. hepatectomy: 55.2% vs. colectomy: 57.4%, p < 0.001). The proportion of patients achieving a textbook outcome increased over time for all patients (2004-2007, 53.3% vs. 2008-2011, 56.5% vs. 2012-2016, 60.1%) (5-year increase: OR 1.16 95%CI 1.13-1.18) (p < 0.001). Survival at 1-year following pancreatic, liver, or colon resection for cancer had improved over time among both patients who did and did not achieve a postoperative TO. TO was independently associated with a marked reduction in hazard of death (HR 0.44, 95%CI 0.43-0.45). The association of TO and survival was consistent among patients stratified by procedure.

CONCLUSION

Less than two-thirds of patients undergoing complex gastrointestinal surgery for a malignant indication achieved a TO. The likelihood of achieving a TO increased over time and was associated with improved survival.

Robotic versus Open Pancreatoduodenectomy for Pancreatic and Periampullary Tumors (PORTAL): a study protocol for a multicenter phase III non-inferiority randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Pancreatoduodenectomy is a complex and challenging procedure that requires meticulous tissue dissection and proficient suturing skills. Minimally invasive surgery with the utilization of robotic platforms has demonstrated advantages in perioperative patient outcomes in retrospective studies. The development of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) in specific has progressed significantly, since first reported in 2003, and high-volume centers in pancreatic surgery are reporting large patient series with improved pain management and reduced length of stay. However, prospective studies to assess objectively the feasibility and safety of RPD compared to open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) are currently lacking.

METHODS/DESIGN

The PORTAL trial is a multicenter randomized controlled, patient-blinded, parallel-group, phase III non-inferiority trial performed in seven high-volume centers for pancreatic and robotic surgery in China (> 20 RPD and > 100 OPD annually in each participating center). The trial is designed to enroll and randomly assign 244 patients with an indication for elective pancreatoduodenectomy for malignant periampullary and pancreatic lesions, as well as premalignant and symptomatic benign periampullary and pancreatic disease. The primary outcome is time to functional recovery postoperatively, measured in days. Secondary outcomes include postoperative morbidity and mortality, as well as perioperative costs. A sub-cohort of 128 patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) will also be compared to assess the percentage of patients who undergo postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy within 8 weeks, in each arm. Secondary outcomes in this cohort will include patterns of disease recurrence, recurrence-free survival, and overall survival.

DISCUSSION

The PORTAL trial is designed to assess the feasibility and safety of RPD compared to OPD, in terms of functional recovery as described previously. Additionally, this trial will explore whether RPD allows increased access to postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy, in a sub-cohort of patients with PDAC.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04400357 . Registered on May 22, 2020.

Optimal Pancreatic Surgery: Are We Making Progress in North America?

OBJECTIVE

Our aims were to assess North American trends in the management of patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) and distal pancreatectomy (DP), and to quantify the delivery of optimal pancreatic surgery.

BACKGROUND

Morbidity after pancreatectomy remains unacceptably high. Recent literature suggests that composite measures may more accurately define surgical quality.

METHODS

The 2013 to 2017 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Participant Use Files were queried to identify patients undergoing PD (N = 16,222) and DP (N = 7946). Patient, process, procedure, and 30-day postoperative outcome variables were analyzed over time. Optimal pancreatic surgery was defined as the absence of postoperative mortality, serious morbidity, percutaneous drainage, and reoperation while achieving a length of stay equal to or less than the 75th percentile (12 days for PD and 7 days for DP) with no readmissions. Risk-adjusted time-trend analyses were performed using logistic regression, and the threshold for statistical significance was P ≤ 0.05.

RESULTS

The use of minimally invasive PD did not change over time, but robotic PD increased (2.5 to 4.2%; P < 0.001) and laparoscopic PD decreased (5.8% to 4.3%; P < 0.02). Operative times decreased (P < 0.05) and fewer transfusions were administered (P < 0.001). The percentage of patients with a drain fluid amylase checked on postoperative day 1 increased (P < 0.001), and a greater percentage of surgical drains were removed by postoperative day 3 (P < 0.001). Overall morbidity (P < 0.02), mortality (P < 0.05), and postoperative length of stay (P = 0.002) decreased. Finally, the rate of optimal pancreatic surgery increased for PD (53.7% to 56.9%; P < 0.01) and DP (53.3% to 58.5%; P < 0.001), and alspo for patients with pancreatic cancer (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

From 2013 to 2017, pre, intra, and perioperative pancreatectomy processes have evolved, and multiple postoperative outcomes have improved. Thus, in 4 years, optimal pancreatic surgery in North America has increased by 3% to 5%.

Technical progress in robotic pancreatoduodenectomy: TRIANGLE and periadventitial dissection for retropancreatic nerve plexus resection

PURPOSE

The resection of retropancreatic nerve plexuses for pancreatic head cancer became standard of care during open pancreatoduodenectomy to minimize local recurrences. Since more surgical centers are progressing on the learning curve, robotically-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy is now increasingly performed with decreasing anatomic exclusion criteria. To achieve comparable and favorable oncologic outcomes, advanced surgical techniques should be transferred and implemented when performing robotic resections.

METHODS

The nomenclature and anatomic principles of retropancreatic nerve plexuses and three different levels of dissections are utilized based on established definitions.

RESULTS

The en bloc dissection in the "TRIANGLE" area (triangular-shaped retropancreatic space enclosed by the common hepatic artery, superior mesenteric artery, and superior mesenteric vein/portal vein) and the periadventitial dissection of arteries for non-tunica media-invading tumors were executed robotically. Both can be utilized to achieve a radical dorsal and medial margin. Video recordings are provided to illustrate varying TRIANGLE dissections.

CONCLUSION

To accomplish oncologic non-inferiority, established principles from open pancreatic resections can be incorporated precisely and safely, overcoming the lack of haptic feedback while exploiting the technological advantages of the robotically-assisted platform.

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a retrospective study of 200 cases and the optimization of the single-center learning curve

Background

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) is widely used in several centers. This study analyzed the postoperative complications rate curve, possible cause, and solution of LPD and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD).

Methods

Between January 2015 and December 2019, the study included 213 and 204 patients undergoing OPD and LPD, respectively. Postoperative outcomes, complications, and complication risk, along with operation time were analyzed, and the learning curve was determined.

Results

The OPD group (378.7±8.98 min) had shorter operation time than the LPD group (402.5±7.12 min) (P=0.037). Blood loss was significantly lower in the LPD group (389.9±19.05 mL) than in the OPD group (530.1±33.55 mL) (P<0.001). The incidence of biliary-enteric anastomosis leakage was higher in the LPD group (2.9%) than in the OPD group (0.5%) (P=0.0495). The LPD group showed lower lung infection (7.4% vs. 17.4%, P=0.037), incision infection (1% vs. 8.5%, P<0.001), and anal exhaust time (3.35±0.07 vs. 4.05±0.07 days, P<0.001) than the OPD group. The biliary-enteric anastomosis leakage was strongly correlated with the pancreatic fistula (B/C) (R=0.6410), intraperitoneal infection (R=0.6126) and Clavien-Dindo Classification ≥3 (R=0.7403). According to the cumulative sum (CUSUM) curve, pancreatic fistula had a negative K value in 44 cases, biliary-enteric anastomosis leakage had a negative K value in 46 cases, and Clavien-Dindo Classification ≥3 had a negative K value in 40 cases. The learning curve for LPD has an inflection point in 86 cases.

Conclusions

LPD is safe and effective for patients with pancreatic cancer, and has a long learning curve and improved postoperative complications in 50 cases. This study’s results will help in reducing the complication rates of the first 50 consecutive cases of LPD.

The current status and future directions of robotic pancreatectomy

Robotic surgery has emerged as an alternative to laparoscopic surgery and it has also been applied to pancreatectomy. With the increase in the number of robotic pancreatectomies, several studies comparing robotic pancreatectomy and conventional open or laparoscopic pancreatectomy have been published. However, the use of robotic pancreatectomy remains controversial. In this review, we aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of the current status of robotic pancreatectomy. Various aspects of robotic pancreatectomy and conventional open or laparoscopic pancreatectomy are compared, including the benefits, limitations, oncological efficacy, learning curves, and costs. Both robotic pancreatoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy have favorable or comparable outcomes to conventional procedures, and robotic pancreatectomy has the potential to be an alternative to open or laparoscopic procedures. However, there are still several disadvantages to robotic platforms, such as prolonged operative duration and the high cost of the procedure. These disadvantages will be improved by developing instruments, overcoming the learning curve, and increasing the number of robotic pancreatectomies. In addition, robotic pancreatectomy is still in the introductory period in most centers and should only be used in accordance with strict indications.

Objective evaluation of technical dexterity in robotic hepaticojejunostomy: Assessment of hepatopancreatobiliary fellows using cumulative sum analytics

BACKGROUND

The development of technical dexterity is a critical for surgeons in training. This study describes and assesses the feasibility of an objective method for the evaluation of procedure-specific technical dexterity in hepatopancreatobiliary (HPB) surgery using cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis.

METHODS

Dry-lab HPB procedures were divided into procedural steps with binary outcomes (success or failure). Two HPB fellows completed 20 dry lab hepaticojejunostomy (HJ) procedures. Participant progress was tracked over time with CUSUM analytics to establish a learning curve for procedural proficiency.

RESULTS

The CUSUM charts for 20 consecutive dry-lab HJ procedures were analysed. A learning curve was created and used to identify areas of weakness to facilitate improvement in technical proficiency.

CONCLUSIONS

CUSUM is effective tool for objective evaluation of technical dexterity offering both simplicity and adaptability. We demonstrate its use and feasibility for surgical education and plan to expand its' application to assess residents performing general surgery procedures.

Learning curve of robotic distal and total gastrectomy

BACKGROUND

This study aims to assess the learning curve of robotic distal gastrectomy (RDG) and robotic total gastrectomy (RTG) for gastric cancer.

METHODS

Data on consecutive patients who underwent robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer by five surgeons between March 2010 and August 2019 at two high-volume institutions were collected. The learning curve was determined based on the analyses of operation time and postoperative complications within 30 days. Cumulative sum analysis (CUSUM) and risk-adjusted-CUSUM (RA-CUSUM) were applied to identify the turning points (TPs).

RESULTS

A total of 899 consecutive patients were included. The mean number of patients needed to overcome the learning curve for operation time of RDG and RTG were 22 and 20, respectively. The number of patients needed to overcome the learning curve for postoperative complications after RDG and RTG were 23 and 18, respectively. The surgical outcomes in the post-TP group were better than in the pre-TP group and improved as surgeons' experience increased. Also, increased case numbers in RDG promoted the RTG learning process.

CONCLUSION

The present study demonstrated a substantial influence of surgical cumulative volume on improved surgical outcomes in robotic gastrectomy. Increased experience in RDG may help surgeons to achieve proficiency faster in RTG.

Impact of Neoadjuvant Therapy on Survival Following Margin-Positive Resection for Pancreatic Cancer

INTRODUCTION

A positive microscopic margin (R1) following resection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) can occur in up to 80% of patients and is associated with reduced survival and increased recurrence. Our aim was to characterize the impact of neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) on survival and recurrence in patients with PDAC following an R1 resection.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of patients with PDAC who underwent pancreatectomy from 2008 to 2017 was performed. Patients were staged according to the American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th edition and stratified based on resection margin (R0 vs. R1) and treatment sequence (NAT vs. surgery first [SF]). Conditional survival analysis was performed using Cox regression and inverse probability weighted estimates.

RESULTS

Among 580 patients, 59% received NAT and 41% underwent SF. On final pathology, the NAT cohort had smaller tumors and less lymph node (LN) positivity (p < 0.05). NAT was not associated with an R1 resection (50%, p = 0.653). Compared with the R1 cohort, the R0 cohort had a higher median overall survival (OS; 39.6 vs. 22.8 months; hazard ratio [HR] 1.6, p < 0.001) and disease-free survival (DFS; 19 vs. 13 months; HR 1.35, p = 0.004). After risk adjustment, NAT was not associated with OS, regardless of margin status (R0, 95% confidence interval [CI] (-)7.31-27.07, p = 0.26; or R1, 95% CI (-)36.99-15.25, p = 0.42). However, NAT was associated with improved DFS in the R1 cohort (95% CI 1.79-11.91, p = 0.008) but not in the R0 cohort (95% CI (-)11.22-10.54, p = 0.95).

CONCLUSION

An R0 resection remains an important determinant of overall and disease-free survival, even when NAT is administered. For patients with an R1 resection, receipt of NAT may prolong DFS.

State of the art of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy

Current evidence shows that robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) is feasible with a safety profile equivalent to either open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) or laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD). However, major intraoperative bleeding can occur and emergency conversion to OPD may be required. RPD reduces the risk of emergency conversion when compared to LPD. The learning curve of RPD ranges from 20 to 40 procedures, but proficiency is reached only after 250 operations. Once proficiency is achieved, the results of RPD may be superior to those of OPD. As for now, RPD is at least equivalent to OPD and LPD with respect to incidence and severity of POPF, incidence and severity of post-operative complications, and post-operative mortality. A minimal annual number of 20 procedures per center is recommended. In pancreatic cancer (versus OPD), RPD is associated with similar rates of R0 resections, but higher number of examined lymph nodes, lower blood loss, and lower need of blood transfusions. Multivariable analysis shows that RPD could improve patient survival. Data from selected centers show that vein resection and reconstruction is feasible during RPD, but at the price of high conversion rates and frequent use of small tangential resections. The true Achilles heel of RPD is higher operative costs that limit wider implementation of the procedure and accumulation of a large experience at most single centers. In conclusion, when proficiency is achieved, RPD may be superior to OPD with respect to CR-POPF and oncologic outcomes. Achievement of proficiency requires commitment, dedication, and truly high volumes.

Rate of Post-Operative Pancreatic Fistula after Robotic-Assisted Pancreaticoduodenectomy with Pancreato-Jejunostomy versus Pancreato-Gastrostomy: A Retrospective Case Matched Comparative Study

BACKGROUND

Different techniques of pancreatic anastomosis have been described, with inconclusive results in terms of pancreatic fistula reduction. Studies comparing robotic pancreaticogastrostomy (PG) and pancreaticojejunostomy (PJ) are scarcely reported.

METHODS

The present study analyzes the outcomes of two case-matched groups of patients who underwent PG (n = 20) or PJ (n = 40) after pancreaticoduodenectomy. The primary aim was to compare the rate of post-operative pancreatic fistula.

RESULTS

Operative time (375 vs. 315 min, p = 0.34), estimated blood loss (270 vs. 295 mL, p = 0.44), and rate of clinically relevant post-operative pancreatic fistula (12.5% vs. 10%, p = 0.82) were similar between the two groups. PJ was associated with a higher rate of intra-abdominal collections (7.5% vs. 0%, p = 0.002), but lower post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage (2.5% vs. 10%, p = 0.003). PG was associated with a lower rate of post-operative pancreatic fistula (POPF) (33.3% vs. 50%, p = 0.003) in the high-risk group of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The outcomes of post-operative pancreatic fistula are comparable between the two reconstruction techniques. PG may have a lower incidence of POPF in patients with high-risk of pancreatic fistula.

500 Minimally Invasive Robotic Pancreatoduodenectomies: One Decade of Optimizing Performance

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to present the outcomes of our decade-long experience of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy and provide insights into successful program implementation.

BACKGROUND

Despite significant improvement in mortality over the past 30 years, morbidity following open pancreatoduodenectomy remains high. We implemented a minimally invasive pancreatic surgery program based on the robotic platform as one potential method of improving outcomes for this operation.

METHODS

A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained institutional database was performed to identify patients who underwent robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) between 2008 and 2017 at the University of Pittsburgh.

RESULTS

In total, 500 consecutive RPDs were included. Operative time, conversion to open, blood loss, and clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula improved early in the experience and have remained low despite increasing complexity of case selection as reflected by increasing number of patients with pancreatic cancer, vascular resections, and higher Charlson Comorbidity scores (all P<0.05). Operating room time plateaued after 240 cases at a median time of 391 minutes (interquartile rang 340-477). Major complications (Clavien >2) occurred in less than 24%, clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula in 7.8%, 30- and 90-day mortality were 1.4% and 3.1% respectively, and median length of stay was 8 days. Outcomes were not impacted by integration of trainees or expansion of selection criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

Structured implementation of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy can be associated with excellent outcomes. In the largest series of RPD, we establish benchmarks for the surgical community to consider when adopting this approach.

Propensity score-matched comparison of the oncological feasibility and survival outcomes for pancreatic adenocarcinoma with robotic and open pancreatoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

This study is to clarify the feasibility of and justification for robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

METHODS

A 1-to-1 propensity score-matched comparison of RPD and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) was performed based on six covariates commonly used to predict the survival outcome for pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

RESULTS

A total of 130 patients were enrolled, with 65 in each study group after propensity score matching. The median operating time was longer for RPD (8.3 h vs. 7.0 h, P = 0.002). However, RPD was associated with less blood loss, lower overall surgical complication rate, and lower incidence of delayed gastric emptying. The resection radicality was oncologically similar between these two groups, but the median lymph node yield was higher for RPD (18 vs. 16, P = 0.038). Before propensity score matching, the 5-year survival was better in RPD (27.0% vs. 17.6%, P = 0.006). After matching, there was still a trend towards improved overall survival in the RPD group; however, the difference in 5-year survival between RPD and OPD was not significant (24.5% vs. 19.7%, P = 0.088).

CONCLUSION

RPD is not only technically feasible with no increase in surgical risk but also oncologically justifiable without compromising survival outcome. However, unlike randomized control trials, the limitations in this propensity score-matched analysis only accounted for 6 observed covariates commonly used to predict the survival outcome in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma, and confounders not included in this study could also affect our results.

Proposed training pathway with initial experience to set up robotic hepatobiliary and pancreatic service

Although robot-assisted hepatobiliary and pancreatic (HPB) surgery has gained momentum over the last 2 decades, only a handful of units in the world perform major robotic resections. Adaptation of robotic surgery in the UK lags behind its European counterparts and this is mainly because of cost implications in a publicly funded National Health Service (NHS). We describe our experience of setting up a robotic HPB programme with clinical outcomes and propose a training pathway that would help prospective centres in setting up their own robotic HPB service with robust clinical governance oversight. After gaining colleagues' and departmental support, approval from the hospital clinical governance, finance department and new intervention procedure committee was sought. A team of two consultant surgeons, three assistants and three theatre staff went through a structured training programme sponsored mainly by the industry. Surgeon training consisted of online modules, simulation, wet lab, cadaveric training, case observations, proctored procedures followed by independent practice. All major cases were recorded and videos reviewed to improve performance. A total of 111 procedures were successfully completed with robotic assistance between April 2018 and March 2020. The programme started with robot-assisted cholecystectomy as index procedure and progressed on to more complex liver and pancreatic resections including major hepatectomy and Whipple's procedure. The training pathway followed by our team has been effective in setting up a safe robotic HPB programme and could be considered as a roadmap to start new Robotic HPB services.

Learning curve of laparoscopic and robotic pancreas resections: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive pancreatic resection has been shown recently in some randomized trials to be superior in selected perioperative outcomes compared with open resection when performed by experienced surgeons. However, minimally invasive pancreatic resection is associated with a long learning curve. This study aims to summarize the current evidence on the learning curve of minimally invasive pancreatic resection and define the number of cases required to surmount the learning curve.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed on PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane database using a detailed search strategy. Studies that did not describe the learning curve were excluded from the study. Data on the method of learning curve analysis, single surgeon versus institutional learning curve, and outcome measures were extracted and analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 32 studies were included in the pooled analysis: 12 on laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy, 9 on robotic pancreatoduodenectomy, 12 on laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy, and 3 on robotic distal pancreatectomy. Sample population was comparable between laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy and robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (median 63 vs 65). Six of 12 studies and 7 of 9 studies used nonarbitrary methods of analysis in laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy and robotic pancreatoduodenectomy, respectively. Operating time was used as the single outcome measure in 4 of 12 studies in laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy and 5 of 9 studies in robotic pancreatoduodenectomy. Overall, there was no significant difference between the number of cases required to surmount the learning curve for laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy versus robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy 34.1 [95% confidence interval 30.7-37.7] versus robotic pancreatoduodenectomy 36.7 [95% confidence interval 32.9-41.0]; P = .8241) and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy versus robotic distal pancreatectomy (laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy 25.3 [95% confidence interval 22.5-28.3] versus robotic distal pancreatectomy 20.7 [95% confidence interval 15.8-26.5]; P = .5997.) CONCLUSION: This study provides a detailed summary of existing evidence around the learning curve in minimally invasive pancreatic resection. There was no significant difference between the learning curve for robotic pancreatoduodenectomy versus laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy and robotic distal pancreatectomy versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. These findings were limited by the retrospective nature and heterogeneity of the studies published to date.

Robotic Pancreatoduodenectomy: Patient Selection, Volume Criteria, and Training Programs

INTRODUCTION

There has been a rapid development in minimally invasive pancreas surgery in recent years. The most recent innovation is robotic pancreatoduodenectomy. Several studies have suggested benefits as compared to the open or laparoscopic approach. This review provides an overview of studies concerning patient selection, volume criteria, and training programs for robotic pancreatoduodenectomy and identified knowledge gaps regarding barriers for safe implementation of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A Pubmed search was conducted concerning patient selection, volume criteria, and training programs in robotic pancreatoduodenectomy.

RESULTS

A total of 20 studies were included. No contraindications were found in patient selection for robotic pancreatoduodenectomy. The consensus and the Miami guidelines advice is a minimum annual volume of 20 robotic pancreatoduodenectomy procedures per center, per year. One training program was identified which describes superior outcomes after the training program and shortening of the learning curve in robotic pancreatoduodenectomy.

CONCLUSION

Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy is safe and feasable for all indications when performed by specifically trained surgeons working in centers who can maintain a minimum volume of 20 robotic pancreatoduodenectomy procedures per year. Large proficiency-based training program for robotic pancreatoduodenectomy seem essential to facilitate a safe implementation and future research on robotic pancreatoduodenectomy.

Implementation of Robotic Assistance in Pancreatic Surgery: Experiences from the First 101 Consecutive Cases

Robotic assisted minimally invasive surgery has been implemented to overcome typical limitations of conventional laparoscopy such as lack of angulation, especially during creation of biliary and pancreatic anastomoses. With this retrospective analysis, we provide our experience with the first 101 consecutive robotic pancreatic resection performed at our center. Distal pancreatectomies (RDP, N = 44), total pancreatectomies (RTP, N = 3) and pancreaticoduodenectomies (RPD, N = 54) were included. Malignancy was found in 45.5% (RDP), 66.7% (RTP) and 61% (RPD). Procedure times decreased from the first to the second half of the cohort for RDP (218 min vs. 128 min, p = 0.02) and RPD (378 min vs. 271 min, p < 0.001). Overall complication rate was 63%, 33% and 66% for RPD, RPT and RDP, respectively. Reintervention and reoperation rates were 41% and 17% (RPD), 33% and 0% (RTP) and 50% and 11.4% (RPD), respectively. The thirty-day mortality rate was 5.6% for RPD and nil for RTP and RDP. Overall complication rate remained stable throughout the study period. In this series, implementation of robotic pancreas surgery was safe and feasible. Final evaluation of the anastomoses through the median retrieval incision compensated for the lack of haptic feedback during reconstruction and allowed for secure minimally invasive resection and reconstruction.

Perioperative outcomes of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a single surgeon's experience with 55 consecutive cases

Background

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) has been increasingly performed for patients with periampullary tumours and tumours in the pancreatic head. This method offers several technical advantages compared to open and laparoscopic surgeries. However, the surgical results often vary depending on the experience of different pancreatic centres.

Methods

A retrospective study of our first 55 cases of RPD from August 2016 to April 2020 was conducted to evaluate the perioperative outcomes of RPD and to summarize the operative experiences in a single intuition. Benign and malignant tumours in the pancreatic head or periampullary tumours without obvious vascular and adjacent organ invasion were included in this study. Perioperative characteristics and postoperative complications of the enrolled patients were retrospectively collected.

Results

The first 17 cases were robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RA-LPD) and the remaining 38 patients underwent total RPD. The RA-LPD group had a remarkably longer operative time than the total RPD group (415.3±89.2 vs. 362.4±75.6 min, P=0.047). The incidences of biliary leakage, chyle leakage, DGE, intra-abdominal infection and intra-abdominal haemorrhage were 3.6%, 0.0%, 5.5%, 9.1% and 5.5%, respectively. Two patients underwent relaparotomy due to severe intra-abdominal haemorrhage. The median length of hospital stay was 14 (11 to 19) days. There were no deaths during the perioperative period.

Conclusions

RPD is a technically feasible procedure for selected patients with periampullary tumours and tumours in the pancreatic head in experienced hands.

Ivor-Lewis oesophagectomy: A standardized operative technique in 11 steps

SYNOPSIS

Standardization of robotic oesophagectomy can benefit both patients and surgeons by decreasing complications, shortening the learning curve and improving surgical training.

BACKGROUND

Thoraco-abdominal oesophagectomy with lymphadenectomy is the cornerstone of curative therapy for oesophageal carcinoma. To reduce post-operative morbidity, minimally invasive technology has become increasingly established. Conventional thoraco-laparoscopic procedures, however, are limited by their technical feasibility. These limitations can be overcome using robot-assisted technology.

METHODS

Robotic Ivor-Lewis oesophageal resection has gradually been implemented in our clinic from 2013. We have performed over 250 robot-assisted minimally invasive oesophagectomies and more than 2000 robotic procedures overall. This experience allowed us to establish a standardized operative technique.

RESULTS

We identified 11 operative steps as key elements for oesophageal resection, which should help implementation of this technique and allow surgeons to approach this complex procedure with greater confidence.

CONCLUSION

Standardization is fundamental to the establishment of a new surgical technique and is a key element in the learning curve of Ivor-Lewis oesophageal resection. Standardization can lead to better reproducibility of results, and thus to improved quality.

Robotic-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy with vascular resection. Description of the surgical technique and analysis of early outcomes

BACKGROUND

Despite the potential benefits, the adoption of the minimally invasive surgery for the treatment of borderline resectable pancreatic cancer is still in the initial phase. We investigated the safety and feasibility of the robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy with venous resection/reconstruction (RPD SMV/PV).

METHODS

Since March 2013 to October 2019, a total of 73 RPD and 10 RPD SMV/PV were performed. The two groups were case-matched according to the preoperative characteristics.

RESULTS

Mean operative times and estimated blood loss were less in the RPD group in comparison to that in the RPD with SMV-PV group (525 vs 642 min, p = 0.003 and 290 vs 620 ml, p = 0.002, respectively). The mean length of hospital stay was similar in the RPD group in comparison to that in the RPD with SMV-PV group (10 days vs 13 days, p = 0.313). The two groups had similar overall postoperative morbidity rate (57.5% vs 60%, p = 0.686), although the severe complication rate was lower in the RPD group (11% vs 40%, p = 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

RPD with SMV-PV is associated with increased operative time, estimated blood loss, higher major complication rate compared with RPD.

3D-laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy with superior mesenteric or portal vein resection for pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy with synchronous vein resection for pancreatic cancer is controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate outcomes and describe the surgical technique of 3d-laparoscopic pylorus-resecting pancreaticoduodenectomy (3dLPD) with venous resection for pancreatic cancer.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort analysis was performed with 26 patients [male/female 11/15; median age 68 (range 45-83) years] who underwent 3dLPD with stented pancreaticogastrostomy and superior mesenteric or portal vein resection for pancreatic adenocarcinoma between November 2016 and June 2019. Median follow-up time after surgery was 12 months (range 3-32).

RESULTS

Median operating time was 340 min (range 240-420) and intra-operative blood loss was 100 mL (range 0-1000). Type of venous resection and reconstruction was wedge-resection with primary closure (n = 22), wedge-resection with reconstruction using a peritoneal patch (n = 3), and segmental resection with primary end-to-end reconstruction (n = 1). Laparoscopy was converted to open surgery in 4 (15%) patients. Postoperative complications occurred in 10 (38%) patients including severe complications (Clavien-Dindo grade > 2) in 4 (15%). Postoperative mortality was zero. R0 resection was achieved in 21 (81%) patients. Median number of lymph nodes retrieved was 25 (range 10-45). Venous patency was observed in 23 (88%) patients with a median patency duration of 11 months (range 0-31).

CONCLUSIONS

3dLPD with simultaneous venous resection for pancreatic cancer results in acceptable reconstruction patency and adequacy of surgical oncology without compromising clinical outcomes.

Hybrid pancreatoduodenectomy in laparoscopic and robotic surgery: a single-center experience in China

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery is beneficial for pancreatic surgery, and the indication has been expanded to pancreatoduodenectomy (PD). The aim of this study was to share our experiences with hybrid PD in laparoscopic and robotic surgery.

METHODS

Sixty-four patients underwent hybrid PD in which specimen resection and gastrojejunostomy were performed through the laparoscopic route and pancreatojejunostomy and hepaticojejunostomy were performed via a robotic approach by the same surgeon at a single institution between July 2016 and June 2019. The primary endpoint was complications; secondary endpoints were operative time (OT), the length of hospital stay, and blood loss. The data for the patients were retrospectively obtained from electrical medical records.

RESULTS

All patients underwent surgery with the hybrid procedure. The mean OTs and estimated blood loss (EBL) were 309.7 ± 77.6 min (range 17-620 min), 160 ± 31.7 mL (range 50-800 mL). The mean number of lymph nodes retrieved was 7.3 ± 6.7 (range 0-37), and that among 45 malignant cases was 8.42 ± 6.7 (range 1-37). The average length of postoperative stay in the hospital was 11.14 ± 7.03 days (range 6-47 days). Clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistulas (POPFs) occurred in 39 (60.9%) cases, and most were biochemical leak POPF (29 cases, 45.3%); only 10 (15.6%) cases were grade B/C (8 cases were Grade B and 2 cases were Grade C treated with digital subtraction angiography). Bile leakage occurred in 2 (3.1%) patients. One (1.5%) patient had a gastric fistula, and 3 (4.7%) developed postoperative delayed gastric emptying categorized as International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) Grade A. Three (4.7%) patients were readmitted for postoperative bleeding, and 2 (3.1%) died within 30 days.

CONCLUSION

Hybrid PD with laparoscopic and robot surgery is safe and feasible. OT can be reduced by switching from the laparoscopic approach to the robotic procedure at the appropriate timepoint.