Outcome of robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy during initial learning curve versus laparotomy

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.

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.

Robotic Pancreaticoduodenectomy: Increased Adoption and Improved Outcomes: Is Laparoscopy Still Justified?

OBJECTIVE

To compare the rate of postoperative 30-day complications between laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD).

BACKGROUND

Previous studies suggest that minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MI-PD)-either LPD or RPD-is noninferior to open pancreaticoduodenectomy in terms of operative outcomes. However, a direct comparison of the two minimally invasive approaches has not been rigorously performed.

METHODS

Patients who underwent MI-PD were abstracted from the 2014 to 2019 pancreas-targeted American College of Surgeons National Sample Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) dataset. Optimal outcome was defined as absence of postoperative mortality, serious complication, percutaneous drainage, reoperation, and prolonged length of stay (75th percentile, 11 days) with no readmission. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to compare optimal outcome of RPD and LPD.

RESULTS

A total of 1540 MI-PDs were identified between 2014 and 2019, of which 885 (57%) were RPD and 655 (43%) were LPD. The rate of RPD cases/year significantly increased from 2.4% to 8.4% ( P =0.008) from 2014 to 2019, while LPD remained unchanged. Similarly, the rate of optimal outcome for RPD increased during the study period from 48.2% to 57.8% ( P <0.001) but significantly decreased for LPD (53.5% to 44.9%, P <0.001). During 2018-2019, RPD outcomes surpassed LPD for any complication [odds ratio (OR)=0.58, P =0.004], serious complications (OR=0.61, P =0.011), and optimal outcome (OR=1.78, P =0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

RPD adoption increased compared with LPD and was associated with decreased overall complications, serious complications, and increased optimal outcome compared with LPD in 2018-2019.

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: Analysis of surgical outcomes and long-term prognosis in a high-volume center

BACKGROUND

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) has been reported to be safe and feasible for patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) of the pancreatic head. This study aimed to analyze the surgical outcomes and risk factors for poor long-term prognosis of these patients.

METHODS

Data from patients who underwent RPD for PDAC of pancreatic head were retrospectively analyzed. Multivariate Cox regression analysis was used to seek the independent prognostic factors for overall survival (OS), and an online nomogram calculator was developed based on the independent prognostic factors.

RESULTS

Of the 273 patients who met the inclusion criteria, the median operative time was 280.0 minutes, the estimated blood loss was 100.0 mL, the median OS was 23.6 months, and the median recurrence-free survival (RFS) was 14.4 months. Multivariate analysis showed that preoperative carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9) [hazard ratio (HR) = 2.607, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.560-4.354, P < 0.001], lymph node metastasis (HR = 1.429, 95% CI: 1.005-2.034, P = 0.047), tumor moderately (HR = 3.190, 95% CI: 1.813-5.614, P < 0.001) or poorly differentiated (HR = 5.114, 95% CI: 2.839-9.212, P < 0.001), and Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ III (HR = 1.657, 95% CI: 1.079-2.546, P = 0.021) were independent prognostic factors for OS. The concordance index (C-index) of the nomogram constructed based on the above four independent prognostic factors was 0.685 (95% CI: 0.640-0.729), which was significantly higher than that of the AJCC staging (8th edition): 0.541 (95% CI: 0.493-0.589) (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This large-scale study indicated that RPD was feasible for PDAC of pancreatic head. Preoperative CA19-9, lymph node metastasis, tumor poorly differentiated, and Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ III were independent prognostic factors for OS. The online nomogram calculator could predict the OS of these patients in a simple and convenient manner.

Establishment and Application of a Novel Difficulty Scoring System for da Vinci Robotic Pancreatoduodenectomy

Background

Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) technology is developing rapidly, but there is still a lack of a specific and objective difficulty evaluation system in the field of application and training of RPD surgery.

Methods

The clinical data of patients who underwent RPD in our hospital from November 2014 to October 2020 were analyzed retrospectively. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to determine the predictors of operation difficulty and convert into a scoring system.

Results

A total of 72 patients were enrolled in the group. According to the operation time (25%), intraoperative blood loss (25%), conversion to laparotomy, and major complications, the difficulty of operation was divided into low difficulty (0–2 points) and high difficulty (3–4 points). The multivariate logistic regression model included the thickness of mesenteric tissue (P1) (P = 0.035), the thickness of the abdominal wall (B1) (P = 0.017), and the preoperative albumin (P = 0.032), and the nomogram was established. AUC = 0.773 (0.645–0.901).

Conclusions

The RPD difficulty evaluation system based on the specific anatomical relationship between da Vinci’s laparoscopic robotic arm and tissues/organs in the operation area can be used as a predictive tool to evaluate the surgical difficulty of patients before operation and guide clinical practice.

Robotic central pancreatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Central pancreatectomy is usually performed to excise lesions of the neck or proximal body of the pancreas. In the last decade, thanks to the advent of novel technologies, surgeons have started to perform this procedure robotically. This review aims to appraise the results and outcomes of robotic central pancreatectomies (RCP) through a systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, and Web Of Science identified studies reporting outcomes of RCP. Pooled prevalence rates of postoperative complications and mortality were computed using random-effect modelling.

RESULTS

Thirteen series involving 265 patients were included. In all cases but one, RCP was performed to excise benign or low-grade tumours. Clinically relevant post-operative pancreatic fistula (POPF) occurred in 42.3% of patients. While overall complications were reported in 57.5% of patients, only 9.4% had a Clavien-Dindo score ≥ III. Re-operation was necessary in 0.7% of the patients. New-onset diabetes occurred postoperatively in 0.3% of patients and negligible mortality and open conversion rates were observed.

CONCLUSION

RCP is safe and associated with low perioperative mortality and well preserved postoperative pancreatic function, although burdened by high overall morbidity and POPF rates.

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.

Role of robotic natural orifice specimen extraction surgery in colorectal neoplasms

Natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) is especially suitable for colorectal surgery. Until now, most of the reports published were about laparoscopic NOSES, the reports about robotic NOSES are extremely rare. This study aims to explore the safety and feasibility of robotic NOSES for colorectal neoplasms. All patients underwent robotic NOSES from March 2016 to October 2019 in our hospital were enrolled for retrospective analysis. Clinicopathological data including patient characteristics, perioperative information and pathological information were collected and analyzed. According to the distance between tumor and anus or whether neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nRCT) is performed, we grouped the cases and studied its influence on robotic NOSES. Also, we compared the previous reports on laparoscopic NOSES with our study and revealed advantages of robotic NOSES in terms of safety and feasibility. A total of 180 patients were enrolled. The average distance from the lower edge of the tumor to the anus was (8.64 ± 3.64) cm and maximum circumferential diameter (CDmax) of specimen was (3.5 ± 1.6) cm. In terms of safety, the average operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and postoperative hospital stay were (187.5 ± 78.3) min, (47.4 ± 34) mL, and (11.3 ± 7.5) days, respectively. In terms of feasibility, the average number of lymph node harvested was (14.8 ± 5). Robotic NOSES shows advantages in terms of safety and feasibility compared with laparoscopic NOSES. This procedure could not only be a safe procedure but also could achieve good oncological outcomes.

Surgical training model and safe implementation of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy in Japan: a technical note

Background

Growing evidence for the advantages of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) has been demonstrated internationally. However, there has been no structured training program for RPD in Japan. Herein, we present the surgical training model of RPD and a standardized protocol for surgical technique.

Methods

The surgical training model and surgical technique were standardized in order to implement RPD safely, based on the Dutch training system collaborated with the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.

Results

The surgical training model included various trainings such as basic robotic training, simulation training, biotissue training, and a surgical video review. Furthermore, a standardized protocol on the surgical technique was established to understand the tips, tricks, and pitfalls of RPD.

Conclusions

Safe implementation of RPD can be achieved through the completion of a structured training program and learning surgical technique. A nationwide structured training system should be developed to implement the program safely in Japan.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12957-021-02167-9.

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.