Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy in the era of minimally invasive surgery

Deconstructing the Operative Times of Robotic Pancreaticoduodenectomy

INTRODUCTION

Despite numerous benefits offered, robotic procedures take longer than "open" procedures. With the intent to reduce operative duration, we examined the degree each operative step contributes to operative duration in robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

With IRB approval, we prospectively followed 88 patients to determine the duration of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy, and the duration of 12 key steps. Each operative step was regressed against the operation date, from most distant to most recent operation date. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD) for illustrative purposes.

RESULTS

Patients were 73 (71 ± 10.2) years old; 53% were men. Total time patient spent in the operating room was 471 (488 ± 93.3) minutes. Total operative time was 399 (421 ± 90.7) minutes. Total console time was 293 (297 ± 68.0) minutes. The 3 longest portions of the operation were (1) mobilization of the specimen and specimen extraction; (2) construction of the duodenojejunostomy; and (3) closure.

CONCLUSION

A third of the operative time is spent off the console. Over half of the steps required more than 20 minutes each to complete. Since robotic operations are associated with shorter LOS and without increased complication rates relative to "open" operations, salutary benefit can be gained by decreasing operative times of robotic procedures. Operative duration is an important metric that needs to be addressed. We need to target the most time-consuming steps, and break them into smaller pieces, to reach optimal efficiency and provide the benefits of decreased operative duration to the patients, hospitals, and providers.

Comparing robotic and open surgical techniques in gallbladder cancer management: a detailed systematic review and meta-analysis

This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the safety and oncological outcomes of robotic surgery compared to open surgery in treating gallbladder cancer (GBC). In October 2023, we performed a literature search across major global databases such as PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. We employed a Review Manager for parameter comparisons. This study has been registered with PROSPERO under the identifier CRD42023476686. Our final meta-analysis incorporated 5 cohort studies, encompassing a total of 353 patients. Compared to the Open Group (OG), the Robotic Group (RG) had reduced intraoperative blood loss (WMD - 217.72 ml, 95% CI - 371.08 to - 64.35; p = 0.005), shorter hospital stay (WMD - 1.80 days, 95% CI - 2.66 to - 0.95; p < 0.0001), and fewer overall complications (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.10-0.97; p = 0.04). However, there was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of operation duration, postoperative inpatient days, readmission rate, major complications, 1-year postoperative survival, 2-year postoperative survival, and mortality rates. In our study, we found that for patients with gallbladder cancer, robotic radical cholecystectomy offers certain potential advantages over open radical cholecystectomy. This suggests that robotic radical cholecystectomy might be the optimal choice for treating gallbladder cancer. However, further validation from high-quality randomized clinical trials is required.

Oncologic safety of robotic extended cholecystectomy for gallbladder cancer

BACKGROUND

Although laparoscopic cholecystectomy is applicable for the treatment of early gallbladder cancer (GBC), minimally invasive surgery is not widely used for advanced GBC. This is because advanced GBCs necessitate complicated surgical techniques, including lymph node dissection and liver resection. Robotic extended cholecystectomy (REC) is thought to overcome the limitations of laparoscopic surgery, but oncological safety studies are lacking. Therefore, in this study, we aimed to evaluate the oncologic outcomes of REC compared with those of open extended cholecystectomy (OEC).

METHODS

A total of 125 patients, who underwent extended cholecystectomy for GBC with tentative T2 or higher stage between 2018 and 2021, were included and stratified by surgical methods. To minimize the confounding factors, 1:1 propensity-score matching was performed between the patients who underwent REC and those who underwent OEC.

RESULTS

Regarding short-term outcomes, the REC group showed significantly lower estimated blood loss (382.7 vs. 717.2 mL, P = 0.020) and shorter hospital stay (6.9 vs. 8.5 days, P = 0.042) than the OEC group. In addition, the REC group had significantly lower subjective pain scores than the OEC group from the day of surgery through the 5th postoperative day (P = 0.006). Regarding long-term outcomes, there were no significant differences in the 3-year [5-year] overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) rates between the REC group [OS, 92.3% (92.3%); DFS, 84.6% (72.5%)] and the OEC group [OS, 96.8% (96.8%); DFS, 78.2% (78.2%)] (P = 0.807 for OS and 0.991 for DFS).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, REC showed superior short-term outcomes to OEC and no difference in long-term survival outcomes. Additionally, REC was superior to OEC in terms of postoperative pain. Therefore, REC may be a feasible option with early recovery compared with OEC for patients with advanced GBC.

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic head cancer and periampullary lesions

Pancreaticoduodenectomy, so-called "Whipple operation," is a time-consuming and technically demanding complex operation. Traditionally, this procedure has been performed most usually by open approach, which results in a large and painful wound. With the introduction of laparoscopic and robotic surgery, minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has emerged as a worldwide trend to improve wound cosmesis and to minimize wound pain. Although MIS for pancreaticoduodenectomy has also been attempted at some centers, the role of MIS, either robotic or laparoscopic approach, has not been well-established for complex pancreaticoduodenectomy. Given that laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy has been limited by its technical complexity and the high level of advanced laparoscopic skills required for pancreatic reconstruction, a robotic surgical system is introduced to overcome several limitations related to the laparoscopic approach. Providing high-quality three-dimensional (3-D) vision, high optical magnification, articulation of robotic instruments, greater precision with suture targeting, and elimination of surgeon tremor, robotic surgical systems innovatively perform more delicate and complex procedures involving extensive dissection and suturing techniques such as pancreaticoduodenectomy. Although associated with longer operative time, robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) has been claimed to have the benefits of less delayed gastric emptying, less blood loss, shorter length of postoperative stay, and lower wound infection rate, as compared with the traditional open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD). Moreover, RPD seems to be not only technically feasible but also justified without compromising the survival outcomes for pancreatic head and ampullary adenocarcinomas. Therefore, RPD could be recommended not only to surgeons but also to patients in terms of surgical feasibility, surgical outcomes, and patient satisfaction.