250 robotic pancreatic resections: safety and feasibility. Ann Surg. 2013;258:554-559; discussion 559-562. [PMID: 24002300 DOI: 10.1097/sla.0b013e3182a4e87c]

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma: A propensity-matched national analysis on surgical outcomes and healthcare disparities

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic adenocarcinoma of distal pancreas is hard to treat due to late presentation. While open distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy has had favourable outcomes, it has also had many complications which were low among Minimally invasive procedures. This retrospective cohort analysis compares minimally invasive and open distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) outcomes using a national inpatient database.

METHODS

The study used 2016-2020 NIS data. The study included 1577 distal pancreatic malignant tumor surgery patients. There were 530 Minimally Invasive and 1047 Open groups. Propensity matched analysis was performed on surgical groups to reduce confounding variables.

RESULTS

In comparison to open procedures, minimally invasive techniques reduced hospital stays by 10 ​% (OR ​= ​0.90, 95 ​% CI 0.86-0.93). While not statistically significant, the unmatched analysis linked MIDP to lower in-hospital mortality. African Americans were 37 ​% less likely to undergo MIDP than Caucasians (OR ​= ​0.63, 95 ​% CI ​= ​0.40-0.96).

CONCLUSION

Nationwide analysis suggests MIDP may be a safe and effective surgical treatment for distal pancreatic adenocarcinoma. It may reduce hospital stays and mortality over open surgery. The study also suggests race may affect minimally invasive procedure rates.

Short-term results of robot-assisted pancreatoduodeodenectomy: a retrospective cohort study of 146 patients operated in a high-volume center

BACKGROUND

Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is a challenging operation because of complex anatomy and difficult and multiple reconstructions. Robot-assisted PD (RPD) is a novel minimally invasive technique, providing equivalent oncological outcomes to open surgery. The aim of this study is to evaluate the results of a single high-volume center series.

METHODS

Patients who underwent RPD from 2014 to 2021 in a high-volume center were included. Patient and disease-specific data, operative details, postoperative complications including postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), length of stay (LOS) and long-term survival were recorded. Two groups were compared: Group 1: patients operated between 2014-2019 and Group 2 between 2020-2021.

RESULTS

One hundred and forty-six patients had RPD on the study period (99 in Group 1 and 47 in Group 2). Operative time was 320 min (285-360), major complications were observed in 28% and clinically significant POPF in 20% of the cases. Conversion rate was 2.1%. LOS was 14 days (9-22). Postoperative mortality was 4.1%. Clinically significant POPF decreased from 24% in Group 1 to 11% in Group 2 (p = 0.05). LOS decreased from 16(11-26) days in Group 1 to 11(8-14) in Group 2 (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

RPD is safe and feasible. Technique standardization led to better post-operative outcomes, encouraging the dissemination and implementation of the procedure.

Development of the multiple scope transition method in robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

Since robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (R-PD) has emerged as a promising technique for treating periampullary tumors, optimal surgical views across various stages of the surgery are vital. This study aimed to describe the evolution and optimization of the multiple scope transition (MST) method using comprehensive videos and illustrations, particularly from the perspective of the patient-side assistants, to enhance the efficiency and safety of R-PD through its different phases.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 61 patients who underwent R-PD from April 2021 to May 2023.

RESULTS

The median total operation duration was 599 min (415-840 min). The median scope transition times for redocking from the left to central lower position, transition from the central lower to upper position, and port-hopping from the central to right position were 169 s (53-725 s), 55 s (26-165 s), and 120 s (41-260 s), respectively. Owing to the advancements in the scope transition procedures, these scope transition times became shorter with an increase in the number of experiences. No intraoperative complications relevant to scope transition was reported, and the incidence of significant postoperative complications greater than Grade IIIa of the Clavien-Dindo classification was 8.2%.

CONCLUSION

We reported the established role and evolution of the MST method from the standpoint of the patient-side assistants. The comfortable surgical field expansion provided by the MST method can ensure the safe and widespread application of R-PD.

The use of indocyanine green fluorescence imaging in preventing postoperative bile leakage of the hepaticojejunostomy in robot-assisted pancreatic surgery

BACKGROUND

Postoperative bile leakage (POBL) due to insufficiency of the hepaticojejunostomy (HJ) after pancreatico-duodenectomy (PD) is associated with high morbidity and mortality. The aim of this cohort study was to determine the clinical relevance of ICG in detecting and preventing POBL of the HJ in robotic minimal invasive pancreatic surgery (R-MIPS).

METHODS

All consecutive robot- and ICG-assisted HJ-anastomoses between 2019 and 2022 were included. Biliary leakage was objectified with near infrared technology. Only clinically relevant POBL were considered in this study.

RESULTS

Sixty patients who underwent a PD between 2019 and 2022 were included. In ten patients, fluorescence imaging revealed an intra-operative hepaticojejunostomy insufficiency (HJI). Five of these patients developed POBL despite revision but preventing POBL in five patients. Detection of HJI with ICG predicted POBL with a sensitivity and specificity of 41.6% and 89.6% respectively. There was a significant higher chance of developing a POBL if the hepatic duct diameter was less than 5 mm (relative risk = 4.68 (p = 0.0345)), or if an intra-operative HJI was detected (relative risk = 3.57 (p = 0.009)).

CONCLUSION

ICG is a simple and useful tool for detecting intra-operative bile leakage. This study shows that bile illumination with ICG in R-MIPS could prevent postoperative bile leakage.

Artificial intelligence: revolutionizing robotic surgery: review

Robotic surgery, known for its minimally invasive techniques and computer-controlled robotic arms, has revolutionized modern medicine by providing improved dexterity, visualization, and tremor reduction compared to traditional methods. The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into robotic surgery has further advanced surgical precision, efficiency, and accessibility. This paper examines the current landscape of AI-driven robotic surgical systems, detailing their benefits, limitations, and future prospects. Initially, AI applications in robotic surgery focused on automating tasks like suturing and tissue dissection to enhance consistency and reduce surgeon workload. Present AI-driven systems incorporate functionalities such as image recognition, motion control, and haptic feedback, allowing real-time analysis of surgical field images and optimizing instrument movements for surgeons. The advantages of AI integration include enhanced precision, reduced surgeon fatigue, and improved safety. However, challenges such as high development costs, reliance on data quality, and ethical concerns about autonomy and liability hinder widespread adoption. Regulatory hurdles and workflow integration also present obstacles. Future directions for AI integration in robotic surgery include enhancing autonomy, personalizing surgical approaches, and refining surgical training through AI-powered simulations and virtual reality. Overall, AI integration holds promise for advancing surgical care, with potential benefits including improved patient outcomes and increased access to specialized expertise. Addressing challenges and promoting responsible adoption are essential for realizing the full potential of AI-driven robotic surgery.

Cost-effectiveness of robotic vs laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. Results from the national prospective trial ROBOCOSTES

INTRODUCTION

Although several studies report that the robotic approach is more costly than laparoscopy, the cost-effectiveness of robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) over laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is still an issue. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of the RDP and LDP approaches across several Spanish centres.

METHODS

This study is an observational, multicenter, national prospective study (ROBOCOSTES). For one year from 2022, all consecutive patients undergoing minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy were included, and clinical, QALY, and cost data were prospectively collected. The primary aim was to analyze the cost-effectiveness between RDP and LDP.

RESULTS

During the study period, 80 procedures from 14 Spanish centres were analyzed. LDP had a shorter operative time than the RDP approach (192.2 min vs 241.3 min, p = 0.004). RDP showed a lower conversion rate (19.5% vs 2.5%, p = 0.006) and a lower splenectomy rate (60% vs 26.5%, p = 0.004). A statistically significant difference was reported for the Comprehensive Complication Index between the two study groups, favouring the robotic approach (12.7 vs 6.1, p = 0.022). RDP was associated with increased operative costs of 1600 euros (p < 0.031), while overall cost expenses resulted in being 1070.92 Euros higher than the LDP but without a statistically significant difference (p = 0.064). The mean QALYs at 90 days after surgery for RDP (0.9534) were higher than those of LDP (0.8882) (p = 0.030). At a willingness-to-pay threshold of 20,000 and 30,000 euros, there was a 62.64% and 71.30% probability that RDP was more cost-effective than LDP, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The RDP procedure in the Spanish healthcare system appears more cost-effective than the LDP.

Perioperative and oncologic outcomes of robot-assisted versus open surgery for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare perioperative and oncologic outcomes in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) treated with robotic-assisted surgery versus open laparotomy. The study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies up to June 15, 2024, were identified using PubMed, EMBASE, and Google Scholar. Additionally, reference lists of included studies, relevant review articles, and clinical guidelines were manually searched. The primary outcomes evaluated were length of stay, 90-day mortality, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), and Post-pancreatectomy haemorrhage (PPH). Secondary outcomes included estimated blood loss, reoperation rate, lymph node yield, and operative time. The final analysis included 10 retrospective cohort studies involving 23,272 patients (2,179 robotic-assisted and 21,093 open surgery). There were no significant differences between the two procedures in terms of postoperative pancreatic fistula, Post-pancreatectomy haemorrhage, lymph node yield, and operative time. However, patients undergoing robotic-assisted surgery had shorter lengths of stay, lower 90-day mortality, and less estimated blood loss compared to those undergoing open surgery. The reoperation rate was higher for the robotic-assisted group. Robotic-assisted surgery for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is safe and feasible. Compared to open surgery, it offers better perioperative and short-term oncologic outcomes, but with a higher risk of reoperation.

Short-term outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic limited resections of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours of the uncinate process: Report of six cases and review of the literature

INTRODUCTION

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for limited resections for pancreatic uncinate lesions is not widely performed but can adequately treat benign or low-grade malignant lesions. The aim of this study was to evaluate the short-term outcomes of MIS-limited pancreatic resections for patients with suspected pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (PNETs).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective study of six consecutive patients who underwent MIS for PNET within a single institution between 2017 and 2022.

RESULTS

Six patients underwent limited pancreas-preserving MIS of the uncinate process (uncinectomy or enucleation), of which two were performed through the robotic approach and four through laparoscopic approach. The median operation time was 212.5 (175-338.75) min, and the median blood loss was 50 (50-112.5) ml. The median post-operative hospital length of stay was 5.5 (3.75-11.5) days. Two patients (33.3%) had major post-operative morbidities (Clavien-Dindo ≥Grade 3). There were no open conversions or post-operative mortalities. Five patients had histologically proven Grade 1 neuroendocrine tumours. One was T2 and four were T1.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that limited MIS resections of pancreatic uncinate PNETs are a feasible procedure with good patient outcomes. It offers a safe alternative to radical surgical resections like pancreatoduodenectomies in selected patients with low-grade malignant or benign tumours.

Effect of robotic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy on postoperative length of hospital stay and complications for pancreatic head or periampullary tumours: a multicentre, open-label randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The flexibility of the robotic system in resection and reconstruction provides potential benefits in pancreaticoduodenectomy. Increasingly, robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) has been reported with favourable outcomes, but high-level evidence is still scarce. We aimed to compare the short-term postoperative outcomes of RPD with those of open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD), and hypothesised that postoperative length of hospital stay would be shorter after RPD than after OPD.

METHODS

This multicentre, open-label randomised controlled trial was conducted at three high-volume hospitals in China. Patients were considered for participation in this trial if they were aged 18-75 years, had a resectable benign, premalignant, or malignant tumour in the pancreatic head or periampullary region; and were suitable for both RPD and OPD. Patients with distant metastases were excluded. Block randomisation was done with random block sizes of four, stratified by centre. Allocation was concealed via individual, sequentially numbered, opaque sealed envelopes. Eligible patients were randomly assigned to the RPD group or the OPD group in a 1:1 ratio by a masked research assistant. Surgeons and patients were not masked to trial group, but data collectors, postoperative outcome assessors, and data analysts were. All patients underwent RPD or OPD according to previously reported techniques. Participating surgeons had surpassed the learning curves of at least 40 RPD and 60 OPD procedures. The primary outcome was postoperative length of hospital stay, which was analysed in the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population. This trial is registered with the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2200056809) and is complete.

FINDINGS

Between March 5 and Dec 20, 2022, 292 patients were screened for eligibility, of whom 164 were enrolled and randomly assigned to the RPD group (n=82) or the OPD group (n=82). 161 patients who underwent surgical resection were included in the mITT analysis (81 in the RPD group and 80 in the OPD group). 94 (58%) participants were male and 67 (42%) were female. Postoperative length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the RPD group than in the OPD group (median 11·0 days [IQR 9·0 to 19·5] vs 13·5 days [11·5 to 18·0]; median difference -2·0 [95% CI -4·0 to 0·0]; p=0·029). During a follow-up period of 90 days, six (7%) of 81 patients in the RPD group and five (6%) of 80 patients in the OPD group required readmission. Reasons for readmission were intra-abdominal haemorrhage (one in each group), vomiting (two in the RPD group and one in the OPD group), electrolyte disturbance (one in each group), and fever (two in each group). There were two (1%) in-hospital deaths within 90 days of surgery, one in each group. The postoperative 90-day mortality rate (difference -0·02% [-5·6 to 5·5]; p=1·00) and the incidence of severe complications (ie, Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3; difference -1·5% [-14·5 to 11·4]; p=0·82) were similar between the two groups.

INTERPRETATION

For surgeons who had passed the learning curve, RPD was safe and feasible with the advantage of shorter postoperative length of hospital stay than OPD. Future research should focus on the medium-term and long-term outcomes between RPD and OPD.

FUNDING

None.

Postoperative outcomes and costs of laparoscopic versus robotic distal pancreatectomy: a propensity-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) has established advantages over the open approach. The costs associated with robotic DP (RDP) versus laparoscopic DP (LDP) make the robotic approach controversial. We sought to compare outcomes and cost of LDP and RDP using propensity matching analysis at our institution.

METHODS

Patients undergoing LDP or RDP between 2000 and 2021 were retrospectively identified. Patients were optimally matched using age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists status, body mass index, and tumor size. Between-group differences were analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test for continuous data, and the McNemar's test for categorical data. Outcomes included operative duration, conversion to open surgery, postoperative length of stay, pancreatic fistula rate, pseudocyst requiring intervention, and costs.

RESULTS

298 patients underwent MIDP, 180 (60%) were laparoscopic and 118 (40%) were robotic. All RDPs were matched 1:1 to a laparoscopic case with absolute standardized mean differences for all matching covariates below 0.10, except for tumor type (0.16). RDP had longer operative times (268 vs 178 min, p < 0.01), shorter length of stay (2 vs 4 days, p < 0.01), fewer biochemical pancreatic leaks (11.9% vs 34.7%, p < 0.01), and fewer interventional radiological drainage (0% vs 5.9%, p = 0.01). The number of pancreatic fistulas (11.9% vs 5.1%, p = 0.12), collections requiring antibiotics or intervention (11.9% vs 5.1%, p = 0.12), and conversion rates (3.4% vs 5.1%, p = 0.72) were comparable between the two groups. The total direct index admission costs for RDP were 1.01 times higher than for LDP for FY16-19 (p = 0.372), and 1.33 times higher for FY20-22 (p = 0.031).

CONCLUSIONS

Although RDP required longer operative times than LDP, postoperative stays were shorter. The procedure cost of RDP was modestly more expensive than LDP, though this was partially offset by reduced hospital stay and reintervention rate.

Robotic versus open partial pancreatoduodenectomy (EUROPA): a randomised controlled stage 2b trial

Background

Open partial pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) represents the current gold standard of surgical treatment of a wide range of diseases of the pancreatic head but is associated with morbidity in around 40% of cases. Robotic partial pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) is being used increasingly, yet, no randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of RPD versus OPD have been published, leaving a low level of evidence to support this practice.

Methods

This investigator-initiated, exploratory RCT with two parallel study arms was conducted at a high-volume pancreatic centre in line with IDEAL recommendations (stage 2b). Patients scheduled for elective partial pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) for any indication were randomised (1:1) to RPD or OPD with a centralised web-based tool. The primary endpoint was postoperative cumulative morbidity within 90 days, assessed via the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI). Biometricians were blinded to the intervention, but patients and surgeons were not. The trial was registered prospectively (DRKS00020407).

Findings

Between June 3, 2020 and February 14, 2022, 81 patients were randomly assigned to RPD (n = 41) or OPD (n = 40), of whom 62 patients (RPD: n = 29, OPD: n = 33) were analysed in the modified intention to treat analysis. Four patients in the OPD group were randomised, but did not undergo surgery in our department and one patient was excluded in the RPD group due to other reason. Nine patients in the RPD group and 3 patients in the OPD were excluded from the primary analysis because they did not undergo PD, but rather underwent other types of surgery. The CCI after 90 days was comparable between groups (RPD: 34.02 ± 23.48 versus OPD: 36.45 ± 27.65, difference in means [95% CI]: -2.42 [-15.55; 10.71], p = 0.713). The RPD group had a higher incidence of grade B/C pancreas-specific complications compared to the OPD group (17 (58.6%) versus 11 (33.3%); difference in rates [95% CI]: 25.3% [1.2%; 49.4%], p = 0.046). The only complication that occurred significantly more often in the RPD than in the OPD group was clinically relevant delayed gastric emptying. Procedure-related and overall hospital costs were significantly higher and duration of surgery was longer in the RPD group. Blood loss did not differ significantly between groups. The intraoperative conversion rate of RPD was 23%. Overall 90-day mortality was 4.8% without significant differences between RPD and OPD.

Interpretation

In the setting of a very high-volume centre, both RPD and OPD can be considered safe techniques. Further confirmatory multicentre RCTs are warranted to uncover potential advantages of RPD in terms of perioperative and long-term outcomes.

Funding

Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF: 01KG2010).

Effect of Laparoscopic and Open Pancreaticoduodenectomy for Pancreatic or Periampullary Tumors: Three-year Follow-up of a Randomized Clinical Trial

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to estimate whether the potential short-term advantages of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) could allow patients to recover in a more timely manner and achieve better long-term survival than with open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) in patients with pancreatic or periampullary tumors.

BACKGROUND

LPD has been demonstrated to be feasible and may have several potential advantages over OPD in terms of shorter hospital stay and accelerated recovery than OPD.

METHODS

This noninferiority, open-label, randomized clinical trial was conducted in 14 centers in China. The initial trial included 656 eligible patients with pancreatic or periampullary tumors enrolled from May 18, 2018, to December 19, 2019. The participants were randomized preoperatively in a 1:1 ratio to undergo either LPD (n=328) or OPD (n=328). The 3-year overall survival (OS), quality of life, which was assessed using the 3-level version of the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions, depression, and other outcomes were evaluated.

RESULTS

Data from 656 patients [328 men (69.9%); mean (SD) age: 56.2 (10.7) years] who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy were analyzed. For malignancies, the 3-year OS rates were 59.1% and 54.3% in the LPD and OPD groups, respectively ( P =0.33, hazard ratio: 1.16, 95% CI: 0.86-1.56). The 3-year OS rates for others were 81.3% and 85.6% in the LPD and OPD groups, respectively ( P =0.40, hazard ratio: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.30-1.63). No significant differences were observed in quality of life, depression and other outcomes between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

In patients with pancreatic or periampullary tumors, LPD performed by experienced surgeons resulted in a similar 3-year OS compared with OPD.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03138213.

Current Status of Robotic Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery

Laparoscopic surgery is performed worldwide and has clear economic and social benefits in terms of patient recovery time. It is used for most gastrointestinal surgical procedures, but laparoscopic surgery for more complex procedures in the esophageal, hepatobiliary, and pancreatic regions remains challenging. Minimally invasive surgery that results in accurate tumor dissection is vital in surgical oncology, and development of surgical systems and instruments plays a key role in assisting surgeons to achieve this. A notable advance in the latter half of the 1990s was the da Vinci Surgical System, which involves master-slave surgical support robots. Featuring high-resolution three-dimensional (3D) imaging with magnification capabilities and forceps with multi-joint function, anti-shake function, and motion scaling, the system compensates for the drawbacks of conventional laparoscopic surgery. It is expected to be particularly useful in the field of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery, which requires delicate reconstruction involving complex liver anatomy with diverse vascular and biliary systems and anastomosis of the biliary tract, pancreas, and intestines. The learning curve is said to be short, and it is hoped that robotic surgery will be standardized in the near future. There is also a need for a standardized robotic surgery training system for young surgeons that can later be adapted to a wider range of surgeries. This systematic review describes trends and future prospects for robotic surgery in the hepatobiliary-pancreatic region.

Defining the operative time threshold for safety in patients undergoing robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) is a safe and efficacious procedure in appropriately selected patients, though frequently with increased operative times compared to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD).

METHODS

From 2014 to 2019, patients who underwent elective, low-risk, RPDs and OPDs in the NSQIP database were isolated. The operative time threshold (OTT) for safety in RPD patients was estimated by identifying the operative time at which complication rates for RPD patients exceeded the complication rate of the benchmark OPD control.

RESULTS

Of 6270 patients identified, 939 (15%) underwent RPD and 5331 (85%) underwent OPD. The incidence of major morbidity or mortality for the OPD cohort was 35.1%. The OTT was identified as 7.7 h. Patients whose RPDs were above the OTT experienced a higher incidence of major morbidity (42.5% vs. 35.0%, p < 0.01) and 30-day mortality (2.7% vs. 1.2%, p = 0.03) than the OPD cohort. Preoperative obstructive jaundice (OR: 1.47, [95% CI: 1.08-2.01]) and pancreatic duct size <3 mm (OR: 2.44, [95% CI: 1.47-4.06]) and 3-6 mm (OR: 2.15, [95% CI: 1.31-3.52]) were risk factors for prolonged RPDs on multivariable regression.

CONCLUSION

The operative time threshold for safety, identified at 7.7 h, should be used to improve patient selection for RPDs and as a competency-based quality benchmark.

[Robotic pancreatic surgery]

Robotic operations as a further development of conventional laparoscopic surgery have been introduced for nearly all interventions in visceral surgery during the last decade. They also currently have a high importance and acceptance in pancreatic surgery despite a relevant learning curve and high associated costs. Standard procedures, such as robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) and partial pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) are most frequently performed, whereas extended resections, e.g., vascular reconstructions of the portal vein, are still limited to a small number of centers worldwide. Potential advantages of robotic pancreatic surgery compared to open surgery include, in particular, less blood loss and a faster postoperative recovery of the patients leading to a shorter hospital stay. Compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery, robotic approaches offer advantages with respect to better visualization and three-dimensional dexterity of the instruments; however, the currently published literature comprises only retrospective or prospective observational studies and randomized controlled results are not yet available but first study results in this respect are expected within the next 2-3 years.

International consensus guidelines on robotic pancreatic surgery in 2023

Background

With the rapid development of robotic surgery, especially for the abdominal surgery, robotic pancreatic surgery (RPS) has been applied increasingly around the world. However, evidence-based guidelines regarding its application, safety, and efficacy are still lacking. To harvest robust evidence and comprehensive clinical practice, this study aims to develop international guidelines on the use of RPS.

Methods

World Health Organization (WHO) Handbook for Guideline Development, GRADE Grid method, Delphi vote, and the AGREE-II instrument were used to establish the Guideline Steering Group, Guideline Development Group, and Guideline Secretary Group, formulate 19 clinical questions, develop the recommendations, and draft the guidelines. Three online meetings were held on 04/12/2020, 30/11/2021, and 25/01/2022 to vote on the recommendations and get advice and suggestions from all involved experts. All the experts focusing on minimally invasive surgery from America, Europe and Oceania made great contributions to this consensus guideline.

Results

After a systematic literature review 176 studies were included, 19 questions were addressed and 14 recommendations were developed through the expert assessment and comprehensive judgment of the quality and credibility of the evidence.

Conclusions

The international RPS guidelines can guide current practice for surgeons, patients, medical societies, hospital administrators, and related social communities. Further randomized trials are required to determine the added value of RPS as compared to open and laparoscopic surgery.

Comparison of Laparoscopic and Open Pancreaticoduodenectomy on Operative Time, Oncological Outcomes, Bleeding, Morbidity, and Mortality

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) has gained popularity as an alternative to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD), but comparative outcomes remain debated. The objective is to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing LPD and OPD on operative time, oncologic outcomes, bleeding, morbidity, and mortality. The inclusion criteria were comparative studies on LPD vs. OPD. Outcomes were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. A total of 27 studies were included, and LPD had a substantially longer operative duration compared to the OPD procedure, with a mean increase of 56 minutes, but blood loss was reduced by an average of 123 mL in patients who underwent LPD. Morbidity, mortality, margin status, and lymph node yields were similar between LPD and OPD. This study found comparable oncologic outcomes between LPD and OPD. LPD appears safe but requires longer operative time. High-quality randomized trials are still needed.

Robotic versus open pancreatoduodenectomy in patients with pancreatic duct adenocarcinoma after the learning curve: a propensity score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Studies have demonstrated that the learning curve plays an important role in robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD). Although improved short-term outcomes of RPD after the learning curve have been reported compared to open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD), there is a lack of long-term survival analyses.

METHODS

Patients who underwent curative intended RPD and OPD for pancreatic duct adenocarcinoma (PDAC) between January 2017 and June 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. A 1:2 propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed to balance the baseline characteristics between the RPD and OPD groups.

RESULTS

Of the 548 patients (108 RPD and 440 OPD), 103 RPD patients were matched with 206 OPD patients after PSM. There were 194 (62.8%) men and 115 (37.2%) women, with a median age of 64 (58-69) years. The median overall survival (OS) in the RPD group was 33.2 months compared with 25.7 months in the OPD group (p = 0.058, log-rank). The median disease-free survival (DFS) following RPD was longer than the OPD (18.5 vs. 14.0 months, p = 0.011, log-rank). The RPD group has a lower incidence of local recurrence compared the OPD group (36.9% vs. 51.2%, p = 0.071). Multivariate Cox analysis demonstrated that RPD was independently associated with improved OS (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.52-0.94, p = 0.019) and DFS (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.50-0.88, p = 0.005).

CONCLUSION

After the learning curve, RPD had improved oncologic outcomes in PDAC patients compared to OPD. Future prospective randomized clinical trials will be required to validate these findings.

Implementation of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy at a community tertiary care hospital utilizing a comprehensive curriculum

BACKGROUND

We evaluated the outcomes of a robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) program implemented at a community tertiary care hospital.

METHODS

A retrospective review of 65 RPD cases compared surgical outcomes and performance to benchmark data.

RESULTS

Postoperative complications occurred in 31% (20) of patients vs. ≤73% (variance -42), with grade IV complications in 3% (2) vs. ≤5% (variance -2). Postoperative pancreatic fistula type B frequency was 12% (8) vs. ≤15% (variance -3). One 90-day mortality occurred (1.5% vs. 1.6%). Failure to rescue rate was 7% vs. ≤9% (variance -2), and R1 resection rate was 2% vs. ≤39% (variance -37). There was a downward trend of operative time (rho ​= ​-0.600, P ​< ​0.001), with a learning curve of 27 cases. Median hospital length of stay was 6 days vs. ≤15 days (variance -9).

CONCLUSION

Our comprehensive RPD training program resulted in improved operative performance and outcomes commensurate with benchmark thresholds.

Expanding the utility of robotics for pancreaticoduodenectomy: a 10-year review and comparison to international benchmarks in pancreatic surgery

BACKGROUND

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) is an emerging alternative to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD). Although RPD offers various theoretical advantages, it is used in less than 10% of all pancreaticoduodenectomies. The aim of this study was to report our 10-year experience and compare RPD outcomes with international benchmarks for OPD.

METHODS

A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained institutional database was performed of consecutive patients who underwent RPD between January 2011 and December 2021. Patients were categorized into low-risk and high-risk groups according to the selection criteria set by the benchmark study. Their outcomes were compared to the international benchmark cut off values. Outcomes were then evaluated over time to identify improvements in practice and establish a learning curve.

RESULTS

Of 201 RPDs, 36 were low-risk and 165 high-risk patients. Compared to the OPD benchmarks, outcomes of low-risk patients were within the cutoff values. High-risk patients were outside the cutoff for blood transfusions (26% vs. ≤ 23%), overall complications (78% vs. ≤ 73%), grade I-II complications (68% vs. ≤ 62%), and readmissions (22% vs ≤ 21%). Oncologic outcomes for high-risk patients were within benchmark cutoffs. Cases at the end of the learning curve included more pancreatic cancer (42% from 17%) and fewer low-risk patients (10% from 24%) than those at the beginning. After 41 RPD there was a decline in conversion rates and operative time. Between 95 and 143 cases operative time, transfusion rates, and LOS declined significantly. Complications did not differ over time.

CONCLUSION

RPD yields results comparable to the established benchmarks in OPD in both low- and high-risk patients. Along the learning curve, RPD evolved with the inclusion of more high-risk cases while outcomes remained within benchmarks. Addition of a robotic HPB surgery fellowship did not compromise outcomes. These results suggest that RPD may be an option for high-risk patients at specialized centers.

Impact of Neoadjuvant Treatment and Minimally Invasive Surgery on Perioperative Outcomes of Pancreatoduodenectomy: an ACS NSQIP Analysis

BACKGROUND

There is an increasing use of neoadjuvant treatment (NAT) for pancreatic cancer (PC) followed by minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD). We evaluate the impact of the surgical approach on 30-day outcomes in PC patients who underwent NAT.

METHODS

Patients with PC who had NAT followed by MIPD or open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) were identified from a pancreatectomy-targeted dataset (2014-2020) of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Comparisons were made between MIPD and OPD within NAT groups.

RESULTS

A total of 5588 patients were analyzed. Of those, 4907 underwent OPD and 476 underwent MIPD. In addition, 3559 patients received neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone and 1830 received neoadjuvant chemoradiation. In the chemotherapy-alone group, the MIPD subgroup had lower rates of any complication (38.2% vs. 45.8%, P = 0.005), but there were no differences in mortality (2.1% for MIPD vs 1.9% for OPD, P=0.8) or serious complication (11.8% for MIPD vs 15% for OPD, P=0.1). On multivariable analysis, MIPD was independently predictive of lower rates of any complication (OR: 0.74, 95% CI 0.6-0.93, P = 0.0009), CR-POPF (OR: 0.58, 95% CI 0.35-0.96, P = 0.04), and shorter LOS (estimate: -1.03, 95% CI -1.73 to -0.32, P = 0.004). In the chemoradiation group, patients undergoing MIPD had higher rates of preoperative diabetes (P < 0.05), but there were no significant differences in any outcomes between the two approaches in this group.

CONCLUSION

MIPD is safe and feasible after NAT. Patients having neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone followed by MIPD had lower rates of complications, shorter LOS, and fewer CR-POPFs compared to OPD.

Laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomy: the choice and the future

INTRODUCTION

Distal pancreatectomy (DP) is currently well established as a minimally invasive surgery (MIS) procedure, using either a laparoscopic (LDP) or robotic (RDP) approach.

METHODS

Out of 83 DP performed between January 2018 and March 2022, 57 cases (68.7%) were performed using MIS: 35 LDP and 22 RDP (da Vinci Xi). We have assessed the experience with the two techniques and analyzed the value of the robotic approach. Cases of conversion have been examined in detail.

RESULTS

The mean operative times for LDP and RDP were 201.2 (SD 47.8) and 247.54 (SD 35.8) minutes, respectively (P = NS). No differences were observed in length of hospital stay or conversion rate: 6 (5-34) vs. 5.6 (5-22) days, and 4 (11.4%) vs. 3 (13.6%) cases, respectively (P = NS). The readmission rate was 3/35 patients (11.4%) treated with LDP and 6/22 (27.3%) cases of RDP (P = NS). There were no differences in morbidity (Dindo-Clavien ≥ III) between the two groups. Mortality was one case in the robotic group (a patient with early conversion due to vascular involvement). The rate of R0 resection was greater and statistically significant in the RDP group (77.1% vs. 90.9%) (P = .04).

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) is a safe and feasible procedure in selected patients. Surgical planning and stepwise implementation based on prior experience help surgeons successfully perform technically demanding procedures. RDP could be the approach of choice in distal pancreatectomy, and it is not inferior to LDP.

Current progress in robotic hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery at a high-volume center

There has been steady growth in the adoption of robotic HPB procedures world-wide over the past 20 years, but most of this increase has occurred only recently. Not surprisingly, the vast majority of robotics has been in the United States, with very few, select centers of adoption in Italy, South Korea, and Brazil, to name a few. We began our robotic HPB program in 2008, well before almost all other centers in the world, with the most notable exception of Giullianotti and colleagues. Our program began gradually, with smaller cases carefully selected to optimize the strengths of the original robotic platform and included complex biliary and pancreatic resections. We performed the first reported series of choledochojejunostomy for benign biliary strictures and first series of completion cholecystectomies. We began performing robotic distal pancreatectomies and longitudinal pancreaticojejunostomies, reporting our early experience for each of these procedures. Over time we progressed to robotic pancreaticoduodenectomies. Initially, these were performed with planned conversions until we were able to optimize efficiency. Now we have performed over 200 robotic whipples, reaching a 100% robotic completion rate by 2020. Finally, we have added robotic major hepatectomies, including resections for hilar cholangiocarcinoma to our repertoire. Since the program began, we have performed over 1600 robotic HPB cases. Outcomes from our program have shown superior lymph node harvest, lower DGE rates, shorter hospitalizations, and fewer rehab admissions with similar overall complications to open and laparoscopic procedures, signifying that over time a robotic HPB program is not only feasible but advantageous as well.

The future of robotic pancreaticoduodenal surgery: a bibliometric analysis

OBJECTIVES

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) has garnered significant research attention in the last decade. However, no bibliometric studies have been conducted on this field yet. Therefore, the aim of this study is to provide an up-to-date analysis of the current state of research, as well as future trends and hotspots in RPD, through a bibliometric analysis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a thorough search of all literature related to RPD in the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC). We then analyzed this literature for a variety of factors, including authorship, country of origin, institutional affiliations, and keywords. To visualize our findings, we utilized Citespace 6.1.R3, which enabled us to create network visualization maps, perform cluster analysis, and extract burst words.

RESULTS

A total of 264 articles were retrieved. Zureikat is the author with the largest contribution in this field, and Surgical Endoscopy and Other International Techniques is the journal with the largest number of papers in this field. The United States is the core research country in this field. The University of Pittsburgh is the most productive institution. According to the data, outcome, pancreas fistula, definition, risk factor, stay, survival, learning curve and experience are recognized as research hotspots in this field.

CONCLUSIONS

This study is the first bibliometric study in the field of RPD. Our data will help us better understand the development trend of the field, and determine research hotspots and research directions. The research results provide practical information for other scholars to understand key directions and cutting-edge information.

Initial 50 consecutive full-robotic pancreatoduodenectomies without conversion by a single surgeon: a learning curve analysis from a tertiary referral high-volume center

BACKGROUND

Several studies report on a learning curve for robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (R-PD) ranging between 20 and 80 operations, with conversion rates varying between 1.1 and 35%. However, as these publications mostly refer to initial robotic experiences and do not take into account the previous surgical background in pancreatic surgery (PS) and in robotic-assisted surgery (RAS), the center's volume, as well as the platform used, we aimed to perform a surgical outcomes analysis with a particular view to these aspects.

METHODS

Intraoperative and perioperative outcomes of the first 50 consecutive R-PD performed with the da Vinci Xi by the same surgeon, within a tertiary referral high-volume center, between January 2018 and March 2022, were analyzed. The surgeon was previously experienced in both PS and RAS. Shewhart control chart and cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis were used to evaluate the learning curve of R-PD.

RESULTS

All the operations were performed with a full-robotic technique, without any conversion to open surgery. Twenty of 50 patients (40%) had a BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2, while 24/50 (48%) had undergone previous abdominal surgery. Mean console time was 276.30 ± 31.16 min. The median post-operative length of hospital stay was 10 days, while 20/50 (40%) patients were discharged within post-operative day 8. Six patients (12%) had major complications (Clavien-Dindo grade 3 or above). There was no 30-day mortality. Shewhart control chart and CUSUM analysis did not show a significant learning curve during the study period.

CONCLUSIONS

An extensive prior experience in both PS and RAS, within a tertiary referral high-volume center with availability of the da Vinci Xi platform, can significantly flatten the learning curve and, therefore, enable safe performance of challenging operations, i.e., pancreatoduodenectomies with a minimally invasive approach, with very low risk of conversion to open surgery, even in the first 50 operations.

Changing trends in the minimally invasive surgery for chronic pancreatitis

Chronic pancreatitis is a debilitating pancreatic inflammatory disease characterized by intractable pain resulting in poor quality of life. Conventional management of pancreatic pain consists of a step-up approach with medications and lifestyle modifications followed by endoscopic intervention. Traditionally surgery is reserved for patients who do not improve with other interventions. However, recent studies suggest that early surgical intervention is more beneficial as it can mitigate the progression of the pathological process and prevent loss of pancreatic function. Despite the widespread adoption of minimally invasive approaches in various gastrointestinal surgical disorders, minimally invasive surgery for chronic pancreatitis is slow to evolve. Technical difficulty due to severe inflammatory changes has been the major impediment to the widespread usage of minimally invasive surgery in chronic pancreatitis. With this background, the present review aimed to critically analyze the available evidence on the minimally invasive treatment of chronic pancreatitis. A Pub Med search of all relevant articles was performed using the appropriate keywords, parentheses, and Boolean operators. Most initial laparoscopic series have reported the feasibility of lateral pancreaticojejunostomy, considered an adequate procedure only in a small proportion of patients. The pancreatic head is the pacemaker of pain, so adequate decompression is critical for long-term pain relief. Recent studies have documented the feasibility of minimally invasive duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resection. With improvements in laparoscopic instrumentation and technological advances, minimally invasive surgery for chronic pancreatitis is gaining momentum. However, more high-quality evidence is required to document the superiority of minimally invasive surgery for chronic pancreatitis.

Comparative analysis of opioid use between robotic and open pancreatoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Risk-stratified pancreatectomy clinical pathways using regional anesthesia and multimodality analgesia have decreased overall opioid use, but the additional benefits of robotic surgery in opioid reduction for pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) are unknown. We compared the inpatient opioid use between robotic PD and open PD.

METHODS

Patients undergoing open PD within a protocol evaluating preincisional regional anesthetic block bundles were compared to consecutively-treated patients undergoing robotic PD identified from a prospectively maintained single-institutional database. Clinical characteristics, operative outcomes, pain scores and inpatient oral morphine equivalent (OME) use were compared between patients treated with robotic or open PD. Patients with a history of continuous-release opioid dependence were excluded.

RESULTS

Of 114 total patients, 25 underwent robotic PD and 89 underwent open PD. Intraoperative opioid use was not different (P = .87), nor were cumulative pain scores. Robotic PD patients used significantly fewer OMEs per day on postoperative days 1-4 (P = .039), used fewer total OMEs during hospitalization (robotic: median = 79, IQR 42.5-141; open: median = 126, IQR 61.3-203.8; P = .0036) and were discharged with fewer OMEs (robotic: median = 0, IQR 0-43.8; open: median = 25, IQR 0-75; P = .009) despite a shorter length of stay (robotic: median = 4, open: median = 5, P = .002).

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic PD patients required fewer inpatient OMEs than open PD while maintaining similar pain scores. A higher percentage of robotic PD patients tapered off of opioids prior to discharge than open surgery patients treated with a standardized opioid reduction protocol despite a shorter length of stay. These results provide a rationale for choosing robotic PD when feasible to minimize opioid use.

Minimally-invasive versus open pancreatic enucleation: systematic review and metanalysis of short-term outcomes

BACKGROUND

Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Enucleation, either laparoscopic or robot-assisted, is rarely performed. The aim of this study was to offer the current available evidence about the outcomes of minimally invasive pancreatic enucleations and explore the possible advantage of this approach over traditional surgery.

METHODS

PubMed (MEDLINE), Cochrane Library and Embase (ELSEVIER) medical databases were searched for articles published from January 1990 to March 2022. Studies which included more than 10 cases of minimally-invasive pancreatic enucleation were included. Data on the outcomes were synthetized and meta-analyzed when appropriate.

RESULTS

Twenty studies published between 2009 and 2022 with a total of 552 patients were included in the systematic review: three hundred fifty-one patients (63.5%) had a laparoscopic intervention, two hundred and one (36.5%) robot-assisted with a cumulative incidence of conversion rate of 5%. Minimally-invasive surgery was performed in 63% of cases on the body/tail of the Pancreas and in 37% of the cases on the head/uncinate process of the Pancreas. The cumulative post-operative 30 days - mortality rate was 0.2% and the major postoperative morbidity (Clavien-Dindo III-IV-V) 35%. Clinically relevant pancreatic fistula was observed in 17% of the patients. Compared with the standardized open approach (n: 366 patients), mean length of hospital stay was significantly reduced in patients undergoing minimally invasive pancreatic enucleation (2.45 days, p = 0.003) with a favorable trend for post-operative major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo III-IV) (- 24% RR, p: 0.13). Operative time, blood loss and clinically relevant pancreatic fistula rate were comparable between the two groups. One hundred and fourteen robot-assisted enucleations entered in a subgroup analysis with comparable results to open surgery.

CONCLUSION

Minimally-Invasive approach for pancreatic enucleation is safe, feasible and offers short-term clinical outcomes comparable with open surgery. The potential benefit of robotic surgery will need to be verified in further studies.

Development of biotissue training models for anastomotic suturing in pancreatic surgery

BACKGROUND

Anastomotic suturing is the Achilles heel of pancreatic surgery. Especially in laparoscopic and robotically assisted surgery, the pancreatic anastomosis should first be trained outside the operating room. Realistic training models are therefore needed.

METHODS

Models of the pancreas, small bowel, stomach, bile duct, and a realistic training torso were developed for training of anastomoses in pancreatic surgery. Pancreas models with soft and hard textures, small and large ducts were incrementally developed and evaluated. Experienced pancreatic surgeons (n = 44) evaluated haptic realism, rigidity, fragility of tissues, and realism of suturing and knot tying.

RESULTS

In the iterative development process the pancreas models showed high haptic realism and highest realism in suturing (4.6 ± 0.7 and 4.9 ± 0.5 on 1-5 Likert scale, soft pancreas). The small bowel model showed highest haptic realism (4.8 ± 0.4) and optimal wall thickness (0.1 ± 0.4 on -2 to +2 Likert scale) and suturing behavior (0.1 ± 0.4). The bile duct models showed optimal wall thickness (0.3 ± 0.8 and 0.4 ± 0.8 on -2 to +2 Likert scale) and optimal tissue fragility (0 ± 0.9 and 0.3 ± 0.7).

CONCLUSION

The biotissue training models showed high haptic realism and realistic suturing behavior. They are suitable for realistic training of anastomoses in pancreatic surgery which may improve patient outcomes.

Figures do matter: A literature review of 4587 robotic pancreatic resections and their implications on training

BACKGROUND

The use of robotic assistance in minimally invasive pancreatic resection is quickly growing.

METHODS

We present a systematic review of the literature regarding all types of robotic pancreatic resection (RPR). Our aim is to show for which procedures there is enough experience to permit safe training and provide an estimation of how many centers could serve as teaching institutions.

RESULTS

Sixty-four studies reporting on 4587 RPRs were analyzed. A total of 2598 pancreatoduodenectomies (PD) were reported by 28 centers from Europe (6/28; 21.4%), the Americas (11/28; 39.3%), and Asia (11/28; 39.3%). Six studies reported >100 robot PD (1694/2598; 65.2%). A total of 1618 distal pancreatectomies (DP) were reported by 29 centers from Europe (10/29; 34.5%), the Americas (10/29; 34.5%), and Asia (9/29; 31%). Five studies reported >100 robotic DP (748/1618; 46.2%). A total of 154 central pancreatectomies were reported by six centers from Europe (1/6; 16.7%), the Americas (2/6; 33.3%), and Asia (3/6; 50%). Only 49 total pancreatectomies were reported. Finally, 168 enucleations were reported in seven studies (with a mean of 15.4 cases per study). A single center reported on 60 enucleations (35.7%). Results of each type of robotic procedure are also presented.

CONCLUSIONS

Experience with RPR is still quite limited. Despite high case volume not being sufficient to warrant optimal training opportunities, it is certainly a key component of every successful training program and is a major criterion for fellowship accreditation. From this review, it appears that only PD and DP can currently be taught at few institutions worldwide.

[Robots in visceral and thoracic surgery-Quo vadis?]

Robotic surgical systems are now an inherent part of the German hospital landscape. In recent years, there has been an enormous increase in installed systems and operations performed, especially in abdominal surgery. Even though there is a lack of studies with the highest grade of evidence, the advantages of the technique are obvious-particularly technically demanding operations can now be performed safely and less invasively for patients. Robotics are now being implemented in many non-university institutions. At the Israelite Hospital (Israelitisches Krankenhaus) Hamburg it could be demonstrated that with systematic and modular training, i.e. execution of certain surgical steps, it is possible to significantly flatten the learning curve while maintaining excellent oncological quality, postoperative morbidity and mortality. The costs to have a system up and running are the main limitations for the implementation of robotic surgery. The acquisition, material and maintenance costs are substantial so that the type of intervention and the training of prospective surgeons are limited by the costs. The robotic approach will fully unroll its disruptive character compared to laparoscopy once it is competitive not only qualitatively in the field of medical contents but also economically. In the future the ROBIN working group of the German Society for General and Visceral Surgery (DGAV) wants to create the basic prerequisites for valid studies by working with registers and could act as an independent central intermediary between hospitals and the industry to promote practical innovations and systematic training for surgeons.

Outcomes of a Multicenter Training Program in Robotic Pancreatoduodenectomy (LAELAPS-3)

OBJECTIVE

To assess feasibility and safety of a multicenter training program in robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) adhering to the IDEAL framework for implementation of surgical innovation.

BACKGROUND

Good results for RPD have been reported from single center studies. However, data on feasibility and safety of implementation through a multicenter training program in RPD are lacking.

METHODS

A multicenter training program in RPD was designed together with the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, including an online video bank, robot simulation exercises, biotissue drills, and on-site proctoring. Benchmark patients were based on the criteria of Clavien. Outcomes were collected prospectively (March 2016-October 2019). Cumulative sum analysis of operative time was performed to distinguish the first and second phase of the learning curve. Outcomes were compared between both phases of the learning curve. Trends in nationwide use of robotic and laparoscopic PD were assessed in the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit.

RESULTS

Overall, 275 RPD procedures were performed in seven centers by 15 trained surgeons. The recent benchmark criteria for low-risk PD were met by 125 (45.5%) patients. The conversion rate was 6.5% (n = 18) and median blood loss 250ml [interquartile range (IQR) 150-500]. The rate of Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III complications was 44.4% (n = 122), postoperative pancreatic fistula (grade B/C) rate 23.6% (n = 65), 90-day complication-related mortality 2.5% (n = 7) and 90-day cancer-related mortality 2.2.% (n = 6). Median postoperative hospital stay was 12 days (IQR 8-20). In the subgroup of patients with pancreatic cancer (n = 80), the major complication rate was 31.3% and POPF rate was 10%. Cumulative sum analysis for operative time found a learning curve inflection point at 22 RPDs (IQR 10-35) with similar rates of Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III complications in the first and second phase (43.4% vs 43.8%, P = 0.956, respectively). During the study period the nationwide use of laparoscopic PD reduced from 15% to 1%, whereas the use of RPD increased from 0% to 25%.

CONCLUSIONS

This multicenter RPD training program in centers with sufficient surgical volume was found to be feasible without a negative impact of the learning curve on clinical outcomes.

Reproduction of modified Blumgart pancreaticojejunostomy in a robotic environment: a simple clipless technique

BACKGROUND

Although modified Blumgart anastomosis (MBA) in robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy has been accepted as a simple and safe procedure that provides non-inferior surgical outcomes compared to open MBA, the details of the standardization of robotic MBAs have never been established. In this report, we detail the technical tips to reproduce MBA in the robotic environment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From January to December in 2021, 16 patients underwent our novel robotic MBA technique, which included clipless Blumgart suture and duct-to-mucosa anastomosis. To simplify the manipulation of sutures in robotic environment, short double-armed sutures in 15 cm length were created and used for Blumgart suture. Duct-to-mucosa anastomosis were done by 5-0 monofilament of 6 cm length. These tips enabled clipless anastomosis and minimized the burden of the patient-side assistant. Surgical and short-term outcomes were compared between patients with robotic MBA (Robo group) and those who underwent open MBA during 2021 (32 patients, Open group).

RESULTS

The median operation time was significantly longer in the Robo group than in the Open group (551 vs. 485.5 min, P = 0.0027). Estimated blood loss was significantly lower in the Robo group than in the open group (95 vs. 355 mL, P < 0.0002). The median duration of clipless MBA in the Robo group was 56 (46-68) min. The incidence of POPF (grade B or C) was not significantly different among the groups (19% vs. 22%, P = 0.71). The mean length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the Robo group than in the Open group (18 vs. 24 days, P = 0.019).

CONCLUSION

Clipless MBA in a robotic environment was safely performed with acceptable short-term outcomes and can be proposed as a standard technique for robotic pancreatojejunostomy.

The learning curve for robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy: a single-center experience of 301 cases

Robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) has become a routine procedure in many pancreatic centers. This study aimed to describe a single-center experience with RDP since the first case, identify the learning curves of operation time and complication rate, and discuss the safety and feasibility of RDP.

Methods

We collected and retrospectively analyzed the single-center surgical experience of 301 patients undergoing RDP at Peking Union Medical College Hospital (PUMCH) between 2012 and 2022 and described the change in operation proficiency and occurrence of perioperative complications in this observational study. The learning curve was assessed using the cumulative sum method.

Results

We observed a three-phase pattern of RDP learning with operation time, complications, and postoperative pancreatic fistula as indicators and a two-phase pattern for spleening-preserving success. The mean operation time was 3.9 hours. The incidence rate of clinically significant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CRPOPF) was 17.9% and overall Clavien-Dindo complication rate (≥3) was 16.6%. The change of postoperative complicate rate was correlated with percentage of malignant cases.

Conclusion

In the last decade, an evident decrease was seen in operation time, complication rate, and an increase in the spleen-preserving rate of distal pancreatectomy. With proper training, RDP is a safe and feasible procedure.

Short-term and pathologic outcomes of robotic versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for periampullary and pancreatic head malignancy: an early experience

Open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) is associated with high perioperative morbidity. Adoption of robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy (RAPD) has been slow despite ergonomic advantages, improved visualization and dexterity. We aim to report our experience comparing operative and short-term outcomes following RAPD and OPD. We did retrospective analysis of prospectively maintained database, including all consecutive patients who underwent RAPD or OPD between January 2016 and August 2019. 48 patients were included, 21 in RAPD group and 27 in OPD group. RAPD was associated with longer mean operative time (440 vs. 414.1 min) but had significantly less mean intra-operative blood loss (256.9 vs. 404.5 ml), median length of ICU stay (1 vs. 3 days), overall length of stay (11 vs. 13 days) and lower rates of SSI (23.8% vs. 63%). Both groups showed equal incidence of POPF, comparable R0 resection rates (100% vs. 96.3%) and median number of lymph nodes harvested (14 vs. 18). Rate of open conversion was 28.6% (n = 6), most commonly for bleeding (66.6%) and mesenteric vessel involvement (33.3%). When compared to first ten RAPD cases, mean operative time (483.5 vs. 400.5 min) and rate of conversion (36.36% vs. 20%) was less in last eleven cases. RAPD is significantly better than OPD in terms of intra-operative blood loss, length of ICU stay, length of total stay and SSI. The longer operative time and conversion rate associated with RAPD progressively decreased as experience accumulated and the learning curve was crossed. Further randomized controlled trials are needed to investigate cost-effectiveness and long-term oncologic survival in RAPD patients.

Comparing Minimally Invasive and Open Pancreaticoduodenectomy for the Treatment of Pancreatic Cancer: a Win Ratio Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Despite its rising adoption, the use of minimally invasive (MIS) pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) in the treatment of pancreatic cancer remains controversial. We sought to compare MIS and open PD for pancreatic cancer resection in terms of short-term, long-term, and oncologic outcomes using the win ratio, a novel statistical approach.

METHODS

Patients undergoing PD for pancreatic adenocarcinoma 2010-2016 were identified from the National Cancer Database (NCDB). Patients were paired based on age, sex, race, tumor size, Charlson-Deyo score, and receipt of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The win ratio was calculated based on 30-day and 3-year mortality, receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy, surgical margin status, examination of at least 11 lymph nodes, extended length of stay, and 30-day readmission.

RESULTS

Among 18,936 patients, median age was 67 (IQR: 60-74); most patients had stage II disease at diagnosis (n = 16,530, 87.3%) and tumor size ≥ 2 cm (n = 15,880, 83.9%). The majority of patients underwent open PD (n = 16,409, 86.7%) versus MIS PD (n = 2527, 13.3%). For every matched patient-patient pair, the odds of the patient undergoing MIS PD "winning" were 1.14 (95%CI 1.13-1.15) higher versus open PD. The benefits of MIS PD were most pronounced among patients with tumor size < 2 cm (WR 1.21, 95%CI 1.13-1.30 versus ≥ 2 cm, WR 1.13, 95%CI 1.12-1.14) and patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy prior to resection (WR 1.28, 95%CI 1.23-1.32 versus no neoadjuvant chemotherapy, WR 1.13, 95%CI 1.11-1.14).

CONCLUSIONS

MIS PD may be preferable to open PD based on a hierarchical composite outcome that considered short-term, long-term, and oncologic outcomes.

Resection of the splenic vessels during laparoscopic central pancreatectomy is safe and does not compromise preservation of the distal pancreas

BACKGROUND

The diagnosis of low potential malignant diseases is increasingly frequent, and laparoscopic central pancreatectomy can be indicated in these patients. Laparoscopic central pancreatectomy that usually preserves the splenic vessels results in a low risk of new-onset diabetes but high morbidity, mainly due to postoperative pancreatic fistula and postpancreatectomy hemorrhage. In this study, we evaluated the short and long-term complications after laparoscopic central pancreatectomy with splenic vessel resection.

METHODS

This retrospective single-center cohort study included 650 laparoscopic pancreatic resections from 2008 to 2020 with 84 laparoscopic central pancreatectomy; 15 laparoscopic central pancreatectomy with splenic vessel resection; and 69 laparoscopic central pancreatectomy with preservation of the splenic vessels. Pancreaticogastrostomy was routinely performed, and the patients were discharged after complications had been treated. The 15 laparoscopic central pancreatectomy with splenic vessel resection were matched for age, sex, body mass index, and tumor characteristics [1:2] and compared with 30 laparoscopic central pancreatectomy with the preservation of the splenic vessels.

RESULTS

In the laparoscopic central pancreatectomy with splenic vessel resection group, resection of splenic vessels was performed due to tumoral or inflammatory adhesions (n = 11) or accidental vascular injury (n = 4). The demographic characteristics of the groups were similar. Tumors were larger in the laparoscopic central pancreatectomy with splenic vessel resection group (40 vs 21 mm; P = .008), and right transection on the body of the pancreas (53% vs 13%; P = .01) was more frequent. There were no differences in the characteristics of the pancreas (Wirsung duct size or consistency). The median operative time (minutes) was longer in the laparoscopic central pancreatectomy with splenic vessel resection group than in the laparoscopic central pancreatectomy with preservation of the splenic vessels group (210 vs 180, respectively; P = .15) with more blood loss (100 mL vs 50 mL, respectively; P = .012). The lengths (mm) of the resected pancreas and remnant distal pancreas in the 2 groups were 65 vs 50 (P = .053) and 40 vs 65 (P = .006), respectively. There were no differences in postoperative mortality (0% vs 3%; P = .47), grade B-C postoperative pancreatic fistula (27% vs 27%; P = 1), reintervention (7% vs 13%; P = .50), grade B-C postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (0% vs 13%; P = .13), length of hospital stay (20 days vs 22 days; P = .15), or new-onset diabetes (7% vs 10%; P = .67) between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic central pancreatectomy with splenic vessel resection is a safe technical modification of central pancreatectomy that does not prevent preservation of the distal pancreas and does not influence postoperative pancreatic fistula or endocrine insufficiency. Furthermore, it could reduce the risk of postpancreatectomy hemorrhage.

Surgical approach to pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma: uncomplicated ends justify the means

BACKGROUND

Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) remains the cornerstone of managing pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) of the pancreas head/neck, but it is associated with high morbidity. We hypothesize that, in absence of pancreatectomy-specific morbidity (PSM), minimally invasive PD (MIPD) provides improved short-term outcomes compared to open PD (OPD).

METHODS

NSQIP pancreatectomy-targeted database 2014-2019 was utilized. PSM was defined as the occurrence of delayed gastric emptying (DGE) and/or post-operative pancreatic fistula (POPF). The cohort was divided into No-PSM and PSM groups. Propensity score match was applied in each group to compare outcomes of MIPD vs. OPD.

RESULTS

8,121 patients were selected. Patients were divided into No-PSM (N = 6267) and PSM (N = 1854) groups. In No-PSM group, we matched 1656 OPD to 552 MIPD patients. MIPD had longer operations (423 vs. 359 min; p < 0.001) but less overall morbidity (22.1% vs. 29.1%; p = 0.001) mostly attributed to less bleeding and sepsis. MIPD patients also had a one-day shorter median LOS (6 vs. 7 days; p = 0.005) and higher rates of home discharge (92.8% vs. 89.6%; p = 0.027). No difference was noted in mortality and 30-day readmission. In PSM group, 441 OPD were matched to 147 MIPD peers. MIPD had longer operations but without short-term benefits. General morbidity (61.2% vs. 61.9%), median LOS (12 vs. 12 days), mortality (2.7% vs. 1.8%), and readmission rates (32.7% vs. 26.5%) were similar. Same conclusions were drawn in the per-protocol analysis.

CONCLUSION

PSM is common following PD for PDAC. In the absence of PSM, MIPD is associated with less postoperative morbidity and shorter LOS.

Feasibility, effectiveness and transferability of a novel mastery-based virtual reality robotic training platform for general surgery residents

Background

The annual number of robotic surgical procedures is on the rise. Robotic surgery requires unique skills compared to other surgical approaches. Simulation allows basic robot skill acquisition and enhances patient safety. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility, effectiveness, and transferability of a mastery-based curriculum using a new virtual reality (VR) robotic simulator for surgery resident training.

Methods

Nineteen PGY2s and 22 PGY4s were enrolled. Residents completed a pretest and posttest consisting of five VR and three previously validated inanimate tasks. Training included practicing 33 VR tasks until a total score ≥ 90% (“mastery”) was achieved using automated metrics (time, economy of motion). Inanimate performance was evaluated by two trained, blinded raters using video review metrics (time, errors, and modified OSATS). Outcomes were defined as: curriculum feasibility (completion rate, training time, repetitions), training effectiveness (pre/post training skill improvement), and skill transferability (skill transfer to validated inanimate drills). Wilcoxon signed-rank and Mann–Whitney U tests were used; median (IQR) reported.

Results

Thirty-four of 41 residents (83%) achieved mastery on all 33 VR tasks; median training time was 7 h (IQR: 5′26″–8′52″). Pretest vs. post-test performance improved (all p < 0.001) according to all VR and Inanimate metrics for both PGY2 and PGY4 residents. Significant pretest performance differences were observed between PGY2 and PGY4 residents for VR but not inanimate tasks; no PGY2 vs. PGY4 posttest performance differences were observed for both VR and inanimate tasks.

Conclusion

This mastery-based VR curriculum was associated with a high completion rate and excellent feasibility. Significant performance improvements were noted for both the VR and inanimate tasks, supporting training effectiveness and skill transferability. Additional studies examining validity evidence may help further refine this curriculum.

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.

Comparative analysis of open, laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatic resection: The United Kingdom's first single-centre experience

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) has potential advantages over its open equivalent open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) for pancreatic disease in the neck, body and tail. Within the United Kingdom (UK), there has been no previous experience describing the role of robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP). This study evaluated differences between ODP, LDP and RDP.

METHODS

Patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy performed in the Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery at the Freeman Hospital between September 2007 and December 2018 were included from a prospectively maintained database. The primary outcome measure was length of hospital stay, and the secondary outcome measures were complication rates graded according to the Clavien-Dindo classification.

RESULTS

Of the 125 patients, the median age was 61 years and 46% were male. Patients undergoing RDP (n = 40) had higher American Society of Anesthesiologists grading III compared to ODP (n = 38) and LDP (n = 47) (57% vs. 37% vs. 38%, P = 0.02). RDP had a slightly lower but not significant conversion rate (10% vs. 13%, P = 0.084), less blood loss (median: 0 vs. 250 ml, P < 0.001) and a higher rate of splenic preservation (30% vs. 2%, P < 0.001) and shorter operative time, once docking time excluded (284 vs. 300 min, P < 0.001) compared to LDP. RDP had a higher R0 resection rate than ODP and LDP (79% vs. 47% vs. 71%, P = 0.078) for neoplasms. RDP was associated with significantly shorter hospital stay than LDP and ODP (8 vs. 9 vs. 10 days, P = 0.001). While there was no significant different in overall complications across the groups, RDP was associated with lower rates of Grade C pancreatic fistula than ODP and LDP (2% vs. 5% vs. 6%, P = 0.194).

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive pancreatic resection offers potential advantages over ODP, with a trend showing RDP to be marginally superior when compared to conventional LDP, but it is accepted that that this is likely to be at greater expense compared to the other current techniques.

Challenges of single-stage pancreatoduodenectomy: how to address pancreatogastrostomies with robotic-assisted surgery

INTRODUCTION

Establishing a sufficient pancreatico-enteric anastomosis remains one of the most important challenges in open single stage pancreatoduodenectomy as they are associated with persisting morbidity and mortality. Applicability on a robotic-assisted approach, however, even increases the requirements. With this analysis we introduce a dorsal-incision-only invagination type pancreatogastrostomy (dioPG) to the field of robotic assistance having been previously proven feasible in the field of open pancreatoduodenectomy and compare initial results to the open approach by means of morbidity and mortality.

METHODS

An overall of 142 consecutive patients undergoing reconstruction via the novel dioPG, 38 of them in a robotic-assisted and 104 in an open approach, was identified and further reviewed for perioperative parameters, complications and mortality.

RESULTS

We observed a comparable R0-resection rate (p = 0.448), overall complication rate (p = 0.52) and 30-day mortality (p = 0.71) in both groups. Rates of common complications, such as postoperative pancreatic fistula (p = 0.332), postoperative pancreatic hemorrhage (p = 0.242), insufficiency of pancreatogastrostomy (p = 0.103), insufficiency of hepaticojejunostomy (p = 0.445) and the re-operation rate (p = 0.103) were comparable. The procedure time for the open approach was significantly shorter compared to the robotic-assisted approach (p = 0.024).

DISCUSSION

The provided anastomosis appeared applicable to a robotic-assisted setting resulting in comparable complication and mortality rates when compared to an open approach. Nevertheless, also in the field of robotic assistance establishing a predictable pancreatico-enteric anastomosis remains the most challenging aspect of modern single-stage pancreatoduodenectomy and requires expertise and experience.

Robotic-assisted pancreatic surgery in the elderly patient: experiences from a high-volume centre

BACKGROUND

Robotic-assisted pancreatic surgery (RPS) has fundamentally developed over the past few years. For subgroups, e.g. elderly patients, applicability and safety of RPS still needs to be defined. Given prognosticated demographic developments, we aim to assess the role of RPS based on preoperative, operative and postoperative parameters.

METHODS

We included 129 patients undergoing RPS at our institution between 2017 and 2020. Eleven patients required conversion to open surgery and were excluded from further analysis. We divided patients into two groups; ≥ 70 years old (Group 1; n = 32) and < 70 years old (Group 2; n = 86) at time of resection.

RESULTS

Most preoperative characteristics were similar in both groups. However, number of patients with previous abdominal surgery was significantly higher in patients ≥ 70 years old (78% vs 37%, p < 0.0001). Operative characteristics did not significantly differ between both groups. Although patients ≥ 70 years old stayed significantly longer at ICU (1.8 vs 0.9 days; p = 0.037), length of hospital stay and postoperative morbidity were equivalent between the groups.

CONCLUSION

RPS is safe and feasible in elderly patients and shows non-inferiority when compared with younger patients. However, prospectively collected data is needed to define the role of RPS in elderly patients accurately. Trial registration Clinical Trial Register: Deutschen Register Klinischer Studien (DRKS; German Clinical Trials Register). Clinical Registration Number: DRKS00017229 (retrospectively registered, Date of Registration: 2019/07/19, Date of First Enrollment: 2017/10/18).

The Impact of Socioeconomic Deprivation on Clinical Outcomes for Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma at a High-volume Cancer Center: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the impact of a granular measure of SED on pancreatic surgical and cancer-related outcomes at a high-volume cancer center that employs a standardized clinic pathway.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Prior research has shown that low socioeconomic status leads to less treatment and worse outcomes for PDAC. However, these studies employed inconsistent definitions and categorizations of socioeconomic status, aggregated individual socioeconomic data using large geographic areas, and lacked detailed clinicopathologic variables.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 1552 PDAC patients between 2008 and 2015. Patients were stratified using the area deprivation index, a validated dataset that ranks census block groups based on SED. Multivariable models were used in the curative surgery cohort to predict the impact of SED on (1) grade 3/4 Clavien-Dindo complications, (2) initiation of adjuvant therapy, (3) completion of adjuvant therapy, and (4) overall survival.

RESULTS

Patients from high SED neighborhoods constituted 29.9% of the cohort. Median overall survival was 28 months. The rate of Clavien-Dindo grade 3/4 complications was 14.2% and completion of adjuvant therapy was 65.6%. There was no evidence that SED impacted surgical evaluation, receipt of curative-intent surgery, postoperative complications, receipt of adjuvant therapy or overall survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Although nearly one-quarter of curative-intent surgery patients were from high SED neighborhoods, this factor was not associated with measures of treatment quality or survival. These observations suggest that treatment at a high-volume cancer center employing a standardized clinical pathway may in part address socioeconomic disparities in pancreatic cancer.

Mitigation of the Robotic Pancreaticoduodenectomy Learning Curve through comprehensive training

BACKGROUND

There is an associated lag in achieving competency for robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD), resulting in a learning curve. We hypothesize that the reported learning curve can be mitigated through a comprehensive graduated training protocol.

METHODS

All patients (n = 237) who underwent an open (n = 197, 83.1%) or robotic (n = 40, 16.9%) PD between 2015-2019 were identified at The Ohio State University. The learning curve for operative time and surgical failure (defined as conversion to open, blood transfusion, or Clavien-Dindo complication grade ≥3) was analyzed using a risk adjusted cumulative summation technique.

RESULTS

After 10 cases, operative time plateaued to a mean of 468.3 ± 96.3 minutes for robotic PD versus a mean of 332.5 ± 103.9 minutes for open PD (P < 0.001). There was no further apparent learning curve over time relative to rates of operative time or surgical failure. After propensity score-matching, patients undergoing robotic PD had a similar incidence of major complications, grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula, and delayed gastric emptying versus patients undergoing open PD (all P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Completion of a comprehensive procedure-specific robotic training protocol for PD mitigated the learning curve for this operative approach by shifting the curve into the training/simulation phase rather than the live operating phase. These data hold important implications for the future training and accreditation of surgeons embarking on robotic PD.