The learning curve for robotic distal pancreatectomy: an analysis of outcomes of the first 100 consecutive cases at a high-volume pancreatic centre

Advancing minimally invasive hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery: ensuring safety with implementation

BACKGROUND

Although minimally invasive hepato-pancreato-biliary (MIS HPB) surgery can be performed with good outcomes, there are currently no standardized requirements for centers or surgeons who wish to implement MIS HPB surgery. The aim of this study was to create a consensus statement regarding safe dissemination and implementation of MIS HPB surgical programs.

METHODS

Sixteen key questions regarding safety in MIS HPB surgery were generated after a focused literature search and iterative review by three field experts. Participants for the working group were then selected using sequential purposive sampling and snowball techniques. Review of the 16 questions took place over a single 2-h meeting. The senior author facilitated the session, and a modified nominal group technique was used.

RESULTS

Twenty three surgeons were in attendance. All participants agreed or strongly agreed that formal guidelines should exist for both institutions and individual surgeons interested in implementing MIS HPB surgery and that routine monitoring and reporting of institutional and surgeon technical outcomes should be performed. Regarding volume cutoffs, most participants (91%) agreed or strongly agreed that a minimum annual institutional volume cutoff for complex MIS HPB surgery, such as major hepatectomy or pancreaticoduodenectomy, should exist. A smaller proportion (74%) agreed or strongly agreed that a minimum annual surgeon volume requirement should exist. The majority of participants agreed or strongly agreed that surgeons were responsible for defining (100%) and enforcing (78%) guidelines to ensure the overall safety of MIS HPB programs. Finally, formal MIS HPB training, minimum case volume requirements, institutional support and infrastructure, and mandatory collection of outcomes data were all recognized as important aspects of safe implementation of MIS HPB surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Safe implementation of MIS HPB surgery requires a thoughtful process that incorporates structured training, sufficient volume and expertise, a proper institutional ecosystem, and monitoring of outcomes.

Safety and feasibility of instituting a robotic pancreas program in the Australian setting: a case series and narrative review

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive pancreatic resection has been gathering interest over the last decade due to the technical demands and high morbidity associated with these typically open procedures. We report our experience with robotic pancreatectomy within an Australian context.

METHODS

All patients undergoing robotic distal pancreatectomy (DP) and pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) at two Australian tertiary academic hospitals between May 2014 and December 2020 were included.

RESULTS

Sixty-two patients underwent robotic pancreatectomy during the study period. Thirty-four patients with a median age of 68 years (range 42-84) were in the PD group whilst the DP group included 28 patients with a median age of 60 years (range 18-78). Thirteen patients (46.4%) in the DP group had spleen-preserving procedures. There were 13 conversions (38.2%) in the PD group whilst 0 conversions occurred in the DP group. The Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III complication rate was 26.4% and 17.9% in the PD and DP groups, respectively. Two deaths (5.9%) occurred within 90-days in the PD group whilst none were observed in the DP group. The median length of hospital stay was 11.5 days (range 4-56) in the PD group and 6 days (range 2-22) in the DP group.

CONCLUSION

Robotic pancreatectomy outcomes at our institution are comparable with international literature demonstrating it is both safe and feasible to perform. With improved access to this platform, robotic pancreas surgery may prove to be the turning point for patients with regards to post-operative complications as more experience is obtained.

Comparison of manual sutures and laparoscopic stapler for pancreatic stump closure techniques in robotic distal pancreatectomy: a single-center experience

BACKGROUND

Postoperative pancreatic fistulas (POPFs) are prevalent and major postoperative complications of distal pancreatectomy (DP). There are numerous ways to manage the pancreatic stump. However, no single approach has been shown to be consistently superior. Moreover, the potential role of robotic systems in reducing POPFs has received little attention.

METHODS

The clinical data of 119 patients who had consecutively received robotic distal pancreatectomy between January 2019 and December 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were divided into two groups according to the method of handling the pancreatic stump. The attributes of the patients and the variables during the perioperative period were compared.

RESULTS

The analysis included 72 manual sutures and 47 stapler procedures. The manual suture group had a shorter operative time (removing installation time) than the stapler group (125.25 ± 63.04 min vs 153.30 ± 62.03 min, p = 0.019). Additionally, the manual suture group had lower estimated blood loss (50 mL vs 100 mL, p = 0.009) and a shorter postoperative hospital stay. There were no significant differences in the incidence of clinically relevant POPFs between the two groups (18.1% vs 23.4%, P > 0.05). No perioperative death occurred in either group.

CONCLUSION

The manual suturing technique was shown to have an incidence of POPFs similar to the stapler technique in robotic distal pancreatectomy and to be safe and feasible.

The Learning Curve and Clinical Outcomes With 250 Laser Ablations for Brain Tumors: A Pathway to Experience

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Laser interstitial thermal therapy (LITT) has gained popularity as a minimally invasive technique for treating brain tumors. Despite its proven safety profile, LITT is not yet widely available, and there is a lack of data on the learning curve required to achieve proficiency. This study analyzes a 250-patient cohort of laser-ablated tumors to describe changes in patient selection and clinical outcomes over time and experience, with the aim of providing insight into the learning curve for incorporating LITT into a neuro-oncology program and identifying a cutoff point that distinguishes novice from expert performance.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 250 patients with brain tumor who underwent LITT between 2013 and 2022. Demographic and clinical data were analyzed. Kaplan Meier curves were used for survival analysis. Operative time was evaluated using exponential curve-fit regression analysis to identify when consistent improvement began.

RESULTS

The patients were divided into quartiles (Q) based on their date of surgery. Mean tumor volume increased over time (Q1 = 5.7 and Q4 = 11.9 cm3, P = .004), and newly diagnosed lesions were more frequently ablated (P = .0001). Mean operative time (Q1 v Q4 = 322.3 v 204.6 min, P < .0001) and neurosurgical readmission rate (Q1 v Q4 = 7.8% v 0%, P = .03) were reduced over time. The exponential curve-fit analysis showed a sustained decay in operative time after case #74. The extent of ablation (P = .69), the recurrence (P = .11), and the postoperative complication rate (P = .78) did not vary over time.

CONCLUSION

After treating 74 patients, a downward trend in the operative time is observed. Patient selection is broadened as experience increases.

Role of minimally invasive surgery in the management of localized pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a review

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains a highly lethal malignancy with a minority of patients eligible for curative-intent surgical intervention. Pancreatic resections are technically demanding operations associated with considerable morbidity and mortality. Minimally invasive pancreatic resections (MIPRs), which include laparoscopic and robotic approaches, may enhance postoperative outcomes by lessening physiological impact of open surgery. A limited number of randomized-controlled trials as well as numerous retrospective reports have focused on MIPR outcomes and role in management of a variety of tumors, including PDAC. Today, MIPRs are generally considered acceptable alternatives to open surgery as a trend towards improved short-term metrics is observed. However, several questions remain regarding the oncological adequacy of MIPR's as long-term experience is less extensive compared to open techniques. This review aims to summarize existing evidence on MIPRs with a focus on PDAC.

[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.

Effect of laparoscopic and open distal pancreatectomy on postoperative wound complications in patients with pancreatic cancer: A meta-analysis

At present, it is regarded as a safe and efficient operation to treat terminal pancreatic disease. In this paper, we present a summary of the results of the clinical trials that have been conducted to evaluate the efficacy of laparoscopic and open-access pancreatic resection for pancreatic carcinoma of the end of the pancreas. Systematic review of the comparison between laparoscopy and open-access pancreatic resection was conducted. Comparative studies published before October 2023 were included. The selection of the studies was done according to a particular classification and exclusion criterion. A few of our results, which were post-surgery, were associated with injury, were compared. Where appropriate, the reliability of the data has been corroborated by a sensitive analysis. Six trials of 2075 patients with pancreatic cancer who underwent distal pancreatic resection to be included in the definitive data analysis. Among them, 447 were treated with open-access surgery and 296 were treated with laparoscope. Six trials showed that there was no statistically significant difference in the risk of postoperative wound infection in patients with pancreas cancer who received a distal pancreatectomy between laparoscopy and open surgery(OR, 1.66; 95% CI, 0.76-3.61 p = 0.20). Four trials did not reveal any statistically significant differences in the risk of postoperative haemorrhage among patients with pancreas cancer who received a distal pancreatectomy between laparoscopy and open surgery (OR, 1.84; 95% CI, 0.54-6.26 p = 0.33). Both trials did not reveal any statistically significant difference in the duration of operation for patients with pancreas cancer who received a distal pancreatectomy between laparoscopy and open surgery (MD, 13.58; 95% CI, -7.31-34.46 p = 0.2). Based on these meta-analyses, the use of laparoscopy or open surgery was not associated with an increase in the risk of postoperative infection or haemorrhage. Furthermore, the duration of the two operations did not differ significantly. These two procedures appear to be a safe and viable choice in the treatment of pancreatic carcinoma. Nevertheless, a randomized, controlled study should be performed to verify the validity of this observation.

Nationwide analysis of unplanned conversion during minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

Utilization of minimally-invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) for pancreatic adenocarcinoma has increased. While unplanned conversion to an open procedure during MIDP is associated with inferior short-term outcomes, the long-term consequences of conversion have not been adequately examined.

METHODS

Patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma undergoing MIDP were selected from the National Cancer Database (2010-2015) and subdivided based on the occurrence of unplanned conversion. Post-operative outcomes and overall survival (OS) were examined. Conversion was additionally compared to a matched group of planned open resections.

RESULTS

Among 592 patients undergoing attempted MIDP, unplanned conversion occurred in 23.1%. Despite increased 90-day mortality among patients experiencing conversion, there was no difference in median OS between groups (25.0 vs 27.8 months, p = 0.095). For patients undergoing conversion, post-operative outcomes and long-term survival were similar when compared to a propensity-matched group of patients undergoing planned open resection. On multivariable analysis, treatment at an academic facility (OR 0.63) and a robotic approach (OR 0.50) were both significantly associated with completed MIDP.

CONCLUSION

Despite inferior post-operative outcomes compared to successful MIDP, unplanned conversion did not result in significantly reduced long term survival. MIDP can be attempted selectively but treatment at experienced centers via a robotic approach should be considered.

Learning Curves for Robot-Assisted Pedicle Screw Placement: Analysis of Operative Time for 234 Cases

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Robot-assisted pedicle screw placement is associated with greater accuracy, reduced radiation, less blood loss, shorter hospital stays, and fewer complications than freehand screw placement. However, it can be associated with longer operative times and an extended training period. We report the initial experience of a surgeon using a robot system at an academic medical center.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed all patients undergoing robot-assisted pedicle screw placement at a single tertiary care institution by 1 surgeon from 10/2017 to 05/2022. Linear regression, analysis of variance, and cumulative sum analysis were used to evaluate operative time learning curves. Operative time subanalyses for surgery indication, number of levels, and experience level were performed.

RESULTS

In total, 234 cases were analyzed. A significant 0.19-minute decrease in operative time per case was observed (r = 0.14, P = .03). After 234 operations, this translates to a reduction in 44.5 minutes from the first to last case. A linear relationship was observed between case number and operative time in patients with spondylolisthesis (-0.63 minutes/case, r = 0.41, P < .001), 2-level involvement (-0.35 minutes/case, r = 0.19, P = .05), and 4-or-more-level involvement (-1.29 minutes/case, r = 0.24, P = .05). This resulted in reductions in operative time ranging from 39 minutes to 1.5 hours. Continued reductions in operative time were observed across the learning, experienced, and expert phases, which had mean operative times of 214, 197, and 146 minutes, respectively ( P < .001). General proficiency in robot-assisted surgery was observed after the 20th case. However, 67 cases were required to reach mastery, defined as the inflection point of the cumulative sum curve.

CONCLUSION

This study documents the long-term learning curve of a fellowship-trained spine neurosurgeon. Operative time significantly decreased with more experience. Although gaining comfort with robotic systems may be challenging or require additional training, it can benefit surgeons and patients alike with continued reductions in operative time.

Robotic Distal Pancreatectomy Yields Superior Outcomes Compared to Laparoscopic Technique: A Single Surgeon Experience of 123 Consecutive Cases

Technical limitations of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP), in comparison to robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP), may translate to high conversion rates and morbidity. LDP and RDP procedures performed between December 2008 and January 2023 in our tertiary referral hepatobiliary and pancreatic centres were analysed and compared with regard to short-term outcomes. A total of 62 consecutive LDP cases and 61 RDP cases were performed. There was more conversion to open surgeries in the laparoscopic group compared with the robotic group (21.0% vs. 1.6%, p = 0.001). The LDP group also had a higher rate of postoperative complications (43.5% vs. 23.0%, p = 0.005). However, there was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of major complication or pancreatic fistular after operations (p = 0.20 and p = 0.71, respectively). For planned spleen-preserving operations, the RDP group had a shorter mean operative time (147 min vs. 194 min, p = 0.015) and a reduced total length of hospital stay compared with the LDP group (4 days vs. 7 days, p = 0.0002). The failure rate for spleen preservation was 0% in RDP and 20% (n = 5/25) in the LDP group (p = 0.009). RDP offered a better method for splenic preservation with Kimura's technique compared with LDP to avoid the risk of splenic infarction and gastric varices related to ligation and division of splenic pedicles. RDP should be the standard operation for the resection of pancreatic tumours at the body and tail of the pancreas without involving the celiac axis or common hepatic artery.

Learning Curves of Minimally Invasive Distal Pancreatectomy in Experienced Pancreatic Centers

Importance

Understanding the learning curve of a new complex surgical technique helps to reduce potential patient harm. Current series on the learning curve of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) are mostly small, single-center series, thus providing limited data.

Objective

To evaluate the length of pooled learning curves of MIDP in experienced centers.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This international, multicenter, retrospective cohort study included MIDP procedures performed from January 1, 2006, through June 30, 2019, in 26 European centers from 8 countries that each performed more than 15 distal pancreatectomies annually, with an overall experience exceeding 50 MIDP procedures. Consecutive patients who underwent elective laparoscopic or robotic distal pancreatectomy for all indications were included. Data were analyzed between September 1, 2021, and May 1, 2022.

Exposures

The learning curve for MIDP was estimated by pooling data from all centers.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The learning curve was assessed for the primary textbook outcome (TBO), which is a composite measure that reflects optimal outcome, and for surgical mastery. Generalized additive models and a 2-piece linear model with a break point were used to estimate the learning curve length of MIDP. Case mix-expected probabilities were plotted and compared with observed outcomes to assess the association of changing case mix with outcomes. The learning curve also was assessed for the secondary outcomes of operation time, intraoperative blood loss, conversion to open rate, and postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C.

Results

From a total of 2610 MIDP procedures, the learning curve analysis was conducted on 2041 procedures (mean [SD] patient age, 58 [15.3] years; among 2040 with reported sex, 1249 were female [61.2%] and 791 male [38.8%]). The 2-piece model showed an increase and eventually a break point for TBO at 85 procedures (95% CI, 13-157 procedures), with a plateau TBO rate at 70%. The learning-associated loss of TBO rate was estimated at 3.3%. For conversion, a break point was estimated at 40 procedures (95% CI, 11-68 procedures); for operation time, at 56 procedures (95% CI, 35-77 procedures); and for intraoperative blood loss, at 71 procedures (95% CI, 28-114 procedures). For postoperative pancreatic fistula, no break point could be estimated.

Conclusion and Relevance

In experienced international centers, the learning curve length of MIDP for TBO was considerable with 85 procedures. These findings suggest that although learning curves for conversion, operation time, and intraoperative blood loss are completed earlier, extensive experience may be needed to master the learning curve of MIDP.

Breast Reconstruction with DIEP Flap: The Learning Curve at a Breast Reconstruction Center and a Single-Surgeon Study

Although microsurgical breast reconstruction represents a very interesting and rewarding field of plastic surgery, appropriate microsurgical training is not possible in every plastic surgery department. In this retrospective study, we present the learning curve of our plastic surgery department as a whole and of a single microsurgeon assessing breast reconstruction procedures with a deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP) flap between July 2018 and June 2021. The present study included 115 patients and 161 flaps. Cases were stratified into single DIEP/double DIEP groups and into early and late groups based on the flap order. Surgery times and postoperative complications were analyzed. Regarding the institution, the length of hospital stay was lower in the late group than in the early group (single 7.1 ± 1.8 vs. 6.3 ± 1.5 days, p = 0.019; double 8.5 ± 3.8 vs. 6.6 ± 1.4 days, p = 0.043). Apart from that, no statistically significant differences were found between the start and end of our study. In terms of the single surgeon, there was a significant improvement in the total surgery time (single 296.0 ± 78.7 vs. 227.5 ± 54.7 min, p = 0.018; double 448.0 ± 85.6 vs. 341.2 ± 43.1 min, p = 0.008), flap ischemia time (53.6 ± 15.1 vs. 40.9 ± 9.5 min, p = 0.007) and length of stay among the compared groups. There was no significant difference in flap loss rate or other complications between the early and late groups. Further performance of surgeries seemed to improve the surgeon's skills as well as the overall experience of the medical institution.

Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: A propensity score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery is becoming increasingly popular in the field of pancreatic surgery. However, there are few studies of robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and feasibility of RDP for PDAC.

METHODS

Patients who underwent RDP or laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) for PDAC between January 2015 and September 2020 were reviewed. Propensity score matching analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Of the 335 patients included in the study, 24 underwent RDP and 311 underwent LDP. A total of 21 RDP patients were matched 1:1 with LDP patients. RDP was associated with longer operative time (209.7 vs. 163.2 min; P = 0.003), lower open conversion rate (0% vs. 4.8%; P < 0.001), higher cost (15 722 vs. 12 699 dollars; P = 0.003), and a higher rate of achievement of an R0 resection margin (90.5% vs. 61.9%; P = 0.042). However, postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B or C showed no significant inter-group difference (9.5% vs. 9.5%). The median disease-free survival (34.5 vs. 17.3 months; P = 0.588) and overall survival (37.7 vs. 21.9 months; P = 0.171) were comparable between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

RDP is associated with longer operative time, a higher cost of surgery, and a higher likelihood of achieving R0 margins than LDP.

Minimally Invasive Pancreatectomy: Robotic and Laparoscopic Developments

Minimally invasive pancreatectomy is increasingly used. Although offering potential advantages over open approaches, minimally invasive pancreatectomy has many challenges to maintain high-quality of oncologic resection. Multiple patient and surgical factors should be considered in planning laparoscopic or robotic resection, including the learning curve required to produce proficiency. For pancreaticoduodenectomy, distal pancreatectomy, and other pancreatic resections, a safe, margin-negative resection remains the goal. National and societal guidelines for the adoption of minimally invasive pancreatectomy are ongoing and will continue to be important as these techniques are further adopted.

Robotic versus open total pancreatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Limited data are available on postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing robotic total pancreatectomy (RTP). This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the postoperative outcomes of RTP and open total pancreatectomy (OTP). We performed a systematic review with meta-analysis according to the PRISMA 2020 and AMSTAR 2 guidelines. We included studies conducted through August 10, 2022, that systematically searched electronic databases and compared RTP with OTP. We retained four controlled clinical trials in the literature search, including 156 patients: 65 in the RTP group and 91 in the OTP group. There was no difference between the RTP group and OTP group in terms of mortality, severe complications, morbidity, bleeding, biliary leak, delayed gastric emptying, reoperation, operative time, length of stay, harvested lymph nodes, and positive resection margin. The RTP reduces the delay of the first liquid diet, first oral diet, and out of bed. RTP is feasible and safe in selected patients. Robotic surgery allows for a quicker recovery. In cases of major vessel invasion, conversion to laparotomy should be preoperatively considered.

Minimally invasive surgery versus open surgery for total pancreatectomy: a bibliometric review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive total pancreatectomy (MITP) is considered safe and feasible with limited evidence on this procedure. The aim of this study was to systematically analyze the current literature on MITP compared to open TP (OTP).

METHOD

Randomized controlled trials and prospective non-randomized comparative studies were sought systematically in MEDLINE, Web of Science and CENTRAL from their inception until December 2021. Outcome measures included operative time, length of hospital stay (LOH), spleen-preservation rate, estimated blood loss (EBL), need for transfusion, venous resection rate, delayed gastric emptying (DGE), biliary leakage, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), reoperation rate, overall 30-day morbidity (Clavien-Dindo > IIIa), 90-day mortality, 90-day readmission, examined lymph nodes (ELN). Pooled results are presented as odds ratios (OR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

7 observational studies with a total of 4212 patients were included. MITP had a decreased EBL and transfusion rate, lower 30-day morbidity and 90-day mortality with a longer LOH compared to OTP. There were no significant differences regarding operative time, spleen preservation rate, DGE, biliary leakage, venous resection rate, PPH, reoperation, 90-day readmission and ELN.

DISCUSSION

Based on the available studies, MITP is safe and feasible compared to OTP in highly experienced hands from high-volume centers. Further high-quality studies are needed to verify the conclusion.

Transition from open to robotic distal pancreatectomy in a low volume pancreatic surgery country: a single Australian centre experience

BACKGROUND

Advances in technology and techniques have allowed for robotic distal pancreatectomies to be readily performed in patients at high volume centres. This study describes the experience of a single surgeon during the learning curve and transition from open to robotic distal pancreatectomy in Australia, a traditionally low volume pancreatic surgery country.

METHODS

All patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy at an Australian-based tertiary referral centre between 2010 and 2021 were reviewed retrospectively. Demographic, clinicopathologic and survival data were analysed to compare perioperative and oncological outcomes between patients who underwent open, laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomies.

RESULTS

A total of 178 distal pancreatectomies were identified for analysis during the study period. Ninety-one open distal pancreatectomies (ODP), 48 laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies (LDP), and 39 robotic distal pancreatectomies (RDP) were performed. Robotic distal pancreatectomy was non-inferior with respect to perioperative outcomes and yielded statistically non-significant advantages over LDP and ODP.

CONCLUSION

RDP is feasible and can be performed safely in well-selected patients during the learning phase at large pancreatic centres in a traditionally low-volume country like Australia. Referral to large pancreatic centres where access to the robotic platform and surgeon experience is not a barrier, and where a robust multidisciplinary team meeting can take place, remains pivotal in the introduction and transition toward the robotic approach for management of patients with pancreatic body or tail lesions.

Establishing an open and robotic pancreatic surgery program in a level 1 trauma center community teaching hospital and comparing its outcomes to high-volume academic center outcomes: a retrospective review

BACKGROUND

The debate of whether to centralize hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery has been ongoing. The principal objective was to compare outcomes of a community pancreatic surgical program with those of high-volume academic centers.

METHODS

The current pancreatic surgical study occurred in an environment where (1) a certified abdominal transplant surgeon performed all surgeries; (2) complementary quality enhancement programs had been developed; (3) the hospital's trauma center had been verified; and (4) the hospital's surgical training had been accredited. Pancreatic surgical outcomes at high-volume academic centers were obtained through PubMed literature searches. Articles were selected if they described diverse surgical procedures. Two-tailed Fisher exact and mid-P tests were used to perform 2 × 2 contingency analyses.

RESULTS

The study patients consisted of 64 consecutive pancreatic surgical patients. The study patients had a similar pancreaticoduodenectomy proportion (59.4%) when compared to literature patients (66.8%; P = 0.227). The study patients also had a similar distal pancreatectomy proportion (25.0%) when compared to literature patients (31.9%; P = 0.276). The study patients had a significantly higher American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status ≥ 3 proportion (100%) than literature patients (28.1%; P < 0.001). The 90-day study mortality proportion (0%) was similar to the literature proportion (2.3%; P = 0.397). The study postoperative pancreatic fistula proportion was lower (3.2%), when compared to the literature proportion (18.4%; P < 0.001; risk ratio = 5.8). The study patients had a lower reoperation proportion (3.1%) than the literature proportion (8.7%; mid-P = 0.051; risk ratio = 2.8). The study patients had a lower surgical site infection proportion (3.1%) than those in the literature (21.1%; P < 0.001; risk ratio = 6.8). The study patients had equivalent delayed gastric emptying (15.6%) when compared to literature patients (10.6%; P = 0.216). The study patients had decreased Clavien-Dindo grades III-IV complications (10.9%) compared to the literature patients (21.8%; mid-P = 0.018). Lastly, the study patients had a similar readmission proportion (20.3%) compared to literature patients (18.4%; P = 0.732).

CONCLUSION

Despite pancreatic surgical patients having greater preoperative medical comorbidities, the current community study outcomes were comparable to or better than high-volume academic center results.

401 consecutive minimally invasive distal pancreatectomies: lessons learned from 20 years of experience

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to discuss and report the trend, outcomes, and learning curve effect after minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) at two high-volume centres.

METHODS

Patients undergoing MIDP between January 1999 and December 2018 were retrospectively identified from prospectively maintained electronic databases. The entire cohort was divided into two groups constituting the "early" and "recent" phases. The learning curve effect was analyzed for laparoscopic (LDP) and robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP). The follow-up was at least 2 years.

RESULTS

The study population included 401 consecutive patients (LDP n = 300, RDP n = 101). Twelve surgeons performed MIDP during the study period. Although patients were more carefully selected in the early phase, in terms of median age (49 vs. 55 years, p = 0.026), ASA class higher than 2 (3% vs. 9%, p = 0.018), previous abdominal surgery (10% vs. 34%, p < 0.001), and pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) (7% vs. 15%, p = 0.017), the recent phase had similar perioperative outcomes. The increase of experience in LDP was inversely associated with the operative time (240 vs 210 min, p < 0.001), morbidity rate (56.5% vs. 40.1%, p = 0.005), intra-abdominal collection (28.3% vs. 17.3%, p = 0.023), and length of stay (8 vs. 7 days, p = 0.009). Median survival in the PDAC subgroup was 53 months.

CONCLUSION

In the setting of high-volume centres, the surgical training of MIDP is associated with acceptable rates of morbidity. The learning curve can be largely achieved by several team members, improving outcomes over time. Whenever possible resection of PDAC guarantees adequate oncological results and survival.

Is robotic distal pancreatectomy better than laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy after the learning curve? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Aim

The aim of this study was to compare the safety and overall effect of robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) to laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) after the learning curve, especially in perioperative outcome and short-term oncological outcome.

Methods

A literature search was performed by two authors independently using PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science to identify any studies comparing the results of RDP versus LDP published until 5 January 2022. Only the studies where RDP was performed in more than 35 cases were included in this study. We performed a meta-analysis of operative time, blood loss, reoperation, readmission, hospital stay, overall complications, major complications, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), blood transfusion, conversion to open surgery, spleen preservation, tumor size, R0 resection, and lymph node dissection.

Results

Our search identified 15 eligible studies, totaling 4,062 patients (1,413 RDP). It seems that the RDP group had a higher rate of smaller tumor size than the LDP group (MD: −0.15; 95% CI: −0.20 to −0.09; p &lt; 0.00001). Furthermore, compared with LPD, RDP was associated with a higher spleen preservation rate (OR: 2.19; 95% CI: 1.36–3.54; p = 0.001) and lower rate of conversion to open surgery (OR: 0.43; 95% CI: 0.33–0.55; p &lt; 0.00001). Our study revealed that there were no significant differences in operative time, overall complications, major complications, blood loss, blood transfusion, reoperation, readmission, POPF, and lymph node dissection between RDP and LDP.

Conclusions

RDP is safe and feasible for distal pancreatectomy compared with LDP, and it can reduce the rate of conversion to open surgery and increase the rate of spleen preservation, which needs to be further confirmed by quality comparative studies with large samples.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#recordDetails.

Minimally invasive versus open central pancreatectomy: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to give an overview on the postoperative outcome after a minimally invasive (ie, laparoscopic and robot-assisted) central pancreatectomy and open central pancreatectomy with a specific emphasis on the postoperative pancreatic fistula. For benign and low-grade malignant lesions in the pancreatic neck and body, central pancreatectomy may be an alternative to distal pancreatectomy. Exocrine and endocrine insufficiency occur less often after central pancreatectomy, but the rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula is higher.

METHODS

An electronic search was performed for studies on elective minimally invasive central pancreatectomy and open central pancreatectomy, which reported on major morbidity and postoperative pancreatic fistula in PubMed, Cochrane Register, Embase, and Google Scholar until June 1, 2021. A review protocol was developed a priori and registered in PROSPERO as CRD42021259738. A meta-regression was performed by using a random effects model.

RESULTS

Overall, 41 studies were included involving 1,004 patients, consisting of 158 laparoscopic minimally invasive central pancreatectomies, 80 robot-assisted minimally invasive central pancreatectomies, and 766 open central pancreatectomies. The overall rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula was 14%, major morbidity 14%, and 30-day mortality 1%. The rates of postoperative pancreatic fistula (17% vs 24%, P = .194), major morbidity (17% vs 14%, P = .672), and new-onset diabetes (3% vs 6%, P = .353) did not differ significantly between minimally invasive central pancreatectomy and open central pancreatectomy, respectively. Minimally invasive central pancreatectomy was associated with significantly fewer blood transfusions, less exocrine pancreatic insufficiency, and fewer readmissions compared with open central pancreatectomy. A meta-regression was performed with a random effects model between minimally invasive central pancreatectomy and open central pancreatectomy and showed no significant difference for postoperative pancreatic fistula (random effects model 0.16 [0.10; 0.24] with P = .789), major morbidity (random effects model 0.20 [0.15; 0.25] with P = .410), and new-onset diabetes mellitus (random effects model 0.04 [0.02; 0.07] with P = .651).

CONCLUSION

In selected patients and in experienced hands, minimally invasive central pancreatectomy is a safe alternative to open central pancreatectomy for benign and low-grade malignant lesions of the neck and body. Ideally, further research should confirm this with the main focus on postoperative pancreatic fistula and endocrine and exocrine insufficiency.

Current status of robotic surgery for hepato-pancreato-biliary malignancies

INTRODUCTION

Robotic surgery is an emerging aspect of gastrointestinal surgery. Hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery is currently being explored for a broad spectrum of indications, entities, and postoperative outcomes. Noninferiority and financial aspects are the focus of studies. In this review, the impact on oncological therapies is assessed.

AREAS COVERED

An extensive literature review was conducted, and relevant studies and articles and reviews for robotic surgery in the field of hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery were examined. Special attention was given to the oncological aspects of robotic surgery and its possible impact on the therapy of malignant neoplasms.

EXPERT OPINION

Robotic-assisted surgery for oncological indications is promising, in part, an established technique that has already shown its advantages in the last decade, although high-quality studies are missing. Upcoming experience must consider the oncological benefit and putative new indications in a rapidly changing field of anti-neoplastic regimens. Also, robotic surgery may possess the ability to accelerate digitalization and AI-based augmentation in this context.

Definition of a hospital volume threshold to optimize outcomes after drainage of pancreatic fluid collections with lumen-apposing metal stents: a nationwide cohort study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

There is increasing interest in expanding the use of lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMSs) in patients with pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs). The aim of this study was to determine whether there is a hospital volume threshold for which patient outcomes could be optimized.

METHODS

Data from a large multicenter series of patients with PFCs treated with LAMSs were retrieved. Rate of adverse events (AEs) was the primary outcome. Multivariable models with restricted cubic splines were used to identify a hospital volume threshold by plotting hospital volume against the log odds ratio (OR) of AE rate. Propensity score matching was applied to obtain 2 well-balanced groups according to hospital volume, and univariate/multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify significant predictors of AEs.

RESULTS

Overall, 516 patients were included. Increasing hospital volume was associated with a reduced AE rate (P = .03), and the likelihood of experiencing an AE declined as hospital volume increased up to 15 cases. After propensity score matching, 175 patients in the high-volume (>15 cases) and 132 in the low-volume hospital group were compared. Overall, 41 AEs were observed (13.3%), of which 14 (8%) and 27 (20.4%) occurred at high-volume and low-volume centers, respectively (P = .001). Severe and fatal events were observed more frequently in low-volume centers (6% vs 1.7% and 2.2% vs 0%, respectively; P = .05). In multivariate analysis, main pancreatic duct injury (OR, 2.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.26-4.67; P = .02), presence of abnormal vessels (OR, 2.93; 95% CI, 1.41-5.02; P = .006), and institutional experience (OR, 2.95; 95% CI, 1.48-5.90; P = .002) were significant predictors of AEs.

CONCLUSIONS

With 15 procedures representing the minimum number of cases associated with the lowest risk for postprocedural AEs, hospital volume is associated with improved outcomes. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03903523.).

Comparative Efficacy of Robot-Assisted and Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy: A Single-Center Comparative Study

Background

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) has become a routine procedure in pancreatic surgery. Although robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) has not been popularized yet, it has shown new advantages in some aspects, and exploring its learning curve is of great significance for guiding clinical practice.

Methods

149 patients who received RDP and LDP in our surgical team were enrolled in this retrospective study. Patients were divided into two groups including LDP group and RDP group. The perioperative outcomes, histopathologic results, long-term postoperative complications, and economic cost were collected and compared between the two groups. The cumulative summation (CUSUM) analysis was used to explore the learning curve of RDP.

Results

The hospital stay, postoperative first exhaust time, and first feeding time in the RDP group were better than those in the LDP group (P < 0.05). The rate of spleen preservation in patients with benign and low-grade tumors in the RDP group was significantly higher than that of the LDP group (P=0.002), though the cost of operation and hospitalization was significantly higher (P < 0.001). The learning curve of RDP in our center declined significantly with completing 32 cases. The average operation time, the hospital stay, and the time of gastrointestinal recovery were shorter after the learning curve node than before.

Conclusion

RDP provides better postoperative recovery and is not difficult to replicate, but the high cost was still a major disadvantage of RDP.

Robotische Pankreaschirurgie – Lernkurve und Etablierung

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

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

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

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

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

Learning curves in minimally invasive pancreatic surgery: a systematic review

Background

The learning curve of new surgical procedures has implications for the education, evaluation and subsequent adoption. There is currently no standardised surgical training for those willing to make their first attempts at minimally invasive pancreatic surgery. This study aims to ascertain the learning curve in minimally invasive pancreatic surgery.

Methods

A systematic search of PubMed, Embase and Web of Science was performed up to March 2021. Studies investigating the number of cases needed to achieve author-declared competency in minimally invasive pancreatic surgery were included.

Results

In total, 31 original studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria with 2682 patient outcomes being analysed. From these studies, the median learning curve for distal pancreatectomy was reported to have been achieved in 17 cases (10–30) and 23.5 cases (7–40) for laparoscopic and robotic approach respectively. The median learning curve for pancreaticoduodenectomy was reported to have been achieved at 30 cases (4–60) and 36.5 cases (20–80) for a laparoscopic and robotic approach respectively. Mean operative times and estimated blood loss improved in all four surgical procedural groups. Heterogeneity was demonstrated when factoring in the level of surgeon’s experience and patient’s demographic.

Conclusions

There is currently no gold standard in the evaluation of a learning curve. As a result, derivations are difficult to utilise clinically. Existing literature can serve as a guide for current trainees. More work needs to be done to standardise learning curve assessment in a patient-centred manner.

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.

INFLUENCE OF MINIMALLY INVASIVE LAPAROSCOPIC EXPERIENCE SKILLS ON ROBOTIC SURGERY DEXTERITY

Background:

It is unclear if there is a natural transition from laparoscopic to robotic surgery with transfer of abilities.

Aim:

To measure the performance and learning of basic robotic tasks in a simulator of individuals with different surgical background.

Methods:

Three groups were tested for robotic dexterity: a) experts in laparoscopic surgery (n=6); b) experts in open surgery (n=6); and c) non-medical subjects (n=4). All individuals were aged between 40-50 years. Five repetitions of four different simulated tasks were performed: spatial vision, bimanual coordination, hand-foot-eye coordination and motor skill.

Results:

Experts in laparoscopic surgery performed similar to non-medical individuals and better than experts in open surgery in three out of four tasks. All groups improved performance with repetition.

Conclusion:

Experts in laparoscopic surgery performed better than other groups but almost equally to non-medical individuals. Experts in open surgery had worst results. All groups improved performance with repetition.

Evaluation of the learning curve for robot-assisted rectal surgery using the cumulative sum method

BACKGROUND

There is no clear evidence on the number of cases required to master the techniques required in robot-assisted surgery for different surgical fields and techniques. The purpose of this study was to clarify the learning curve of robot-assisted rectal surgery for malignant disease by surgical process.

METHOD

The study retrospectively analyzed robot-assisted rectal surgeries performed between April 2014 and July 2020 for which the operating time per process was measurable. The following learning curves were created using the cumulative sum (CUSUM) method: (1) console time required for total mesorectal excision (CUSUM tTME), (2) time from peritoneal incision to inferior mesenteric artery dissection (CUSUM tIMA), (3) time required to mobilize the descending and sigmoid colon (CUSUM tCM), and (4) time required to mobilize the rectum (CUSUM tRM). Each learning curve was classified into phases 1-3 and evaluated. A fifth learning curve was evaluated for robot-assisted lateral lymph node dissection (CUSUM tLLND).

RESULTS

This study included 149 cases. Phase 1 consisted of 32 cases for CUSUM tTME, 30 for CUSUM tIMA, 21 for CUSUM tCM, and 30 for CUSUM tRM; the respective numbers were 54, 48, 45, and 61 in phase 2 and 63, 71, 83, and 58 in phase 3. There was no significant difference in the number of cases in each phase. Lateral lymph node dissection was initiated in the 76th case where robot-assisted rectal surgery was performed. For CUSUM tLLND, there were 12 cases in phase 1, 6 in phase 2, and 7 cases in phase 3.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that the learning curve for robot-assisted rectal surgery is the same for all surgical processes. Surgeons who already have adequate experience in robot-assisted surgery may be able to acquire stable technique in a smaller number of cases when they start to learn other techniques.

Mentorship and formal robotic proficiency skills curriculum improve subsequent generations' learning curve for the robotic distal pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy is the accepted standard of care. The robotic distal (RDP) learning curve is 20-40 surgeries with operating time (ORT) as the most significant factor. This study evaluates how formal mentorship and a robotic skills curriculum impact the learning curve for subsequent generation surgeons.

METHODS

Consecutive RDP from 2008 to 2017 were evaluated. First Generation was two surgeons who started program without training or mentorship. Second Generation was the two surgeons who joined the program with mentorship. Third Generation was fellows who benefited from both formal training and mentorship. Multivariable models (MVA) were performed for ORT, clinically relevant pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF), and major complications (Clavien≥3).

RESULTS

A total of 296 RDP were performed of which 187 did not include other procedures: First Generation (n = 71), Second Generation (n = 50), and Third Generation (n = 66). ORT decreased by generation (p < 0.001) without any differences in CR-POPF or Clavien≥3. On MVA, earlier generation (p = 0.019), pre-operative albumin (p = 0.001) and pancreatic adenocarcinoma (p = 0.019) were predictive of ORT. Increased BMI (p = 0.049) and neoadjuvant therapy (p = 0.046) were predictive of CR-POPF. Fellow participation at the console increased over time.

CONCLUSION

Formal mentorship and a skills curriculum decreased the learning curve and complications were largely dependent on patient factors.

Robotic pancreas surgery: an overview of history and update on technique, outcomes, and financials

The use robotics in surgery is gaining momentum. This approach holds substantial promise in pancreas surgery. Robotic surgery for pancreatic lesions and malignancies has become well accepted and is expanding to more and more center annually. The number of centers using robotics in pancreatic surgery is rapidly increasing. The most studied robotic pancreas surgeries are pancreaticoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy. Most studies are in their early phases, but they report that robotic pancreas surgery is safe feasible. Robotic pancreas surgery offers several advantages over open and laparoscopic techniques. Data regarding costs of robotics versus conventional techniques is still lacking. Robotic pancreas surgery is still in its early stages. It holds promise to become the new surgical standard for pancreatic resections in the future, however, more research is still needed to establish its safety, cost effectiveness and efficacy in providing the best outcomes.

Robotic Dual-Console Distal Pancreatectomy: Could it be Considered a Safe Approach and Surgical Teaching even in Pancreatic Surgery? A Retrospective Observational Study Cohort

Background

The study aims to assess the safety and feasibility of the robotic dual-console during a robotic distal pancreatectomy

Methods

The data of the consecutive patients submitted to RDP from 2012 to 2019 at the Verona University were retrieved from a prospectively maintained database. The patients submitted to RDP were divided into the dual-console platform group (DG) and compared to the standard robotic procedure group (SG).

Results

In the study period, 102 robotic distal pancreatectomies were performed, of whom 42 patients (41%) belonged to the DG and 60 patients (59%) to the SG. Higher operation time was recorded in the DG compared to the SG (410 vs. 265 min, p < 0.001). The overall conversion rate of the series was 7% (n 7 patients). All the conversions were observed in the SG (p = 0.021). No differences in morbidity or pancreatic fistula rate were recorded (p > 0.05). No mortality events in the 90th postoperative days were reported in this series.

Conclusions

The robotic dual-console approach for distal pancreatectomy is safe, feasible, and reproducible. The postoperative surgical outcomes are comparable to the standard RDP with the single-console da Vinci Surgical System®. This surgical technique can widely and safely improve the robotic surgical training program.

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.

Procedure-specific Training for Robot-assisted Distal Pancreatectomy

OBJECTIVE

To train practicing surgeons in robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RADP) and assess the impact on 5 domains of healthcare quality.

BACKGROUND

RADP may reduce the treatment burden compared with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP), but studies on institutional training and implementation programs are scarce.

METHODS

A retrospective, single-center, cohort study evaluating surgical performance during a procedure-specific training program for RADP (January 2006 to September 2017). Baseline and unadjusted outcomes were compared "before training" (ODP only; June 2012). Exclusion criteria were neoadjuvant therapy, vascular- and unrelated organ resection. Run charts evaluated index length of stay (LOS) and 90-day comprehensive complication index. Cumulative sum charts of operating time (OT) assessed institutional learning. Adjusted outcomes after RADP versus ODP were compared using a secondary propensity-score-matched (1:1) analysis to determine clinical efficacy.

RESULTS

After screening, 237 patients were included in the before-training (133 ODP) and after-training (24 ODP, 80 RADP) groups. After initiation of training, mean perioperative blood loss decreased (-255 mL, P<0.001), OT increased (+65 min, P < 0.001), and median LOS decreased (-1 day, P < 0.001). All other outcomes remained similar (P>0.05). Over time, there were nonrandom (P < 0.05) downward shifts in LOS, while comprehensive complication index was unaffected. We observed 3 learning curve phases in OT: accumulation (<31 cases), optimization (case 31-65), and a steady-state (>65 cases). Propensity-score-matching confirmed reductions in index and 90-day LOS and blood loss with similar morbidity between RADP and ODP.

CONCLUSION

Supervised procedure-specific training enabled successful implementation of RADP by practicing surgeons with immediate improvements in length of stay, without adverse effects on safety.

Robotic gastrointestinal surgery: learning curve, educational programs and outcomes

The use of the robotic platform for gastrointestinal surgery was introduced nearly 20 years ago. However, significant growth and advancement has occurred primarily in the last decade. This is due to several advantages over traditional laparoscopic surgery allowing for more complex dissections and reconstructions. Several randomized controlled trials and retrospective reviews have demonstrated equivalent oncologic outcomes compared to open surgery with improved short-term outcomes. Unfortunately, there are currently no universally accepted or implemented training programs for robotic surgery and robotic surgery experience varies greatly. Additionally, several limitations to the robotic platform exist resulting in a distinct learning curve associated with various procedures. Therefore, implementation of robotic surgery requires a multidisciplinary team approach with commitment and investment from clinical faculty, operating room staff and hospital administrators. Additionally, there is a need for wider distribution of educational modules to train more surgeons and reduce the associated learning curve. This article will focus on the implementation of the robotic platform for surgery of the pancreas, stomach, liver, colon and rectum with an emphasis on the associated learning curve, educational platforms to develop proficiency and perioperative outcomes.

Robotic distal pancreatectomy reduces pancreatic fistula in patients without visceral obesity as compared to open distal pancreatectomy: A propensity score matching retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Several studies have suggested an association between visceral obesity and adverse perioperative outcomes in pancreatic surgery. However, no study has reported the impact of visceral obesity on robotic pancreatic surgery. This study aimed to assess the impact of preoperative visceral obesity on clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) patients following robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) or open distal pancreatectomy (ODP).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed on all patients who consecutively underwent RDP or ODP for PDAC. The visceral adipose tissue was measured on preoperative computed tomography (CT) images at the L3 vertebra level. A 1:1 propensity score matching method was used in the visceral obesity group and the nonvisceral obesity group to minimize the bias between RDP and ODP.

RESULTS

Between December 2011 and December 2018, a total of 445 patients were included. Visceral obesity (n = 219) was found to be associated with higher estimated blood loss (p = 0.033), a higher CR-POPF rate (p = 0.001), delayed drain removal (p = 0.005) and a longer length of stay (p = 0.033). In multivariable analysis, visceral obesity was an independent risk factor for CR-POPF (OR: 1.69; 95% CI 1.07-2.67, p = 0.024). Among patients without visceral obesity, the incidence of CR-POPF was lower among RDP than among ODP patients (11.27% vs. 23.87%, p = 0.028), and the difference remained after propensity score matching (9.52% vs. 26.98%, p = 0.011). However, there was no significant difference in the CR-POPF rate between RDP and ODP for visceral obesity patients.

CONCLUSION

In nonvisceral obesity patients, RDP had better perioperative outcomes than ODP, with a significantly lower CR-POPF rate. However, in visceral obesity patients, RDP showed equivalent CR-POPF rate when compared to ODP.

Robotic versus open total pancreatectomy: a retrospective cohort study

PURPOSE

Robotic total pancreatectomy (RTP), although considered safe and feasible, has rarely been reported. This study aimed to evaluate whether RTP has advantages over open TP (OTP).

METHODS

Demographics and perioperative outcomes among patients who underwent RTP (n=14) versus OTP (n=15) between May 2015 and September 2020 were retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

RTP reduced the operative time (307.2 vs. 382.0 min, p=0.01) and estimated blood loss (EBL) (200 vs. 700 ml, p=0.002) compared to those of OTP. The patients in the RTP group got out of their beds and stood, received their first liquid, and took oral diets earlier (2.0 vs. 3.0 days, p=0.002; 2.0 vs. 4.0 days, p=0.009; 3.0 vs. 5.0 days, p=0.006) and experienced a shorter postoperative hospital stay (PHS) (9.0 vs. 12.0 days, p=0.03). There were no significant differences in the rates of spleen preservation, splenic vessel preservation, bile leakage, delayed gastric emptying, morbidity, or the number of lymph nodes harvest between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that RTP is safe and feasible in selected patients with different indications in experienced robotic center. RTP was associated with a shorter operative time, lower EBL, and shorter PHS than OTP.

State of the art robotic distal pancreatectomy: a review of the literature

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy has become increasingly used in practice. While laparoscopic approach is the most commonly used technique, robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) has emerged as a safe, feasible and effective approach for distal pancreatectomy. Most studies have shown that RDP improved perioperative surgical outcomes and has equivalent oncologic outcomes to open technique. Widespread adoption is limited by a steep learning curve, higher costs and the need for institutional training protocols in place for safe integration of the platform into practice.

The Role of Simulation in Attaining Proficiency in Minimally Invasive Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery

The implementation of robotic surgery in the field of hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) has been a slow but significant process. HPB procedures offer a unique challenge when for new technologies, as the surgeries themselves are complex, with long learning curves. Yet the benefits of the robotic approach for this patient population are notable: decreased length of stay, blood loss, postoperative complications, and improving quality of life. The use of robotic simulation focused curriculum plays a crucial role in mentoring experienced surgeons and surgical trainees. Although further study remains, early studies suggest a structured simulation curriculum decreases time, technical errors, and improves proficiency, ultimately leading to a more expedited and safe implementation of robotic techniques in the HPB field.

Registrar performance in minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy and effects on postoperative outcomes

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) is nowadays an established standard procedure for non-locally advanced pancreatic lesions without celio-mesenteric vascular invasion. However, little is known about how the involvement of junior surgeons in MIDP affects postoperative outcomes. We performed a retrospective case series study in order to determine whether registrar involvement in MIDP is associated with adverse outcomes.

METHODS

Data were analyzed from a prospectively created database of consecutive patients undergoing MIDP. Only data from 91 patients who underwent MIDP for non-PDAC lesions were included. Patients were divided in 3 groups: Consultant P1 (first 20 MIDP, n=20), Consultant P2 (after 20 MIDP, n=44), and Registrar group (n=27). Conversion rates and 90-day postoperative outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

Conversion rates were 5%, 0%, and 14% in Consultant P1 and P2 and Registrar groups, respectively (P1 vs. P2, p = 0.312 and P1 vs. Registrar, p=0.376). Only Comprehensive Complication Index was higher in Registrar group compared to Consultant P1 group (13 vs. 3.7; p = 0.041). Comparison between Consultant P2 and Registrar groups resulted in a significant higher conversion rate (0 vs. 14%, p = 0.029), increased blood loss (77 vs. 263 ml, p = 0.018), and longer surgery duration (156 vs. 212 min, p=0.001) for registrars MIDP. However, no differences were found in clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) (16 vs. 7.5%, p=0.282), Clavien-Dindo severe complication ≥3 score (11 vs. 4%, p=0.396), or length of hospital stay (9 vs. 9 days; p=0.614) between the consultant and registrar cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

With all the limitations of a retrospective study with a small sample size, junior surgeons' involvement in MIDP for non-PDAC lesions resulted in higher conversion rate, blood loss and duration of surgery without statistically significant difference on clinical outcomes compared to a consultant.

Short-term and long term morbidity in robotic pancreatic surgery: a systematic review

Background

Pancreatic cancer is one of the most aggressive and lethal tumours in Western society. Pancreatic surgery can be considered a challenge for open and laparoscopic surgeons, even if the accuracy of gland dissection, due to the close relationship between pancreas, the portal vein, and mesenteric vessels, besides the reconstructive phase (in pancreaticoduodenectomy), lead to significant difficulties for laparoscopic technique. Minimally invasive pancreatic surgery changed utterly with the development of robotic surgery. However, this review aims to make more clarity on the influence of robotic surgery on long-term morbidity.

Methods

A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Scopus to identify and analyze studies published from November 2011 to September 2020 concerning robotic pancreatic surgery. The following terms were used to perform the search: "long term morbidity robotic pancreatic surgery".

Results

Eighteen articles included in the study were published between November 2011 and September 2020. The review included 2041 patients who underwent robotic pancreatic surgery, mainly for a malignant tumour. The two most common robotic surgical procedures adopted were the robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) and the robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD). In two studies, patients were divided into groups; on the one hand, those who underwent a robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD), on the other hand, those who underwent robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP). The remaining items included surgical approach such as robotic middle pancreatectomy (RMP), robotic distal pancreatectomy and splenectomy, robotic-assisted laparoscopic pancreatic dissection (RALPD), robotic enucleation of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours.

Conclusions

Comparison between robotic surgery and open surgery lead to evidence of different advantages of the robotic approach. A multidisciplinary team and a surgical centre at high volume are essential for better postoperative morbidity and mortality.

National Trends in Robotic Pancreas Surgery

BACKGROUND

Robotic pancreatic surgery is expanding throughout centers across the country. We investigated national trends in the use and outcomes for robotic-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) and distal pancreatectomy (RDP) for primary pancreatic tumors.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database was queried for RPD and RDP performed during three time periods: 2010-2012, 2013-2014, and 2015-2016. These time periods were compared for patient and center factors as well as surgical outcomes.

RESULTS

The use of robotic surgery increased during the study period. Most centers performed a low volume of robotic surgery (RPD, 82% of centers averaged < 1 case/year; RDP, 87% averaged < 1 case/year). From the first to last time period, the proportion of cases performed at academic centers decreased (RPD, 83% to 56%; RDP, 77% to 58%, p < 0.001) while patient characteristics remained largely unchanged. For RPD, improvements in mortality (6.7 to 1.8%, p = 0.013) and lymphadenectomy (18 to 21 nodes, p = 0.035) were observed, with no changes in conversion to open surgery, negative margin resections, or readmissions. For RDP, length of stay decreased (7 to 6 days, p = 0.048), but there were no changes in other outcomes. Compared with academic centers, non-academic centers had equivalent rates of conversion to open surgery, negative margins, and 90-day mortality. On multivariate analysis, there was no difference in survival between academic and non-academic centers.

DISCUSSION

Robotic pancreas surgery is expanding to a greater variety of centers nationwide with preservation of key surgical outcomes. These findings support the continued rigorous training and proliferation of qualified robotic pancreas surgeons going forward.

A National Assessment of Optimal Oncologic Surgery for Distal Pancreatic Adenocarcinomas

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to create a composite measure, optimal oncologic surgery (OOS), for patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma and identify factors associated with OOS.

METHODS

Adult patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy were identified from the National Cancer Database between 2010 and 2016. Patients were stratified based on receipt of OOS. Criteria for OOS included 90-day survival, no 30-day readmission, length of stay ≤7 days, negative resection margins, ≥12 lymph nodes harvested, and receipt of chemotherapy. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to identify predictors of OOS. Survival curves and a Cox proportional hazards model were created to compare survival and identify risk factors for mortality.

RESULTS

Three thousand five hundred forty-six patients were identified. The rate of OOS was 22.3%. Diagnosis after 2012, treatment at an academic medical center, and a minimally invasive surgical approach (MIS) were associated with OOS. Survival was superior for patients undergoing OOS. Decreasing age at diagnosis, fewer comorbidities, surgery at an academic medical center, MIS, and lower pathologic stage were also associated with improved survival on multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Rates of OOS for distal pancreatectomy are low. Time trends show increasing rates of OOS that may be related to increasing MIS, adjuvant chemotherapy, and referrals to academic medical centers.

[Evidence for robotics in oncological pancreatic surgery]

Robotic surgical procedures have been implemented and have become an important development in pancreatic surgery with an increasing acceptance worldwide. Nearly all types of pancreatic surgery have now been performed robotically and especially standardized resections, such as distal pancreatectomy (RDP) and partial pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) have gained importance despite a potentially long learning curve and high associated procedural costs. The present review article summarizes the available literature and evidence on the respective procedures focused on their use for indications of malignancy.

Current state of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery

The growth in minimally invasive pancreatic surgery (MIPS) has been accompanied by a recent surge in evidence-based data available to analyze patient outcomes. A small complement of randomized control trials as well as a multitude of observational studies have demonstrated both consistent similarities and differences between MIPS and the open approach, although abundant questions remain. This review highlights the available literature and emphasizes key factors for evaluating laparoscopic and robotic pancreatic surgery.

Laparoscopic-assisted ERCP following RYGB: a 12-year assessment of outcomes and learning curve at a high-volume pancreatobiliary center

INTRODUCTION

Treatment of pancreaticobiliary pathology following Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) poses significant technical challenges. Laparoscopic-assisted endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (LA-ERCP) can overcome those anatomical hurdles, allowing access to the papilla. Our aims were to analyze our 12-year institutional outcomes and determine the learning curve for LA-ERCP.

METHODS

A retrospective review of cases between 2007 and 2019 at a high-volume pancreatobiliary unit was performed. Logistic regression was used to identify predictors of specific outcomes. To identify the learning curve, CUSUM analyses and innovative methods for standardizing the surgeon's timelines were performed.

RESULTS

131 patients underwent LA-ERCP (median age 60, 81% females) by 17 surgeons and 10 gastroenterologists. Cannulation of the papilla was achieved in all cases. Indications were choledocholithiasis (78%), Sphincter of Oddi dysfunction/Papillary stenosis (18%), management of bile leak (2%) and stenting/biopsy of malignant strictures (2%). Median total, surgical and ERCP times were 180, 128 and 48 min, respectively, and 47% underwent concomitant cholecystectomy. Surgical site infection developed in 9.2% and post-ERCP pancreatitis in 3.8%. Logistic regression revealed multiple abdominal operations and magnitude of BMI decrease (between RYGB and LA-ERCP) to be predictive of conversion to open approach. CUSUM analysis of operative time demonstrated a learning curve at case 27 for the surgical team and case 9 for the gastroenterology team. On binary cut analysis, 3-5 cases per surgeon were needed to optimize operative metrics.

CONCLUSION

LA-ERCP is associated with high success rates and low adverse events. We identify outcome benchmarks and a learning curve for new adopters of this increasingly performed procedure.

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.