1
|
Jiang Q, Lu C, Zhou Y, Zhu Q, Ren Y, Mou Y, Jin W. Comparison of manual sutures and laparoscopic stapler for pancreatic stump closure techniques in robotic distal pancreatectomy: a single-center experience. Surg Endosc 2024; 38:1230-1238. [PMID: 38091107 PMCID: PMC10881752 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-023-10601-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/27/2023] [Accepted: 11/14/2023] [Indexed: 02/23/2024]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Qitao Jiang
- Department of Gastroenterology & Pancreatic Surgery, Zhejiang Province People's Hospital, Hangzhou, 310000, Zhejiang, People's Republic of China
- Department of Surgery, Bengbu Medical College, Bengbu, 233030, Anhui, People's Republic of China
| | - Chao Lu
- Department of Gastroenterology & Pancreatic Surgery, Zhejiang Province People's Hospital, Hangzhou, 310000, Zhejiang, People's Republic of China
| | - Yucheng Zhou
- Department of Gastroenterology & Pancreatic Surgery, Zhejiang Province People's Hospital, Hangzhou, 310000, Zhejiang, People's Republic of China
| | - Qicong Zhu
- Department of Gastroenterology & Pancreatic Surgery, Zhejiang Province People's Hospital, Hangzhou, 310000, Zhejiang, People's Republic of China
| | - Yufeng Ren
- Department of Gastroenterology & Pancreatic Surgery, Zhejiang Province People's Hospital, Hangzhou, 310000, Zhejiang, People's Republic of China
| | - Yiping Mou
- Department of Gastroenterology & Pancreatic Surgery, Zhejiang Province People's Hospital, Hangzhou, 310000, Zhejiang, People's Republic of China.
- Department of Medical Oncology, Zhejiang Province People's Hospital, Hangzhou, 310000, Zhejiang, People's Republic of China.
| | - Weiwei Jin
- Department of Gastroenterology & Pancreatic Surgery, Zhejiang Province People's Hospital, Hangzhou, 310000, Zhejiang, People's Republic of China.
- Department of Medical Oncology, Zhejiang Province People's Hospital, Hangzhou, 310000, Zhejiang, People's Republic of China.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Gaballah AH, Kazi IA, Zaheer A, Liu PS, Badawy M, Moshiri M, Ibrahim MK, Soliman M, Kimchi E, Elsayes KM. Imaging after Pancreatic Surgery: Expected Findings and Postoperative Complications. Radiographics 2024; 44:e230061. [PMID: 38060424 DOI: 10.1148/rg.230061] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/18/2023]
Abstract
Pancreatic surgery is considered one of the most technically challenging surgical procedures, despite the evolution of modern techniques. Neoplasms remain the most common indication for pancreatic surgery, although inflammatory conditions may also prompt surgical evaluation. The choice of surgical procedure depends on the type and location of the pathologic finding because different parts of the pancreas have separate vascular supplies that may be shared by adjacent organs. The surgical approach could be conventional or minimally invasive (laparoscopic, endoscopic, or robotic assisted). Because of the anatomic complexity of the pancreatic bed, perioperative complications may be frequently encountered and commonly involve the pancreatic-biliary, vascular, lymphatic, or bowel systems, irrespective of the surgical technique used. Imaging plays an important role in the assessment of suspected postoperative complications, with CT considered the primary imaging modality, while MRI, digital subtraction angiography, and molecular imaging are considered ancillary diagnostic tools. Accurate diagnosis of postoperative complications requires a solid understanding of pancreatic anatomy, surgical indications, normal postoperative appearance, and expected postsurgical changes. The practicing radiologist should be familiar with the most common perioperative complications, such as anastomotic leak, abscess, and hemorrhage, and be able to differentiate these entities from normal anticipated postoperative changes such as seroma, edema and fat stranding at the surgical site, and perivascular soft-tissue thickening. In addition to evaluation of the primary operative fossa, imaging plays a fundamental role in assessment of the adjacent organ systems secondarily affected after pancreatic surgery, such as vascular, biliary, and enteric complications. Published under a CC BY 4.0 license. Test Your Knowledge questions are available in the supplemental material. See the invited commentary by Winslow in this issue.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ayman H Gaballah
- From the Department of Diagnostic Imaging, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, 201 Inwood Rd, Dallas, TX 75390 (A.H.G.); Departments of Radiology (I.A.K.) and Surgery (E.K.), University of Missouri, Columbia, Mo; Department of Radiology, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Md (A.Z.); Department of Radiology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio (P.S.L.); Department of Diagnostic Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Tex (M.B., K.M.E.); Department of Radiology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn (M.M.); Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn (M.K.I.); and Department of Radiology, Northwestern University, Chicago, Ill (M.S.)
| | - Irfan A Kazi
- From the Department of Diagnostic Imaging, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, 201 Inwood Rd, Dallas, TX 75390 (A.H.G.); Departments of Radiology (I.A.K.) and Surgery (E.K.), University of Missouri, Columbia, Mo; Department of Radiology, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Md (A.Z.); Department of Radiology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio (P.S.L.); Department of Diagnostic Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Tex (M.B., K.M.E.); Department of Radiology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn (M.M.); Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn (M.K.I.); and Department of Radiology, Northwestern University, Chicago, Ill (M.S.)
| | - Atif Zaheer
- From the Department of Diagnostic Imaging, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, 201 Inwood Rd, Dallas, TX 75390 (A.H.G.); Departments of Radiology (I.A.K.) and Surgery (E.K.), University of Missouri, Columbia, Mo; Department of Radiology, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Md (A.Z.); Department of Radiology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio (P.S.L.); Department of Diagnostic Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Tex (M.B., K.M.E.); Department of Radiology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn (M.M.); Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn (M.K.I.); and Department of Radiology, Northwestern University, Chicago, Ill (M.S.)
| | - Peter S Liu
- From the Department of Diagnostic Imaging, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, 201 Inwood Rd, Dallas, TX 75390 (A.H.G.); Departments of Radiology (I.A.K.) and Surgery (E.K.), University of Missouri, Columbia, Mo; Department of Radiology, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Md (A.Z.); Department of Radiology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio (P.S.L.); Department of Diagnostic Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Tex (M.B., K.M.E.); Department of Radiology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn (M.M.); Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn (M.K.I.); and Department of Radiology, Northwestern University, Chicago, Ill (M.S.)
| | - Mohamed Badawy
- From the Department of Diagnostic Imaging, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, 201 Inwood Rd, Dallas, TX 75390 (A.H.G.); Departments of Radiology (I.A.K.) and Surgery (E.K.), University of Missouri, Columbia, Mo; Department of Radiology, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Md (A.Z.); Department of Radiology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio (P.S.L.); Department of Diagnostic Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Tex (M.B., K.M.E.); Department of Radiology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn (M.M.); Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn (M.K.I.); and Department of Radiology, Northwestern University, Chicago, Ill (M.S.)
| | - Mariam Moshiri
- From the Department of Diagnostic Imaging, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, 201 Inwood Rd, Dallas, TX 75390 (A.H.G.); Departments of Radiology (I.A.K.) and Surgery (E.K.), University of Missouri, Columbia, Mo; Department of Radiology, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Md (A.Z.); Department of Radiology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio (P.S.L.); Department of Diagnostic Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Tex (M.B., K.M.E.); Department of Radiology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn (M.M.); Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn (M.K.I.); and Department of Radiology, Northwestern University, Chicago, Ill (M.S.)
| | - Mohamed K Ibrahim
- From the Department of Diagnostic Imaging, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, 201 Inwood Rd, Dallas, TX 75390 (A.H.G.); Departments of Radiology (I.A.K.) and Surgery (E.K.), University of Missouri, Columbia, Mo; Department of Radiology, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Md (A.Z.); Department of Radiology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio (P.S.L.); Department of Diagnostic Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Tex (M.B., K.M.E.); Department of Radiology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn (M.M.); Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn (M.K.I.); and Department of Radiology, Northwestern University, Chicago, Ill (M.S.)
| | - Moataz Soliman
- From the Department of Diagnostic Imaging, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, 201 Inwood Rd, Dallas, TX 75390 (A.H.G.); Departments of Radiology (I.A.K.) and Surgery (E.K.), University of Missouri, Columbia, Mo; Department of Radiology, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Md (A.Z.); Department of Radiology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio (P.S.L.); Department of Diagnostic Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Tex (M.B., K.M.E.); Department of Radiology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn (M.M.); Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn (M.K.I.); and Department of Radiology, Northwestern University, Chicago, Ill (M.S.)
| | - Eric Kimchi
- From the Department of Diagnostic Imaging, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, 201 Inwood Rd, Dallas, TX 75390 (A.H.G.); Departments of Radiology (I.A.K.) and Surgery (E.K.), University of Missouri, Columbia, Mo; Department of Radiology, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Md (A.Z.); Department of Radiology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio (P.S.L.); Department of Diagnostic Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Tex (M.B., K.M.E.); Department of Radiology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn (M.M.); Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn (M.K.I.); and Department of Radiology, Northwestern University, Chicago, Ill (M.S.)
| | - Khaled M Elsayes
- From the Department of Diagnostic Imaging, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, 201 Inwood Rd, Dallas, TX 75390 (A.H.G.); Departments of Radiology (I.A.K.) and Surgery (E.K.), University of Missouri, Columbia, Mo; Department of Radiology, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Md (A.Z.); Department of Radiology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio (P.S.L.); Department of Diagnostic Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Tex (M.B., K.M.E.); Department of Radiology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn (M.M.); Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn (M.K.I.); and Department of Radiology, Northwestern University, Chicago, Ill (M.S.)
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Quinn KM, Chen X, Runge LT, Pieper H, Renton D, Meara M, Collins C, Griffiths C, Husain S. The robot doesn't lie: real-life validation of robotic performance metrics. Surg Endosc 2022:10.1007/s00464-022-09707-8. [PMID: 36266482 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-022-09707-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/27/2022] [Accepted: 10/11/2022] [Indexed: 11/27/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Degree of resident participation in a case is often used as a surrogate marker for operative autonomy, an essential element of surgical resident training. Previous studies have demonstrated a considerable disagreement between the perceptions of attending surgeons and trainees when it comes to estimating operative participation. The Da Vinci Surgical System dual console interface allows machine generated measurements of trainee's active participation, which has the potential to obviate the need for labor intensive direct observation of surgical procedures. However, the robotic metrics require validation. We present a comparison of operative participation as perceived by the resident, faculty, trained research staff observer (gold standard), and robotic machine generated data. METHODS A total of 28 consecutive robotic inguinal hernia repair procedures were observed by research staff. Operative time, percent active time for the resident, and number of handoffs between the resident and attending were recorded by trained research staff in the operating room and the Da Vinci Surgical System. Attending and resident evaluations of operative performance and perceptions of percent active time for the resident were collected using standardized forms and compared with the research staff observed values and the robot-generated console data. Wilcoxon two-sample tests and Pearson Correlation coefficients statistical analysis were performed. RESULTS Robotic inguinal hernia repair cases had a mean operative time of 91.3 (30) minutes and an attending-rated mean difficulty of 3.1 (1.26) out of 5. Residents were recorded to be the active surgeon 71.8% (17.7) of the total case time by research staff. There was a strong correlation (r = 0.77) in number of handoffs between faculty and trainee as recorded by the research staff and robot (4.28 (2.01) vs. 5.8 (3.04) respectively). The robotic machine generated data demonstrated the highest degree of association when compared to the gold standard (research staff observed data), with r = 0.98, p < 0.0001. Lower levels of association were seen with resident reported (r = 0.66) perceptions and faculty-reported (r = 0.55) perceptions of resident active operative time. CONCLUSIONS Our findings suggest that robot-generated performance metrics are an extremely accurate and reliable measure of intraoperative resident participation indicated by a very strong correlation with the data recorded by research staff's direct observation of the case. Residents demonstrated a more accurate awareness of their degree of participation compared with faculty surgeons. With high accuracy and ease of use, robotic surgical system performance metrics have the potential to be a valuable tool in surgical training and skill assessment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kristen M Quinn
- Department of Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, 96 Jonathan Lucas St. Room CSB 417, Charleston, SC, 29425, USA.
| | - Xiaodong Chen
- Division of Gastrointestinal Surgery, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, USA
| | - Louis T Runge
- Department of Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, 96 Jonathan Lucas St. Room CSB 417, Charleston, SC, 29425, USA
| | - Heidi Pieper
- Center for Minimally Invasive Surgery, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, USA
| | - David Renton
- Division of Gastrointestinal Surgery, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, USA
| | - Michael Meara
- Division of Gastrointestinal Surgery, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, USA
| | - Courtney Collins
- Division of Gastrointestinal Surgery, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, USA
| | - Claire Griffiths
- Center for Minimally Invasive Surgery, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, USA
| | - Syed Husain
- Division of Colorectal Surgery, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, USA
| |
Collapse
|