Ultrasound-Guided Robotic Enucleation of Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors

Robotic Parenchymal-Sparing Pancreatectomy: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Parenchymal-sparing approaches to pancreatectomy are technically challenging procedures but allow for preserving a normal pancreas and decreasing the rate of postoperative pancreatic insufficiency. The robotic platform is increasingly being used for these procedures. We sought to evaluate robotic parenchymal-sparing pancreatectomy and assess its complication profile and efficacy.

METHODS

This systematic review consisted of all studies on robotic parenchymal-sparing pancreatectomy (central pancreatectomy, duodenum-preserving partial pancreatic head resection, enucleation, and uncinate resection) published between January 2001 and December 2022 in PubMed and Embase.

RESULTS

A total of 23 studies were included in this review (n = 788). Robotic parenchymal-sparing pancreatectomy is being performed worldwide for benign or indolent pancreatic lesions. When compared to the open approach, robotic parenchymal-sparing pancreatectomies led to a longer average operative time, shorter length of stay, and higher estimated intraoperative blood loss. Postoperative pancreatic fistula is common, but severe complications requiring intervention are exceedingly rare. Long-term complications such as endocrine and exocrine insufficiency are nearly nonexistent.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic parenchymal-sparing pancreatectomy appears to have a higher risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula but is rarely associated with severe or long-term complications. Careful patient selection is required to maximize benefits and minimize morbidity.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Intraoperative Ultrasound Guided Robotic Pancreatic Enucleation, Does a Distance of 3mm Still Matters?

Background: A minimal distance of 3 mm to main pancreatic duct (MPD) was generally considered to be necessary for pancreatic enucleation (PE). This study was designed to report the safety and feasibility of PE for tumors located in 3 mm to MPD Under the intraoperative ultrasound (IOUS) guidance.Methods: The data of patients who received IOUS guided robotic PE from January 2018 to May 2019 in the second department of hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery were reviewed in this study. According to the distance to MPD (less than 3 mm or not), patients were divided in 2 groups, and the short-term operative outcomes were compared.Statistics: Students' t-test and Mann-Whitney U test were used for comparing continuous variables, and Chi-squared test was used for comparing categorical variables.Results: And a total of 56 patients were analyzed, and a minimal distance less than 3 mm between the tumor and pancreatic duct measured by IOUS was found in 12 patients. The tumors and MPD were clearly revealed intraoperatively in all the cases. The operative duration was significantly longer in patients with tumors located in 3 mm from MPD (143.25 ± 40.89 min vs 107.14 ± 37.73 min, t = 2.756, P=.014). There was no significant difference between the rate of post-operative pancreatic fistula and other complications in the different groups (χ² =.924, P=.48).Discussion and conclusion: robotic PE could be safely performed under IOUS guidance for benign or low-grade malignant tumors located less than 3 mm to the MPD.

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.

Robotic pancreatic surgery: minimally invasive approach to challenging operations

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic surgery is still associated with high perioperative morbidity and mortality. The purpose of this study was to present the short-term outcomes of robot-assisted pancreatic surgery, including pancreaticoduodenectomy (RAPD), distal pancreatectomy (RDP) with or without splenectomy, enucleation (REN), and atypical resection (RAR), for benign, borderline, and malignant lesions at a high-volume center.

METHODS

A single-center, prospective database was used to retrospectively analyze the early outcomes of robotic pancreatic procedures completed between 2014 and 2020. Out of 124 attempted operations, 3 patients received palliative robotic surgery (2.4%). Of the remaining 121, 14 (11.6%) were converted to open surgery. The robotic procedures included 107 patients: 56 underwent RAPD, 31 underwent RDP (28 with and 3 without splenectomy), 16 underwent REN, and 4 underwent RAR (2 central and 2 total pancreatectomies).

RESULTS

The preoperative baseline characteristics and comorbidities were consistent with those of a Western population. The overall incidence of complications was 43.9%, with the more severe (Clavien-Dindo III-IV) occurring after RAPD (19.6%). We collected 7 (13.1%) postoperative pancreatic fistulae after RAPD, 5 (16.1%) after RADP, and 2 (12.5%) after REN. The two central pancreatectomies developed a biochemical leak without sequelae. Three patients (2.8%) died within 90 days after surgery. Early refeeding was achieved in those who did not experience severe complications, while the median hospital stay was 8 days. The median number of harvested lymph nodes was 22, with non-R1 microscopic residual tumors found.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic pancreatic surgery is a safe and oncologically adequate technique to manage benign and malignant diseases arising from the head, body, and tail of the pancreas.

Robotic vs open distal pancreatectomy: A multi-institutional matched comparison analysis

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic surgery is still a challenge even in high-volume centers. Clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) represents the greatest contributor to major morbidity and mortality, especially following pancreatic distal resection. In this study, we compared robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) to open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) in terms of CR-POPF development and analyzed oncologic efficacy of RDP in the subgroup of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).

METHODS

We collected data from five high-volume centers for pancreatic surgery and performed a matched comparison analysis to compare short and long-term outcomes after ODP or RDP. Patients were matched with a 2:1 ratio according to age, ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) score, body mass index (BMI), final pathology, and TNM (Tumour, Node, Metastasis) staging system VIII ed.

RESULTS

Two hundred and forty-six patients who underwent 82 RDPs and 164 ODPs were included. No differences were found in the incidence of CR-POPF. In the PDAC group, median DFS and OS were 10.8 months and 14.8 months in the ODP group and 10.4 months and 15 months in the RDP group, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic distal pancreatectomy is a safe surgical strategy for PDAC and incidence of CR-POPF is equivalent between RDP and ODP. RDP should be considered equivalent to ODP in terms of oncological efficacy when performed in high-volume and proficient centers.

Minimally-invasive versus open enucleation for pancreatic tumours: A propensity-score adjusted analysis

Backgrounds/Aims

This study aims to evaluate the perioperative outcomes of minimally-invasive enucleation (MIEn) of the pancreas versus open enucleation (OEn).

Methods

This is a retrospective review of 20 consecutive patients who underwent pancreatic enucleation at a single institution.

Results

Seven patients underwent MIEn, of which 3 were robotic and 4 were laparoscopic. After propensity-adjusted analysis, the only significant difference was a reduced rate of readmissions within 30 days in the MIEn group versus the OEn group [0 vs 4 (30.8%), p=0.0464]. There were no conversions to open in the MIEn group, and median operation time was similar in both groups. There was no difference in median EBL in both groups, and none of the patients in our series required blood transfusions. The overall morbidity rate was 45.0% and the major complication (Clavien-Dindo>2) rate was 15%; which was similar between both groups. Seven (35%) patients had a Grade B/C POPF, and there was no significant difference between the two groups for this. The MIEn group had a shorter median length of stay compared to OEn [5 days (range, 3–24) vs 8.5 days (range, 5–42)] this was not significant on propensity-adjusted analysis (p=0.3195). There was no post-operative 90-day/in-hospital mortality in all 20 patients.

Conclusions

Our experience demonstrates that MIEn was associated with similar perioperative outcomes and fewer readmissions compared to OEn.

Open and minimally invasive pancreatic neoplasms enucleation: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic enucleation (pEN) as parenchyma-sparing procedure for small pancreatic neoplasms is quickly becoming the most common surgical option in such setting. Nowadays, pEN is frequently carried out through a minimally invasive approach either laparoscopic or robotic. Its impact on overall perioperative complications and pancreatic fistula (POPF) is still under evaluation. The scope of our systematic review is to assess pEN's perioperative outcomes and to evaluate the effect of the minimally invasive techniques over POPF and other surgical complications.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature search (time-frame January 1999-September 2018), considering exclusively those studies which included at least 5 cases of either open or minimally invasive pEN. Data regarding postoperative outcome and POPF were extracted and analyzed. We defined postoperative morbidities by the Clavien-Dindo classification while POPF according to the International Study Group of Pancreatic Fistula (ISGPF) definition.

RESULTS

Sixty-three studies met the criteria selected, accounting for a study population of 2485 patients. 27.7% had a minimally invasive pEN. The overall postoperative morbidity rate was 46.1% with 11.9% rated as severe (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3). Mortality rate was 0.69%. The minimally invasive approach to pEN led to a statistically significant reduction of both the overall POPF rate (28.7% vs. 45.9%, p < 0.001), and clinically significant B-C POPF (p < 0.027). The postoperative overall morbidity rate was clearly in favor of the minimally invasive approach (27.6% vs. 55.2%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our review confirms that pEN is a safe and feasible technique for the treatment of small benign or low-grade pancreatic neoplasms and it can be implemented with an acceptable morbidity rate along with low mortality. The minimally invasive approach is gaining widespread acceptance due to its supposed non-inferiority compared with the traditional open approach. In our review, it showed to be even better in terms of POPF incidence rate and short-term postoperative outcome. Still, such data need to be corroborated by randomized clinical trials.

Not just minor resections: robotic approach for cystic echinococcosis of the liver

INTRODUCTION

Human echinococcosis is among the 17 neglected tropical diseases recognized by the World Health Organization. It is responsible for over $3 billion of health costs every year being endemic in large areas worldwide, and liver is affected in 70% of the cases. Surgery associated to medical treatment is the gold standard and robotic approach may be a valuable tool to achieve safe, parenchyma sparing resections.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the outcomes of patients that underwent robotic radical surgical treatment for hydatid liver disease, from prospectively maintained databases of three Italian centers.

RESULTS

15 patients were included in this study, median age 51 years (24-76). 1 right hepatectomy, 2 left lateral sectionectomies, 5 segmentectomies (including 1 caudatectomy), 3 wedge resections and 5 cyst-pericystectomies were performed. Median estimated blood loss was of 100 ml (50-550 ml), and median operative time including docking was 210 min (95-590 min), with no need for conversion to open. Median hospital stay was 4 days, with only one readmission for fever. Only one patient experienced recurrence in a different liver segment.

CONCLUSIONS

In our experience, robotic approach for cystic echinococcosis of the liver proved to be a safe and effective strategy also in the so-called "difficult segments", with short post-operative stay and quick return to daily activities, along with the absence of surgical site recurrences. To the best of our knowledge, this is the largest report of robotic approach to hydatid liver disease.

Robotic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) represents a leading cause of death in patients with cirrhosis. This review attempts to clarify the role of robotic surgery for HCC in terms of oncologic outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed according to the PRISMA statement including papers comparing open, robotic, and laparoscopic approach for liver surgery. If more than one study was reported by the same institute, only the most recent or the highest quality study was included.

RESULTS

The literature search yielded 302 articles; titles and abstracts were reviewed for inclusion. Ten papers were finally included in this review for a total of 307 patients who underwent robotic resection for HCC.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic liver resection for HCC is effective in terms of oncological results as compared with open and laparoscopic approach when performed in experienced centers and is accurate in terms of R0 rates and disease-free surgical margin.