Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy

Comparing oncologic and surgical outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy in patients with pancreatic cancer: a propensity-matched analysis

INTRODUCTION

Minimally invasive Pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD), or the Whipple procedure, is increasingly utilized. No study has compared laparoscopic (LPD) and robotic (RPD) approaches, and the impact of the learning curve on oncologic, technical, and post-operative outcomes remains relatively understudied.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database was queried for patients undergoing LPD or RPD from 2010 to 2020 with a diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. Outcomes were compared between approaches using propensity-score matching (PSM); the impact of annual center-level volume of MIPD was also assessed by dividing volume into quartiles.

RESULTS

A total of 3,342 patients were included. Most (n = 2,716, 81.3%) underwent LPD versus RPD (n = 626, 18.7%). There was a high rate (20.2%, n = 719) of positive margins. Mean length-of-stay (LOS) was 10.4 ± 8.9 days. Thirty-day mortality was 2.8% (n = 92) and ninety-day mortality was 5.7% (n = 189). PSM matched 625 pairs of patients receiving LPD or RPD. After PSM, there was no differences between groups based on age, sex, race, CCI, T-stage, neoadjuvant chemo/radiotherapy, or type of PD. After PSM, there was a higher rate of conversion to open (HR = 0.68, 95%CI = 0.50-0.92)., but there was no difference in LOS (HR = 1.00, 95%CI = 0.92-1.11), 30-day readmission (HR = 1.08, 95% CI = 0.68-1.71), 30-day (HR = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.39-1.56) or 90-day mortality (HR = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.42-1.16), ability to receive adjuvant therapy (HR = 1.15, 95% CI = 0.92-1.44), nodal harvest (HR = 1.01, 95%CI = 0.94-1.09) or positive margins (HR = 1.19, 95% CI = 0.89-1.59). Centers in lower quartiles of annual volume of MIPD demonstrated reduced nodal harvest (p = 0.005) and a higher rate of conversion to open (p = 0.038). Higher-volume centers had a shorter LOS (p = 0.012), higher rate of initiation of adjuvant therapy (p = 0.042), and, most strikingly, a reduction in 90-day mortality (p = 0.033).

CONCLUSION

LPD and RPD have similar surgical and oncologic outcomes, with a lower rate of conversion to open in the robotic cohort. The robotic technique does not appear to eliminate the "learning curve", with higher volume centers demonstrating improved outcomes, especially seen at minimum annual volume of 5 cases.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

Early experience with robot-assisted Frey's procedure surgical outcome and technique: Indian perspective

Purpose

Robotic surgery for pancreatic diseases is currently on the rise, feasible, well-accepted, and safe. Frequently performed procedures in relation to pancreatic diseases include distal pancreatectomy and pancreatoduodenectomy. The literature commonly describes robotic lateral pancreaticojejunostomy; however, data on robot-assisted Frey's is scarce.

Methods

We herein, describe our series and technique of robot-assisted Frey's procedure at our tertiary care center between November 2019 and March 2022, and its short-term outcomes in comparison to the open Frey's. Patients with chronic pancreatitis having intractable pain, dilated duct, and no evidence of inflammatory head mass or malignancy were included in the study for robot-assisted Frey's.

Results

In our study, out of 32 patients, nine patients underwent robot assisted Frey's procedure. The duration of surgery was significantly longer in robotic group (570 minutes vs. 360 minutes, p = 0.003). The medians of intraoperative blood loss and postoperative analgesic requirement were lower in robotic group, but the difference was not statistically significant (250 mL vs. 350 mL, p = 0.400 and 3 days vs. 4 days, p = 0.200, respectively). The median length of hospital stay was shorter in the robotic group, though not significant (6 days vs. 7 days, p = 0.540). At a median follow-up of 28 months, there was no significant difference in the postoperative complications and short-term outcomes between the two groups.

Conclusion

Robotic surgery offers benefits of laparoscopic surgery in addition it has better visualization, magnification, dexterity, and ergonomics. Frey's procedure is possible robotically with acceptable outcomes in selected patients.

Robotic Harvest of the Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator Flap for Breast Reconstruction: A Case Series

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery is emerging as a viable tool in reconstructive surgery. Harvesting of the deep inferior epigastric perforator flap is typically performed through an anterior approach, which involves a long fascial incision. A robotic approach allows the deep inferior epigastric pedicle to be harvested from the posterior surface. This approach reduces the length of the fascial incision and should decrease the abdominal morbidity associated with large fascial dissections.

METHODS

A case series study of 21 patients who underwent a robotic deep inferior epigastric perforator or during a 12-month period for breast reconstruction was performed. Patient demographics, surgical characteristics, and complications were assessed.

RESULTS

Mean patient age was 54.6 ± 7.6 years, and mean body mass index was 30.4 ± 3.9 kg/m2. Mean fascial incision and pedicle length were 3.6 ± 1.6 cm and 13.3 ± 1 cm, respectively. None of the patients required conversion to open harvest. Mean length of hospital stay was 3.8 ± 0.9 days. Surgical site occurrences were identified in five patients (31.3 percent). One patient had delayed wound healing at the donor site. None of the patients developed hernia or bulge. The mean benefit (B = C - A), defined as length of fascial incision spared and measured as the difference between pedicle length and intramuscular course, was 9.83 ± 2.28 cm. The precision of computed tomography angiography in identifying the intraoperative fascial incision was 86 percent.

CONCLUSION

The robotic deep inferior epigastric perforator flap is a safe and reliable technique that decreases the length of fascial incision and short-term complications associated with the open approach.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, IV.

A Potential Role for Robotic Cholecystectomy in Patients with Advanced Liver Disease: Analysis of the NSQIP Database

Robotic surgery has been widely adopted by many specialties, including hepatobiliary surgery. However, robotic procedures generally require longer operative times and are costlier than their laparoscopic counterparts. The role for robotic cholecystectomy (RC), particularly in patients with advanced liver disease, has not been established. A retrospective analysis of the NSQIP database was performed, focusing on patients with chronic liver disease who underwent cholecystectomy. Patients were categorized based on their model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score and the type of surgical procedure: open, laparoscopic, or RC. Rates of a variety of postoperative complications including length of stay (LOS) were analyzed. In patients with a MELD score of 21 to 30, open cholecystectomy was associated with a long hospital LOS (3 vs 1 vs 1; P 20.01). RC was equivalent to laparoscopic cholecystectomy in terms of perioperative mortality for higher MELD score patients but was associated with lower conversion rates and overall LOS. This data suggests that RC should be considered in patients with advanced liver disease needing cholecystectomy.