Robotic-assisted spleen preserving distal pancreatectomy: a technical review

Superiority of Robotic Over Laparoscopic Spleen-Preserving Distal Pancreatectomy With Warshaw Procedure for Reducing the Incidence of Postoperative Splenic Infarction

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy with Warshaw procedure (MI-WP), has gained widespread recognition for the treatment of benign and low-grade malignant tumors of the pancreatic body and tail. However, the comparative advantages of the robotic Warshaw procedure (R-WP) over the laparoscopic Warshaw procedure (L-WP) remain uncertain. This study aimed to compare the surgical outcomes between R-WP and L-WP.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Among the 146 cases of MI-DP conducted between October 2020 and December 2023 (L-DP:115, R-DP:31), 33 cases of MI-WP were subjected to analysis, comprising the R-WP group (n=10) and the L-WP group (n=23).

RESULTS

R-WP successfully completed all procedures under a purely laparoscopic approach, whereas L-WP necessitated conversion to open surgery in 2 cases (8.7%). Despite the significantly prolonged operative time in R-WP compared with L-WP (R-WP vs. L-WP: 421vs. 300 min), there was no significant difference in estimated blood loss between the 2 groups (R-WP vs. L-WP: 19 vs. 20 mL). Although the rate of major complications did not significantly differ between the 2 groups, 2 cases (8.7%) of L-WP required reoperation, including splenectomy in 1 instance. Furthermore, the incidence of postoperative splenic infarction was significantly higher in L-WP than in R-WP (R- vs. L-WP:0 vs. 43.5%, P=0.015). The length of hospital stay after surgery did not exhibit a significant difference between the 2 groups (R-WP vs. L-WP: 11 vs. 12 d).

DISCUSSION

R-WP demonstrated superiority to L-WP for reducing the incidence of postoperative splenic infarction, potentially contributing to enhancing the spleen preservation rate.

Evaluating the economic efficiency of open, laparoscopic, and robotic distal pancreatectomy: an updated systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This study compared the cost-effectiveness of open (ODP), laparoscopic (LDP), and robotic (RDP) distal pancreatectomy (DP).

METHODS

Studies reporting the costs of DP were included in a literature search until August 2023. Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted, and surface under cumulative ranking area (SUCRA) values, mean difference (MD), odds ratio (OR), and 95% credible intervals (CrIs) were calculated for outcomes of interest. Cluster analysis was performed to examine the similarity and classification of DP approaches into homogeneous clusters. A decision model-based cost-utility analysis was conducted for the cost-effectiveness analysis of DP strategies.

RESULTS

Twenty-six studies with 29,164 patients were included in the analysis. Among the three groups, LDP had the lowest overall costs, while ODP had the highest overall costs (LDP vs. ODP: MD - 3521.36, 95% CrI - 6172.91 to - 1228.59). RDP had the highest procedural costs (ODP vs. RDP: MD - 4311.15, 95% CrI - 6005.40 to - 2599.16; LDP vs. RDP: MD - 3772.25, 95% CrI - 4989.50 to - 2535.16), but incurred the lowest hospitalization costs. Both LDP (MD - 3663.82, 95% CrI - 6906.52 to - 747.69) and RDP (MD - 6678.42, 95% CrI - 11,434.30 to - 2972.89) had significantly reduced hospitalization costs compared to ODP. LDP and RDP demonstrated a superior profile regarding costs-morbidity, costs-mortality, costs-efficacy, and costs-utility compared to ODP. Compared to ODP, LDP and RDP cost $3110 and $817 less per patient, resulting in 0.03 and 0.05 additional quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), respectively, with positive incremental net monetary benefit (NMB). RDP costs $2293 more than LDP with a negative incremental NMB but generates 0.02 additional QALYs with improved postoperative morbidity and spleen preservation. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggests that LDP and RDP are more cost-effective options compared to ODP at various willingness-to-pay thresholds.

CONCLUSION

LDP and RDP are more cost-effective than ODP, with LDP exhibiting better cost savings and RDP demonstrating superior surgical outcomes and improved QALYs.

Minimally invasive vessel-preservation spleen preserving distal pancreatectomy-how I do it, tips and tricks and clinical results

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (SPDP) has emerged as a parenchyma-preserving approach and has become the standard treatment for pancreatic benign and low-grade malignant lesions. Nevertheless, minimally invasive SPDP is still technically challenging, especially when vessel preservation is intended. This study aims to describe the technique and outcomes of laparoscopic (LSPDP) and robot-assisted spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (RSPDP) with intended vessel preservation, highlighting the important tips and tricks to overcome technical obstacles and optimize surgical outcomes.

METHODS

A retrospective observational study of consecutive patients undergoing LSPDP and RSPDP with intended vessel preservation by a single surgeon in two different centers. A video demonstrating both surgical techniques is attached.

RESULTS

A total of 50 patients who underwent minimally invasive SPDP were included of which 88% underwent LSPDP and 12% RSPDP. Splenic vessels were preserved in 37 patients (74%) while a salvage vessel-resecting technique was performed in 13 patients (26%). The average surgery time was 178 ± 74 min for the vessel-preserving and 188 ± 57 for the vessel-resecting technique (p = 0.706) with an estimated blood loss of 100 mL in both groups (p = 0.663). The overall complication rate was 46% (n = 23) with major complications (Clavien Dindo ≥ III) observed in 14% (n = 7) of the patients. No conversions occurred. The median length of hospital stay was 4 days.

CONCLUSION

This study presented the results after minimally invasive SPDP with intended vessel preservation by a highly experienced pancreatic surgeon. It provided tips and tricks to successfully accomplish a minimally invasive SPDP, which can contribute to quick patient rehabilitation and optimal postoperative results.

A Prognostic Impact of Splenectomy in Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy on Benign/Borderline Pancreatic Tumors: A Change of the Era

PURPOSE

In the past, spleen preservation during distal pancreatectomy (DP) was preferred; however, more recent studies reported comparable results between splenectomy and spleen preserving. We retrospectively reviewed patients in a single center who underwent laparoscopic DP with/without splenectomy, and evaluated the chronologic changes of surgical outcomes of the two procedures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients who underwent laparoscopic DP with or without splenectomy due to benign/borderline tumor from 2005 to 2019 were included in this study. We divided this period into Era 1 (2005-2012) and Era 2 (2013-2019), and compared the chronological evolution of surgical outcomes of laparoscopic distal pancreatosplenectomy (LDPS) to those of laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (LSpDP), including the long-term postoperative immunologic profiles.

RESULTS

A total of 198 cases were included (LSpDP: 80 cases; LDPS: 118 cases). As the period changed from Era 1 to Era 2, the ratio of LSpDP decreased and the surgical outcomes of LDPS improved. In Era 1, LSpDP group showed superior results compared to LDPS group in terms of hospital days and postoperative pancreatic fistula ratio; however, in Era 2, the surgical outcomes showed no statistical differences. No significant differences were observed in all of the immunologic markers.

CONCLUSION

We carefully conclude that during laparoscopic DP, combined splenectomy can be equivalent to spleen preserving in surgical and immunological outcomes, and inevitable splenectomy can be safely conducted.

The use of selective splenic vascular control in laparoscopic splenic vessels and spleen preservation distal pancreatectomy

Background

In the process of laparoscopic splenic vessels and spleen preservation distal pancreatectomy (LsvSPDP), because the splenic blood vessels have many small branches, how to safely separate the splenic blood vessels from the pancreas has always been the focus and difficulty of this operation. Many cases were switched to laparotomy, or the Warshaw method due to the inability to control bleeding during the separation of the splenic blood vessels. Therefore, we tried to use the selective splenic vascular control method when separating the splenic blood vessels to observe its effect on the conditions of the surgical patients during and after the operation.

Methods

We retrospectively collected 35 cases of LsvSPDP conducted in our center from September 2015 to December 2020, including 5 males and 30 females. Considering the influence of the surgical learning curve, the cases were divided into three groups. Finally, through statistics of its intraoperative and postoperative conditions, the effectiveness of selective splenic vascular control method can be judged.

Results

Patients in Group 2 and 3 showed significantly less blood loss (172.5 and 134.44 mL, respectively) compared to patients in Group 1 (541.43 mL; P=0.01). However, the amount of blood loss was not significantly different between Group 2 and 3.

Conclusions

The amount of bleeding was significantly reduced by splenic blood vessel control technology. And it can improve the success rate of spleen preservation, preserve the success rate of splenic blood vessels, and reduce intraoperative bleeding.

Robotic Pancreatic Surgery for Solid, Cystic, and Mixed Lesions

Robotic surgery is flourishing worldwide. Pancreatic cancer is the fourth leading cause of cancer death in the United States. Most pancreatic operations are undertaken for the management of pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Therefore, it is essential for all physicians caring for patients with cancer to understand the role and importance of molecular tumor markers. This article details our technique and application of the robotic platform to robotic pancreatectomy. The use of the robot does not change the nature of pancreatic operations, but it is our belief that it will improve patient outcomes and, possibly, survival by reducing perioperative complications.