Changing trends and outcomes associated with the adoption of minimally invasive pancreatic surgeries: A single institution experience with 150 consecutive procedures in Southeast Asia

Long-term Outcomes After Laparoscopic, Robotic, and Open Pancreatoduodenectomy for Distal Cholangiocarcinoma: An International Propensity Score-matched Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare surgical and oncological outcomes after minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) versus open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) for distal cholangiocarcinoma (dCCA).

BACKGROUND

A dCCA might be a good indication for MIPD, as it is often diagnosed as primary resectable disease. However, multicenter series on MIPD for dCCA are lacking.

METHODS

This is an international multicenter propensity score-matched cohort study including patients after MIPD or OPD for dCCA in 8 centers from 5 countries (2010-2021). Primary outcomes included overall survival (OS) and disease-free interval (DFI). Secondary outcomes included perioperative and postoperative complications and predictors for OS or DFI. Subgroup analyses included robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD).

RESULTS

Overall, 478 patients after pancreatoduodenectomy for dCCA were included of which 97 after MIPD (37 RPD, 60 LPD) and 381 after OPD. MIPD was associated with less blood loss (300 vs 420 mL, P =0.025), longer operation time (453 vs 340 min; P <0.001), and less surgical site infections (7.8% vs 19.3%; P =0.042) compared with OPD. The median OS (30 vs 25 mo) and DFI (29 vs 18) for MIPD did not differ significantly between MIPD and OPD. Tumor stage (Hazard ratio: 2.939, P <0.001) and administration of adjuvant chemotherapy (Hazard ratio: 0.640, P =0.033) were individual predictors for OS. RPD was associated with a higher lymph node yield (18.0 vs 13.5; P =0.008) and less major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo 3b-5; 8.1% vs 32.1%; P =0.005) compared with LPD.

DISCUSSION

Both surgical and oncological outcomes of MIPD for dCCA are acceptable as compared with OPD. Surgical outcomes seem to favor RPD as compared with LPD but more data are needed. Randomized controlled trials should be performed to confirm these findings.

The clinical implication of minimally invasive versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for non-pancreatic periampullary cancer: a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Most studies on minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) combine patients with pancreatic and periampullary cancers even though there is substantial heterogeneity between these tumors. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the role of MIPD compared to open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) in patients with non-pancreatic periampullary cancer (NPPC).

METHODS

A systematic review of Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane databases was performed by two independent reviewers to identify studies comparing MIPD and OPD for NPPC (ampullary, distal cholangio, and duodenal adenocarcinoma) (01/2015-12/2021). Individual patient data were required from all identified studies. Primary outcomes were (90-day) mortality, and major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo 3a-5). Secondary outcomes were postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), delayed gastric emptying (DGE), postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), blood-loss, length of hospital stay (LOS), and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

Overall, 16 studies with 1949 patients were included, combining 928 patients with ampullary, 526 with distal cholangio, and 461 with duodenal cancer. In total, 902 (46.3%) patients underwent MIPD, and 1047 (53.7%) patients underwent OPD. The rates of 90-day mortality, major morbidity, POPF, DGE, PPH, blood-loss, and length of hospital stay did not differ between MIPD and OPD. Operation time was 67 min longer in the MIPD group (P = 0.009). A decrease in DFS for ampullary (HR 2.27, P = 0.019) and distal cholangio (HR 1.84, P = 0.025) cancer, as well as a decrease in OS for distal cholangio (HR 1.71, P = 0.045) and duodenal cancer (HR 4.59, P < 0.001) was found in the MIPD group.

CONCLUSIONS

This individual patient data meta-analysis of MIPD versus OPD in patients with NPPC suggests that MIPD is not inferior in terms of short-term morbidity and mortality. Several major limitations in long-term data highlight a research gap that should be studied in prospective maintained international registries or randomized studies for ampullary, distal cholangio, and duodenum cancer separately.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO (CRD42021277495) on the 25th of October 2021.

A comparative study of robotics and laparoscopic in minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy: A single-center experience

Objective

To retrospectively compare the short-term benefits of robotic surgery and laparoscopic in the perioperative period of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD).

Methods

This retrospective analysis evaluated patients who underwent laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) or robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) from March 2018 to January 2022 in the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University (Zhengzhou, China). Perioperative data, including operating time, complications, morbidity and mortality, estimated blood loss (EBL), and postoperative length of stay, were analysed.

Result

A total of 190 cases of MIPD were included, of which 114 were LPD and 76 were RPD. There was no significant difference between the two groups in gender, age, previous history of upper abdominal operation, jaundice (>150 µmol/L), or diabetes (P > 0.05). The conversion rate to laparotomy was similar in the LPD and RPD groups (5.3% vs. 6.6%, P = 0.969). A total of 179 cases of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy were successfully performed, including 108 cases of LPD and 71 cases of RPD. There were significant differences between the laparoscopic and robotic groups in operation time [mean, 5.97 h vs. 5.42 h, P < 0.05] and postoperative length of stay [mean, 15.3 vs. 14.6 day, P < 0.05]. No significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of EBL, intraoperative transfusion, complication rate, mortality rate, or reoperation rate (P > 0.05). There were no significant differences in pathological type, number of lymph nodes harvested, or positive lymph node rate (P > 0.05).

Conclusion

RPD had an advantage compared to LPD in reduced operation time and postoperative length of stay, technical feasibility, and safety.

Minimally-invasive versus open pancreatoduodenectomies with vascular resection: A 1:1 propensity-matched comparison study

Background:

Minimally invasive pancreatic pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) is increasingly adopted worldwide and its potential advantages include reduced hospital stay and decrease pain. However, evidence supporting the role of MIPD for tumours requiring vascular reconstruction remains limited and requires further evaluation. This study aims to investigate the safety and efficacy of MIPD with vascular resection (MIPDV) by performing a 1:1 propensity-score matched (PSM) comparison with open pancreatoduodenectomy with vascular resection (OPDV) based on a single surgeon's experience.

Methods:

This is a retrospective review of 41 patients who underwent PDV between 2011 and 2020 by a single surgeon. After PSM, the comparison was made between 13 MIPDV and 13 OPDV.

Results:

Thirty-six patients underwent venous reconstruction (VR) only and 5 underwent arterial reconstruction of which 4 had concomitant VR. The types of VR included 22 wedge resections with primary repair, 8 segmental resections with primary anastomosis and 11 requiring interposition grafts. Post-operative pancreatic fistula (POPF) occurred in 3 (7.3%) patients. Major complications (>Grade 2) occurred in 16 (39%) patients, of which 7 were due to delayed gastric emptying requiring nasojejunal tube placement. There was 1 (2.4%) 30-day mortality (OPDV). Of the 13 MIPDV, there were 3 (23.1%) open conversions. PSM comparison demonstrated that MIPDV was associated with longer median operative time (720 min vs. 485 min (P = 0.018). There was no statistically significant difference in other key perioperative outcomes such as intra-operative blood loss, overall morbidity, major morbidity rate, POPF and length of stay.

Conclusion:

Our initial experience with the adoption MIPDV has demonstrated it to be safe with comparable outcomes to OPDV despite the longer operation time.

Outcomes of laparoscopic, robotic, and open pancreatoduodenectomy: A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and propensity-score matched studies

BACKGROUND

This network meta-analysis was performed to determine the optimal surgical approach for pancreatoduodenectomy by comparing outcomes after laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy, robotic pancreatoduodenectomy and open pancreatoduodenectomy.

METHODS

A systematic search of the PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science databases was conducted to identify eligible randomized controlled trials and propensity-score matched studies.

RESULTS

Four randomized controlled trials and 23 propensity-score matched studies comprising a total of 4,945 patients were included for analysis. Operation time for open pancreatoduodenectomy was shorter than both laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (mean difference -57.35, 95% CI 26.25-88.46 minutes) and robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (mean difference -91.08, 95% CI 48.61-133.56 minutes), blood loss for robotic pancreatoduodenectomy was significantly less than both laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (mean difference -112.58, 95% CI 36.95-118.20 mL) and open pancreatoduodenectomy (mean difference -209.87, 95% CI 140.39-279.36 mL), both robotic pancreatoduodenectomy and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy were associated with reduced rates of delayed gastric emptying compared with open pancreatoduodenectomy (odds ratio 0.59, 95% CI 0.39-0.90 and odds ratio 0.69, 95% CI 0.50-0.95, respectively), robotic pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with fewer wound infections compared with open pancreatoduodenectomy (odds ratio 0.35, 95% CI 0.18-0.71), and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy patients enjoyed significantly shorter length of stay compared with open pancreatoduodenectomy (odds ratio 0.43, 95% CI 0.28-0.95). There were no differences in other outcomes.

CONCLUSION

This network meta-analysis of high-quality studies suggests that when laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy and robotic pancreatoduodenectomy are performed in high-volume centers, short-term perioperative and oncologic outcomes are largely comparable, if not slightly improved, compared with traditional open pancreatoduodenectomy. These findings should be corroborated in further prospective randomized studies.

Robotic transduodenal ampullectomy: Case report and review of the literature

Ampullary neoplasms are relatively uncommon lesions with a risk of progression to malignancy. Depending on its nature, size and location, it may be best treated with endoscopic papillotomy, pancreaticoduodenectomy or transduodenal ampullectomy. Transduodenal ampullectomy offers a higher chance of complete resection compared to endoscopic papillotomy, and carries lower morbidity than a pancreaticoduodenectomy, making it the ideal choice for localised ampullary tumour not involving the ducts but not amenable to complete endoscopic resection. While traditionally performed via open surgery, it has been attempted via laparoscopic approach and more recently robotic approach. We present a case of a 63-year-old man who underwent a robotic transduodenal ampullectomy for ampullary adenoma with high grade dysplasia, and review the literature surrounding robotic transduodenal ampullectomy.

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.

Use of Reinforced Staplers Decreases the Rate of Postoperative Pancreatic Fistula Compared to Bare Staplers After Minimally Invasive Distal Pancreatectomies

Background: Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is the most common and important cause of morbidity after distal pancreatectomy. Various transection and closure techniques of the pancreatic stump have been proposed with no robust evidence unanimously supporting one technique over the other. This study aims to compare the outcomes of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) performed with reinforced stapler (RS) versus bare stapler (BS) with particular attention to the POPF. Methods: Retrospective review of 90 consecutive elective MIDP performed at a single institution between 2014 and 2019 was performed. The primary outcome was POPF as defined by the latest International Study Group of Pancreatic Fistula classification. MIDP with RS was adopted by two surgeons who subsequently performed all their consecutive surgeries with RS. Results: There were 25 and 65 patients who underwent MIDP with RS and BS, respectively. There were 8 (8.9%) open conversions and 17 (18.9%) patients experienced a POPF. Patients who underwent MIDP with RS had a significantly lower POPF rate (4% versus 24.6%, P = .025), lower major (>grade 2) morbidity rate (4% versus 21.5%, P = .046), and lower readmission rate (4% versus 27.7%, P = .014). On multivariate analysis, only the use of BS and obesity (body mass index ≥27.5) was independently associated with the development of a POPF. Conclusion: MIDP performed with RS was associated with a significantly lower rate of POPF, major morbidity, and readmissions compared to BS. The use of RS was protective against POPF.

Outcome of minimally invasive liver resection for extrapancreatic biliary malignancies: A single-institutional experience

Background:

Minimally invasive liver resection (MILR) has been increasingly adopted over the past decade, and its application has been expanded to the management of extrapancreatic biliary malignancies (EPBMs). We aimed to evaluate the peri- and post-operative outcome of patients undergoing MILR for suspected EPMB.

Methods:

Forty-four consecutive patients who underwent MILR with a curative intent for EPBM at Singapore General Hospital between 2011 and 2018 were identified from a prospectively maintained surgical database. Clinical and operative data were analysed and compared to provide information and make comparisons on peri- and post-operative outcomes.

Results:

A total of 26, 5 and 13 patients underwent MILR for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC), perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (PHC) and gallbladder carcinoma (GBCA), respectively. Six major hepatectomies were performed, of which one was laparoscopic assisted and another was robot assisted. Ten patients underwent posterosuperior segmentectomies. There was one open conversion. The mean operative time was 266.5 min, and the mean blood loss was 379 ml. The mean length of hospital stay was 4.7 days with no incidences of 30- and 90-day mortality. The rate of recurrence-free survival (RFS) was 75% (at least 12-month follow-up). There was a significantly higher rate of robot-assisted procedures in patients undergoing MILR for GBCA/PHC as compared to ICC (P = 0.034). Patients undergoing posterosuperior segmentectomies required longer operative time (P = 0.018) with an increased need for (P = 0.001) and duration of (P = 0.025) Pringles manoeuvre. There were no differences in operative time, blood loss, morbidity, mortality or RFS between the above groups.

Conclusion:

Minimally invasive surgery can be adopted safely with a low open conversion rate for EPBMs.

Adoption of Robotic Liver, Pancreatic and Biliary Surgery in Singapore: A Single Institution Experience with Its First 100 Consecutive Cases

Introduction: Presently, robotic hepatopancreatobiliary surgery (RHPBS) is increasingly adopted worldwide. This study reports our experience with the first 100 consecutive cases of RHPBS in Singapore. Methods: Retrospective review of a single-institution prospective database of the first 100 consecutive RHPBS performed over 6 years from February 2013 to February 2019. Eighty-six cases were performed by a single surgeon. Results: The 100 consecutive cases included 24 isolated liver resections, 48 pancreatic surgeries (including 2 bile duct resections) and 28 biliary surgeries (including 8 with concomitant liver resections). They included 10 major hepatectomies, 15 pancreaticoduodenectomies, 6 radical resections for gallbladder carcinoma and 8 hepaticojejunostomies. The median operation time was 383 minutes, with interquartile range (IQR) of 258 minutes and there were 2 open conversions. The median blood loss was 200ml (IQR 350ml) and 15 patients required intra-operative blood transfusion. There were no post-operative 90-day nor in-hospital mortalities but 5 patients experienced major (> grade 3a) morbidities. The median post-operative stay was 6 days (IQR 5 days) and there were 12 post-operative 30-day readmissions. Comparison between the first 50 and the subsequent 50 patients demonstrated a significant reduction in blood loss, significantly lower proportion of malignant indications, and a decreasing frequency in liver resections performed. Conclusion: Our experience with the first 100 consecutive cases of RHPBS confirms its feasibility and safety when performed by experienced laparoscopic hepatopancreatobiliary surgeons. It can be performed for even highly complicated major hepatopancreatobiliary surgery with a low open conversion rate. Keywords: Biliary surgery, hepaticojejunostomy, liver resection, pancreas, pancreaticoduodenectomy

A single institution experience with robotic and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies

Backgrounds/Aims

This study aims to describe our experience with minimally-invasive distal pancreatectomies, with emphasis on the comparison between robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP).

Methods

Retrospective review of 102 consecutive RDP and LDP from 2006 to 2019 was performed.

Results

There were 27 and 75 patients who underwent RDP and LDP, respectively. There were 12 (11.8%) open conversions and 16 (15.7%) patients had major (>grade 2) morbidities. Patients who underwent RDP had significantly higher rates of splenic preservation (44.4% vs. 13.3%, p=0.002), higher rates of splenic-vessel preservation (40.7% vs. 9.3%, p=0.001), higher median difficulty score (5 vs. 3, p=0.002) but longer operation time (385 vs. 245 minutes, p<0.001). The rate of open conversion tended to be lower with RDP (3.7% vs. 14.7%, p=0.175).

Conclusions

In our institution practice, both RDP and LDP were safe and effective. The use of RDP appeared to be complementary to LDP, allowing us to perform more difficult procedures with comparable postoperative outcomes.

Current Status of Laparoscopic and Robotic Pancreatic Surgery and Its Adoption in Singapore

Despite the potential clinical advantages offered by laparoscopic pancreatic surgery (LPS), the main obstacle to its widespread adoption is the technically demanding nature of the procedure and its steep learning curve. LPS and robotic pancreatic surgery (RPS) have been proven to result in superior short-term perioperative outcomes and equivalent long-term oncological outcomes compared to the conventional open approach, with the caveat that they are performed by expert surgeons who have been trained to perform such procedures. The primary challenge faced by most pancreatic surgeons is the steep learning curve associated with these complex procedures and the need to undergo surgical training, especially with regards to laparoscopic and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. Current evidence suggests that RPS may help to shorten the lengthy learning curve required for LPS. More robust evidence—in the form of large randomised controlled trials—is needed to determine whether LPS and RPS can be safely adopted universally. Ann Acad Med Singapore 2020;49:377–83 Key words: Laparoscopic pancreatectomy, Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy, Minimally invasive pancreatic surgery, Robotic pancreatectomy, Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy