Robotic-assisted versus open left pancreatectomy for cystic tumours: A single-centre experience

International consensus guidelines on robotic pancreatic surgery in 2023

Background

With the rapid development of robotic surgery, especially for the abdominal surgery, robotic pancreatic surgery (RPS) has been applied increasingly around the world. However, evidence-based guidelines regarding its application, safety, and efficacy are still lacking. To harvest robust evidence and comprehensive clinical practice, this study aims to develop international guidelines on the use of RPS.

Methods

World Health Organization (WHO) Handbook for Guideline Development, GRADE Grid method, Delphi vote, and the AGREE-II instrument were used to establish the Guideline Steering Group, Guideline Development Group, and Guideline Secretary Group, formulate 19 clinical questions, develop the recommendations, and draft the guidelines. Three online meetings were held on 04/12/2020, 30/11/2021, and 25/01/2022 to vote on the recommendations and get advice and suggestions from all involved experts. All the experts focusing on minimally invasive surgery from America, Europe and Oceania made great contributions to this consensus guideline.

Results

After a systematic literature review 176 studies were included, 19 questions were addressed and 14 recommendations were developed through the expert assessment and comprehensive judgment of the quality and credibility of the evidence.

Conclusions

The international RPS guidelines can guide current practice for surgeons, patients, medical societies, hospital administrators, and related social communities. Further randomized trials are required to determine the added value of RPS as compared to open and laparoscopic surgery.

It is not necessary to resect all mucinous cystic neoplasms of the pancreas: current guidelines do not reflect the actual risk of malignancy

BACKGROUND

Mucinous Cystic Neoplasms (MCN) of the pancreas are premalignant cysts for which current guidelines support pancreatic resection. The primary aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to define the pooled rate of malignancy for MCN.

METHODS

A systematic review of eligible studies published between 2000 and 2021 was performed on PubMed and Embase. Primary outcome was rate of malignancy. Data regarding high-risk features, including cyst size and mural nodules, were collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 40 studies and 3292 patients with resected MCN were included in the final analysis. The pooled rate of malignancy was 16.1% (95%CI 13.1-19.0). The rate of malignant MCN in studies published before 2012 was significantly higher than that of studies published after recent guidelines were published (21.0% vs 14.9%, p < 0.001). Malignant MCN were larger than benign (mean difference 25.9 mm 95%CI 14.50-37.43, p < 0.001) with a direct correlation between size and presence of malignant MCN (R2 = 0.28, p = 0.020). A SROC identified a threshold of 65 mm to be associated with the diagnosis of malignant MCN. Presence of mural nodules was associated with the diagnosis of a malignant MCN (OR = 4.34, 95%CI 3.00-6.29, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Whereas guidelines recommend resection of all MCN, the rate of malignancy in resected MCN is 16%, implying that surveillance has a role in most cases, and that surgical selection criteria are warranted. Size and presence of mural nodules are significantly associated with an increased risk of malignant degeneration, small MCN and without mural nodules can be considered for surveillance.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of risk factors of postoperative pancreatic fistula after distal pancreatectomy in the era of 2016 International Study Group pancreatic fistula definition

BACKGROUND

Risk factors for the development of clinically relevant POPF (CR-POPF) following distal pancreatectomy (DP) need clarification particularly following the 2016 International Study Group of Pancreatic Fistula (ISGPF) definition.

METHODS

A systemic search of MEDLINE, Pubmed, Scopus, and EMBASE were conducted using the PRISMA framework. Studies were evaluated for risk factors for the development CR-POPF after DP using the 2016 ISGPF definition. Further subgroup analysis was undertaken on studies ≥10 patients in exposed and non-exposed subgroups.

RESULTS

Forty-three studies with 8864 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The weighted rate of CR-POPF was 20.4% (95%-CI: 17.7-23.4%). Smoking (OR 1.29, 95%-CI: 1.08-1.53, p = 0.02) and open DP (OR 1.43, 95%-CI: 1.02-2.01, p = 0.04) were found to be significant risk factors of CR-POPF. Diabetes (OR 0.81, 95%-CI: 0.68-0.95, p = 0.02) was a significant protective factor against CR-POPF. Substantial heterogeneity was observed in the comparisons of pancreatic texture and body mass index. Seventeen risk factors achieved significance in a univariate or multivariate comparison as reported by individual studies in the narrative synthesis, however, they remain difficult to interpret as statistically significant comparisons were not uniform.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis found smoking and open DP to be risk factors and diabetes to be protective factor of CR-POPF in the era of 2016 ISGPF definition.

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy: a case-matched cost-analysis between robot-assisted surgery and direct manual laparoscopy

Background

Few studies have reported a structured cost analysis of robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP), and none have compared the relative costs between the robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) and the direct manual laparoscopy (DML) in this setting. The aim of the present study is to address this issue by comparing surgical outcomes and costs of RDP and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies (LDP).

Methods

Eighty-eight RDP and 47 LDP performed between January 2008 and January 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. Three comparable groups of 35 patients each (Si-RDP-group, Xi-RDP group, LDP-group) were obtained matching 1:1 the RDP-groups with the LDP-group. Overall costs, including overall variable costs (OVC) and fixed costs were compared using generalized linear regression model adjusting for covariates.

Results

The conversion rate was significantly lower in the Si-RDP-group and Xi-RDP-group: 2.9% and 0%, respectively, versus 14.3% in the LDP-group (p = 0.045). Although not statistically significant, the mean operative time was lower in Xi-RDP-group: 226 min versus 262 min for Si-RDP-group and 247 min for LDP-group. The overall post-operative complications rate and the length of hospital stay (LOS) were not significantly different between the three groups. In LDP-group, the LOS of converted cases was significantly longer: 15.6 versus 9.8 days (p = 0.039). Overall costs of LDP-group were significantly lower than RDP-groups, (p < 0.001). At multivariate analysis OVC resulted no longer statistically significantly different between LDP-group and Xi-RDP-group (p = 0.099), and between LDP-group and the RDP-groups when the spleen preservation was indicated (p = 0.115 and p = 0.261 for Si-RDP-group and Xi-RDP-group, respectively).

Conclusions

RAS is more expensive than DML for DP because of higher acquisition and maintenance costs. The flattening of these differences considering only the variable costs, in a high-volume multidisciplinary center for RAS, suggests a possible optimization of the costs in this setting. RAS might be particularly indicated for minimally invasive DP when the spleen preservation is scheduled.