Robotic pylorus preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy with mini-laparotomy reconstruction in patient with ampullary adenoma

Total laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: which one is better?

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) is a challenging procedure. Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) is feasible and safe. Since the development of robotic platforms, the number of reports on robot-assisted pancreatic surgery has increased. We compared the technical feasibility and safety between LPD and robot-assisted LPD (RALPD).

METHODS

From September 2012 to August 2020, 257 patients who underwent MIPD for periampullary tumors were enrolled. Of these, 207 underwent LPD and 50 underwent RALPD. We performed a 1:1 propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis and retrospectively analyzed the demographics and surgical outcomes.

RESULTS

After PSM analysis, no difference was noted in demographics. Operation times and estimated blood loss were similar, as was the incidence of complications (p > 0.05). In subgroup analysis in patients with soft pancreas with pancreatic duct ≤ 2 mm, no significant between-group difference was noted regarding short-term surgical outcomes, including clinically relevant POPF (CR-POPF) (p > 0.05). In multivariable analysis, the only soft pancreatic texture was a predictive factor (HR 3.887, 95% confidence interval 1.121-13.480, p = 0.032).

CONCLUSION

RALPD and LPD are safe and effective for MIPD and can compensate each other to achieve the goal of minimally invasive surgery.

Standardizing terminology for minimally invasive pancreatic resection

BACKGROUND

There is a growing body of literature pertaining to minimally invasive pancreatic resection (MIPR). Heterogeneity in MIPR terminology, leads to confusion and inconsistency. The Organizing Committee of the State of the Art Conference on MIPR collaborated to standardize MIPR terminology.

METHODS

After formal literature review for "minimally invasive pancreatic surgery" term, key terminology elements were identified. A questionnaire was created assessing the type of resection, the approach, completion, and conversion. Delphi process was used to identify the level of agreement among the experts.

RESULTS

A systematic terminology template was developed based on combining the approach and resection taking into account the completion. For a solitary approach the term should combine "approach + resection" (e.g. "laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy); for combined approaches the term must combine "first approach + resection" with "second approach + reconstruction" (e.g. "laparoscopic central pancreatectomy" with "open pancreaticojejunostomy") and where conversion has resulted the recommended term is "first approach" + "converted to" + "second approach" + "resection" (e.g. "robot-assisted" "converted to open" "pancreatoduodenectomy") CONCLUSIONS: The guidelines presented are geared towards standardizing terminology for MIPR, establishing a basis for comparative analyses and registries and allow incorporating future surgical and technological advances in MIPR.

State of the art of robotic pancreatic surgery

More than a decade has passed since robotic technology was adopted for abdominal surgery, and virtually every gastrointestinal operation has since been shown to be feasible, safe, and reproducible using the robotic approach. Robotic pancreatic surgery had been left behind at the beginning, because they were technically challenging, requiring not only being very familiar with the robotic technology but also having a perfect knowledge of the anatomical variations, very frequent in this area. Nonetheless in the last few years many authors have approached the robot for pancreatic surgery with very promising results in terms of surgical and oncological outcomes. The aim of this article is to review the literature on robotic pancreatic surgery and to define the state of the art use of the robotic approach for pancreatic disease.

Laparoscopic pancreatic reconstruction technique following laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy

With the advance of laparoscopic experiences and techniques, it is carefully regarded that laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (lap-PD) is feasible and safe in managing perimapullary pancreatic pathology. Especially, laparoscopic management of remnant pancreas can be a critical step toward completeness of minimally invasive PD. According to available published reports, there is a wide range of technical differences in choosing surgical options in managing remnant pancreas after lap-PD. For the evidence-based surgical approach, it would be ideal to test potential techniques by randomized controlled trials, but, currently, it is thought to be very difficult to expect those clinical trials to be successful because there are still a lack of expert surgeons with sound surgical techniques and experience. In addition, lap-PD is so complicated and technically demanding that many surgeons are still questioning whether this surgical approach could be standardized and popular like laparoscopic cholecystectomy. In general, surgical options are usually chosen based on following question: (1) Is it simple? (2) Is it easy and feasible? (3) Is it secure and safe? (4) Is there any supporting scientific evidence? It would be interesting to estimate which surgical technique would be appropriate in managing remnant pancreas under these considerations. It is hoped that a well standardized multicenter-based randomized control study would be successful to test this fundamental issues based on sound surgical techniques and scientific background.

Laparoscopic resection of pancreatic adenocarcinoma: Dream or reality?

Laparoscopic pancreatic surgery is in its infancy despite initial procedures reported two decades ago. Both laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) and laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) can be performed competently; however when minimally invasive surgical (MIS) approaches are implemented the indication is often benign or low-grade malignant pathologies. Nonetheless, LDP and LPD afford improved perioperative outcomes, similar to those observed when MIS is utilized for other purposes. This includes decreased blood loss, shorter length of hospital stay, reduced post-operative pain, and expedited time to functional recovery. What then is its role for resection of pancreatic adenocarcinoma? The biology of this aggressive cancer and the inherent challenge of pancreatic surgery have slowed MIS progress in this field. In general, the overall quality of evidence is low with a lack of randomized control trials, a preponderance of uncontrolled series, short follow-up intervals, and small sample sizes in the studies available. Available evidence compiles heterogeneous pathologic diagnoses and is limited by case-by-case follow-up, which makes extrapolation of results difficult. Nonetheless, short-term surrogate markers of oncologic success, such as margin status and lymph node harvest, are comparable to open procedures. Unfortunately disease recurrence and long-term survival data are lacking. In this review we explore the evidence available regarding laparoscopic resection of pancreatic adenocarcinoma, a promising approach for future widespread application.

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a systematic literature review

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) is gaining momentum, but there is still uncertainty regarding its safety, reproducibility, and oncologic appropriateness. This review assesses the current status of LPD.

METHODS

Our literature review was conducted in Pubmed. Articles written in English containing five or more LPD were selected.

RESULTS

Twenty-five articles matched the review criteria. Out of a total of 746 LPD, 341 were reported between 1997 and 2011 and 405 (54.2 %) between 2012 and June 1, 2013. Pure laparoscopy (PL) was used in 386 patients (51.7 %), robotic assistance (RA) in 234 (31.3 %), laparoscopic assistance (LA) in 121 (16.2 %), and hand assistance in 5 (0.6 %). PL was associated with shorter operative time, reduced blood loss, and lower rate of pancreatic fistula (vs LA and RA). LA was associated with shorter operative time (vs RA), but with higher blood loss and increased incidence of pancreatic fistula (vs PL and RA). Conversion to open surgery was required in 64 LPD (9.1 %). Operative time averaged 464.3 min (338-710) and estimated blood 320.7 mL (74-642). Cumulative morbidity was 41.2 %, and pancreatic fistula was reported in 22.3 % of patients (4.5-52.3 %). Mean length of hospital stay was 13.6 days (7-23), showing geographic variability (21.9 days in Europe, 13.0 days in Asia, and 9.4 days in the US). Operative mortality was 1.9 %, including one intraoperative death. No difference was noted in conversion rate, incidence of pancreatic fistula, morbidity, and mortality when comparing results from larger (≥30 LPD) and smaller (≤29 LPD) series. Pathology demonstrated ductal adenocarcinoma in 30.6 % of the specimens, other malignant tumors in 51.7 %, and benign tumor/disease in 17.5 %. The mean number of lymph nodes examined was 14.4 (7-32), and the rate of microscopically positive tumor margin was 4.4 %.

CONCLUSIONS

In selected patients, operated on by expert laparoscopic pancreatic surgeons, LPD is feasible and safe.

A systematic review on robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery might have several advantages in respect of the laparoscopic approach since might make more feasible the execution of a complex procedure such as pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). The aim of the present systematic review is to evaluate the current state of the literature on robotic PD.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed, from January 1st 2003 to July 31st 2012, for studies which reported PDs performed for neoplasm and in which at least one surgical reconstructive or resective step was robotically performed.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies, representing 207 patients, met the inclusion criteria. The definition of the robotic approach was heterogeneous since the technique was defined as robotic, robotic-assisted, robot-assisted laparoscopic and robotic hybrid. Resection and reconstruction steps of robotic PD were also heterogeneous combining sequentially different approaches: totally robotic technique, laparoscopic-robotic resection and robotic reconstruction, laparoscopic resection and robotic reconstruction, hand port-assisted laparoscopic resection and robotic reconstruction, laparoscopic-robotic resection and reconstruction through mini-laparotomy. As regard the type of PD 66% were classic Whipple operations and 34% pylorus-preserving pancreatoduodenectomies. The management of pancreatic stump was a pancreaticogastrostomy in 23%, end-to-side pancreaticojejunostomy in 67%, and fibrin glue occlusion of the main pancreatic duct in 10% of cases. The overall procedure failure (rates of conversion to open surgery) was 14%. The overall morbidity rate was 58% and the reoperation rate was 7.3%.

CONCLUSIONS

There have been an increasing number of recent case series suggesting increased utilization of robotic PD over the past decade. The technical approach is heterogenous. For highly selected patient, robotic PD is feasible with similar morbidity and mortality compared to open or purely laparoscopic approaches. Data on cost analysis are lacking and further studies are needed to evaluate also the cost-effectiveness of the robotic approach for PD in comparison to open or laparoscopic techniques. The current state of the art analysis on robotic DP can be also useful in planning future trials.