Can Computerized Simulation be Used to Assess Surgical Proficiency in Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgeries? A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

Computerized simulation (CS) of surgery in virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR) and mixed reality (MR) settings are used to teach foundational skills, but its applicability in advanced training is to be determined. This review aims to summarize the types of CS available for laparoscopic colorectal surgery (CRS) and its utility in assessment of proficiency.

METHODS

A systematic review of CS in laparoscopic CRS was done on PubMed, Embase, Scopus and Cochrane Library databases.

RESULTS

Eleven relevant observational studies were identified. The most common procedure simulated was laparoscopic colectomy. Assessment using performance metrics measured by the simulator such as path length moved by laparoscopic tools, procedure time and number of discrete movements had the most consistent differentiating ability between expert and non-expert cohorts. Surgeons fared similarly in proficiency scores in assessment with CS compared to assessment with traditional cadaveric or porcine models.

CONCLUSION

CS of laparoscopic CRS may be used in assessment of proficiency using performance metrics measuring economy of movement. CS may be a viable assessment tool in advanced surgical training, but further studies should assess utility of incorporating it as a formal assessment tool in training programs.

Risk Factors and Outcomes of Open Conversion During Minimally Invasive Major Hepatectomies: An International Multicenter Study on 3880 Procedures Comparing the Laparoscopic and Robotic Approaches

INTRODUCTION

Despite the advances in minimally invasive (MI) liver surgery, most major hepatectomies (MHs) continue to be performed by open surgery. This study aimed to evaluate the risk factors and outcomes of open conversion during MI MH, including the impact of the type of approach (laparoscopic vs. robotic) on the occurrence and outcomes of conversions.

METHODS

Data on 3880 MI conventional and technical (right anterior and posterior sectionectomies) MHs were retrospectively collected. Risk factors and perioperative outcomes of open conversion were analyzed. Multivariate analysis, propensity score matching, and inverse probability treatment weighting analysis were performed to control for confounding factors.

RESULTS

Overall, 3211 laparoscopic MHs (LMHs) and 669 robotic MHs (RMHs) were included, of which 399 (10.28%) had an open conversion. Multivariate analyses demonstrated that male sex, laparoscopic approach, cirrhosis, previous abdominal surgery, concomitant other surgery, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score 3/4, larger tumor size, conventional MH, and Institut Mutualiste Montsouris classification III procedures were associated with an increased risk of conversion. After matching, patients requiring open conversion had poorer outcomes compared with non-converted cases, as evidenced by the increased operation time, blood transfusion rate, blood loss, hospital stay, postoperative morbidity/major morbidity and 30/90-day mortality. Although RMH showed a decreased risk of conversion compared with LMH, converted RMH showed increased blood loss, blood transfusion rate, postoperative major morbidity and 30/90-day mortality compared with converted LMH.

CONCLUSIONS

Multiple risk factors are associated with conversion. Converted cases, especially those due to intraoperative bleeding, have unfavorable outcomes. Robotic assistance seemed to increase the feasibility of the MI approach, but converted robotic procedures showed inferior outcomes compared with converted laparoscopic procedures.

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.

Evolution and trends in the adoption of laparoscopic liver resection in Singapore: Analysis of 300 cases

ABSTRACT Introduction: The introduction of laparoscopic surgery has changed abdominal surgery. We evaluated the evolution and changing trends associated with adoption of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and the experience of a surgeon without prior LLR experience. Methods: A retrospective review of 310 patients who underwent LLR performed by a single surgeon from 2011 to 2020 was conducted. Exclusion criteria were patients who underwent laparoscopic liver surgeries such as excision biopsy, local ablation, drainage of abscesses and deroofing of liver cysts. There were 300 cases and the cohort was divided into 5 groups of 60 patients. Results: There were 288 patients who underwent a totally minimally invasive approach, including 28 robotic-assisted procedures. Open conversion occurred for 13 (4.3%) patients; the conversion rate decreased significantly from 10% in the initial period to 3.3% subsequently. There were 83 (27.7%) major resections and 131 (43.7%) resections were performed for tumours in the difficult posterosuperior location. There were 152 (50.7%) patients with previous abdominal surgery, including 52 (17.3%) repeat liver resections for recurrent tumours, and 60 patients had other concomitant operations. According to the Iwate criteria, 135 (44.7%) were graded as high/expert difficulty. Major morbidity (>grade 3a) occurred in 12 (4.0%) patients and there was no 30-day mortality. Comparison across the 5 patient groups demonstrated a significant trend towards older patients, higher American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, increasing frequency of LLR with previous abdominal surgery, increasing frequency of portal hypertension and huge tumours, decreasing blood loss and decreasing transfusion rate across the study period. Surgeon experience (≤60 cases) and Institut Mutualiste Montsouris (IMM) high grade resections were independent predictors of open conversion. Open conversion was associated with worse perioperative outcomes such as increased blood loss, transfusion rate, morbidity and length of stay. Conclusion: LLR can be safely adopted for resections of all difficulty grades, including major resections and for tumours located in the difficult posterosuperior segments, with a low open conversion rate. Keywords: Laparoscopic hepatectomy, laparoscopic liver resection, robotic hepatectomy, robotic liver resection, Singapore

Minimally Invasive Versus Open Radical Antegrade Modular Pancreatosplenectomy: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (RAMPS) was introduced to improve the tangential resection margin rates and N1 node clearance following resection of malignancies of the pancreatic body and tail. Owing to its technical complexity, minimally invasive RAMPS (MI-RAMPS) has only been reported by a few centers worldwide. We performed this meta-analysis to compare both short- and long-term outcomes between open RAMPS (O-RAMPS) and minimally invasive RAMPS (MI-RAMPS).

METHODS

A systematic search of the electronic databases PubMed, Medline (via PubMed), Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), EMBASE, Scopus and Web of Science was performed to identify eligible studies published in the English language regardless of study design. The outcomes of interest were operation time, estimated blood loss, transfusion rates, overall complications, Grade B/C post-operative pancreatic fistula (POPF) rates, post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), delayed gastric emptying (DGE), length of stay (LOS), R0 resection rates, lymph node (LN) yield and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

Five non-randomized studies comprising of a total 229 patients (89 MI-RAMPS, 140 O-RAMPS) were included for analysis. Intra-operative blood loss was observed to be significantly reduced in MI-RAMPS as compared to O-RAMPS (MD -256.16, P < 0.001), while LN yield was higher in O-RAMPS as compared to MI-RAMPS (MD -2.73, P = 0.02). There were no statistically significant differences observed for the other perioperative, oncologic and survival outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis provides early evidence to suggest that MI-RAMPS may produce comparable short- and long-term outcomes to O-RAMPS, when undertaken by appropriately skilled surgeons in well-selected patients. Further large-scale prospective studies are required to corroborate these findings.

Propensity-Score Matched Analyses Comparing Clinical Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Versus Open Distal Pancreatectomies: A Single-Center Experience

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) is being adopted increasingly worldwide. This study aimed to compare the short-term outcomes of patients who underwent MIDP versus open distal pancreatectomy (ODP).

METHODS

A retrospective review of all patients who underwent a DP in our institution between 2005 and 2019 was performed. Propensity score matching based on relevant baseline factors was used to match patients in the ODP and MIDP groups in a 1:1 manner. Outcomes reported include operative duration, blood loss, postoperative length of stay, morbidity, mortality, postoperative pancreatic fistula rates, reoperation and readmission.

RESULTS

In total, 444 patients were included in this study. Of 122 MIDP patients, 112 (91.8%) could be matched. After matching, the median operating time for MIDP was significantly longer than ODP [260 min (200-346.3) vs 180 (135-232.5), p < 0.001], while postoperative stay for MIDP was significantly shorter [median 6 days (5-8) versus 7 days (6-9), p = 0.015]. There were no significant differences noted in any of the other outcomes measured. Over time, we observed a decrease in the operation times of MIDP performed at our institution.

CONCLUSION

Adoption of MIDP offers advantages over ODP in terms of a shorter postoperative hospital stay, without an increase in morbidity and/or mortality but at the expense of a 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.

Short- and long-term outcomes after minimally invasive versus open spleen-saving distal pancreatectomies

Introduction:

This study aimed to compare the perioperative outcomes of patients who underwent minimally invasive spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (MI-SPDP) versus open surgery SPDP (O-SPDP). It also aimed to determine the long-term vascular patency after spleen-saving vessel-preserving distal pancreatectomies (SSVDPs).

Methods:

A retrospective review of 74 patients who underwent successful SPDP and met the study criteria was performed. Of these, 67 (90.5%) patients underwent SSVDP, of which 38 patients (21 open, 17 MIS) had adequate long-term post-operative follow-up imaging to determine vascular patency.

Results:

Fifty-one patients underwent open SPDP, whereas 23 patients underwent minimally invasive SPDP, out of which 10 (43.5%) were laparoscopic and 13 (56.5%) were robotic. Patients who underwent MI-SPDP had significantly longer operative time (307.5 vs. 162.5 min, P = 0.001) but shorter hospital stay (5 vs. 7 days, P = 0.021) and lower median blood loss (100 vs. 200 cc, P = 0.046) compared to that of O-SPDP. Minimally-invasive spleen-saving vessel-preserving distal pancreatectomy (MI-SSVDP) was associated with poorer long-term splenic vein patency rates compared to O-SSVDP (P = 0.048). This was particularly with respect to partial occlusion of the splenic vein, and there was no significant difference between the complete splenic vein occlusion rates between the MIS group and open group (29.4% vs. 28.6%, P = 0.954). The operative time was statistically significantly longer in patients who underwent robotic surgery versus laparoscopic surgery (330 vs. 173 min, P = 0.008).

Conclusion:

Adoption of MI-spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (SPDP) is safe and feasible. MI-SPDP is associated with a shorter hospital stay, lower blood loss but longer operation time compared to O-SPDP. In the present study, MI-SSVDP was associated with poorer long-term splenic vein patency rates compared to O-SSVDP.

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.

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.