Total laparoscopic versus robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy

Minimally Invasive Pancreas Surgery: Is There a Benefit?

Minimally invasive procedures minimize trauma to the human body while maintaining satisfactory therapeutic results. Minimally invasive pancreas surgery (MIPS) was introduced in 1994, but questions regarding its efficacy compared to an open approach were widespread. MIPS is associated with several perioperative advantages while maintaining oncological standards when performed by surgeons with a robust training regimen and frequent practice. Future research should focus on addressing learning curve discrepancies while identifying factors associated with shortening the time needed to attain technical proficiency.

Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy by junior surgeon: Initial experience of the next generation

BACKGROUND

Several guidelines exist for minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) regarding its prerequisites and learning curve. However, these guidelines are based on the experience of the pioneers of MIPD; minimal data exist on the experience of the next generation of surgeons. The aim of this study was to compare the two surgeon types (veteran and junior) for MIPD in terms of immediate postoperative outcomes.

METHODS

The postoperative outcomes of 22 patients who underwent robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy (RAPD) by a junior surgeon from July 2021 to December 2022 were retrospectively reviewed. The outcomes were compared with the initial postoperative outcomes and the contemporary postoperative outcomes of RAPD by a veteran surgeon.

RESULTS

In comparing the initial outcomes between the two surgeon types, the veteran surgeons showed a shorter operation time (junior surgeon vs. veteran surgeon: 606 ± 89 vs. 467 ± 77 min, p < 0.001). However, there was no significant difference in terms of postoperative outcomes, such as blood loss (300 [200-600] ml. vs. 200 [100-500] ml, p = 0.208), major complications (≥CDC IIIa: 4 (18.2%) vs. 4 (18.2%), p = 1.000), postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF; ≥ISGPF Grade B: 2 (9.1%) vs. 3 (13.6%), p > 0.999), and length of hospital stay (18.0 ± 8.9 days vs. 18.3 ± 7.9 days, p = 0.915), between the two surgeon types. In addition, in a comparison of the contemporary outcomes, there was no significant difference in terms of postoperative outcome (complications: 4 (18.2%) vs 11 (11.1%), p = 0.580; POPF: 2 (9.1%) vs. 3 (3.0%), p = 0.484; length of hospital stay: 18.0 ± 8.9 vs. 15.0 ± 6.5 days, p = 0.065).

CONCLUSION

The initial outcomes of MIPD by a well-trained junior surgeon were found to be comparable to those of MIPD by a veteran surgeon.

Learning curves of resection and reconstruction procedures in robotic-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy by a single surgeon: a retrospective cohort study of 160 consecutive cases

Background

Robotic-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) has been routinely performed in a few of centers worldwide. This study aimed to evaluate the perioperative outcomes and the learning curves of resection and reconstruction procedures in RPD by one single surgeon.

Methods

Consecutive patients undergoing RPD by a single surgeon at the First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University (Guangzhou, China) between July 2016 and October 2022 were included. The perioperative outcomes and learning curves were retrospectively analysed by using cumulative sum (CUSUM) analyses.

Results

One-hundred and sixty patients were included. According to the CUSUM curve, the times of resection and reconstruction procedures were shortened significantly after 30 cases (median, 284 vs 195 min; P < 0.001) and 45 cases (median, 138 vs 120 min; P < 0.001), respectively. The estimated intraoperative blood loss (median, 100 vs 50 mL; P < 0.001) and the incidence of clinically relevant post-operative pancreatic fistula (29.2% vs 12.5%; P = 0.035) decreased significantly after 20 and 120 cases, respectively. There were no significant differences in the total number of lymph nodes examined, post-operative major complications, or post-operative length-of-stay between the two groups.

Conclusions

Optimization of the resection procedure and the acquisition of visual feedback facilitated the performance of RPD. RPD was a safe and feasible procedure in the selected patients.

First assistant experience in total laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: accelerating the learning curve for an operator

OBJECTIVE

Compare and analyze clinical data of total laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (TLPD) cases for surgeons with / without first assistant experience (FAE) in TLPD. Probe influence of FAE in TLPD on the learning curve for an operator.

METHODS

The clinical data of 239 patients, that underwent TLPD performed by two surgeons between January 2017 and January 2022) in our department, were consecutively collected and divided into two groups (A and B). Group A cases were operated by Surgeon A, with FAE of 57 TLPDs in our department prior to initial TLPD as an operator. Group B cases were operated by Surgeon B with no FAE of TLPD. Cumulative sum (CUSUM) method developed learning curves. Clinical data and both surgeons' learning curves were statistically compared between both groups.

RESULTS

Between both groups, no statistically significant variations were observed for pre-operative health conditions. Reduced surgical duration, blood loss and transfusion volume during surgery, together with reductions in major post-operative complication rates and reduced hospital/ICU stays were identified within Group A, having statistically significant variations. The technical plateau phases of the learning curves were approximately 25-41 cases and 35-51 cases, for Surgeon A and Surgeon B, respectively.

CONCLUSION

FAE in TLPD can accelerate the learning curve of TLPD for an operator, with safer surgical procedures and enhanced post-operative recovery.

Surgical methods influence on the risk of anastomotic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Pancreaticoduodenectomy is the first choice surgical intervention for the radical treatment of pancreatic tumors. However, an anastomotic fistula is a common complication after pancreaticoduodenectomy with a high mortality rate. With the development of minimally invasive surgery, open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD), laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD), and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) are gaining interest. But the impact of these surgical methods on the risk of anastomosis has not been confirmed. Therefore, we aimed to integrate relevant clinical studies and explore the effects of these three surgical methods on the occurrence of anastomotic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted for studies reporting the RPD, LPD, and OPD. Network meta-analysis of postoperative anastomotic fistula (Pancreatic fistula, biliary leakage, gastrointestinal fistula) was performed.

RESULTS

Sixty-five studies including 10,026 patients were included in the network meta-analysis. The rank of risk probability of pancreatic fistula for RPD (0.00) was better than LPD (0.37) and OPD (0.62). Thus, the analysis suggests the rank of risk of the postoperative pancreatic fistula for RPD, LPD, and OPD. The rank of risk probability for biliary leakage was similar for RPD (0.15) and LPD (0.15), and both were better than OPD (0.68).

CONCLUSIONS

This network meta-analysis provided ranking for three different types of pancreaticoduodenectomy. The RPD and LPD can effectively improve the quality of surgery and are safe as well as feasible for OPD.

Figures do matter: A literature review of 4587 robotic pancreatic resections and their implications on training

BACKGROUND

The use of robotic assistance in minimally invasive pancreatic resection is quickly growing.

METHODS

We present a systematic review of the literature regarding all types of robotic pancreatic resection (RPR). Our aim is to show for which procedures there is enough experience to permit safe training and provide an estimation of how many centers could serve as teaching institutions.

RESULTS

Sixty-four studies reporting on 4587 RPRs were analyzed. A total of 2598 pancreatoduodenectomies (PD) were reported by 28 centers from Europe (6/28; 21.4%), the Americas (11/28; 39.3%), and Asia (11/28; 39.3%). Six studies reported >100 robot PD (1694/2598; 65.2%). A total of 1618 distal pancreatectomies (DP) were reported by 29 centers from Europe (10/29; 34.5%), the Americas (10/29; 34.5%), and Asia (9/29; 31%). Five studies reported >100 robotic DP (748/1618; 46.2%). A total of 154 central pancreatectomies were reported by six centers from Europe (1/6; 16.7%), the Americas (2/6; 33.3%), and Asia (3/6; 50%). Only 49 total pancreatectomies were reported. Finally, 168 enucleations were reported in seven studies (with a mean of 15.4 cases per study). A single center reported on 60 enucleations (35.7%). Results of each type of robotic procedure are also presented.

CONCLUSIONS

Experience with RPR is still quite limited. Despite high case volume not being sufficient to warrant optimal training opportunities, it is certainly a key component of every successful training program and is a major criterion for fellowship accreditation. From this review, it appears that only PD and DP can currently be taught at few institutions worldwide.

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.

Learning curve for a surgeon in robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy through a "G"-shaped approach: A cumulative sum analysis

BACKGROUND

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) can achieve similar surgical results to open and PD; however, RPD has a long learning curve and operation time (OT). To address this issue, we have summarized a surgical path to shorten the surgical learning curve and OT.

AIM

To investigate the effective learning curve of a "G"-shaped surgical approach in RPD for patients.

METHODS

A total of 60 patients, who received "G"-shaped RPD (GRPD) by a single surgeon in the First Hospital of Shanxi Medical University from May 2017 to April 2020, were included in this study. The OT, demographic data, intraoperative blood loss, complications, hospitalization time, and pathological results were recorded, and the cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis was performed to evaluate the learning curve for GRPD.

RESULTS

According to the CUSUM analysis, the learning curve for GRPD was grouped into two phases: The early and late phases. The OT was 480 ± 81.65 min vs 331 ± 76.54 min, hospitalization time was 22 ± 4.53 d vs 17 ± 6.08 d, and blood loss was 308 ± 54.78 mL vs 169.2 ± 35.33 mL in the respective groups. Complications, including pancreatic fistula, bile leakage, reoperation rate, postoperative death, and delayed gastric emptying, were significantly decreased after this surgical technique.

CONCLUSION

GRPD can improve the learning curve and operative time, providing a new method for shortening the RPD learning curve.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy: An Up-To-Date System Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Although minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy has gained worldwide interest, there are limited comparative studies between two minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy techniques. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of robotic and laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD), especially the difference in the perioperative and short-term oncological outcomes.

Methods

PubMed, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Data, Web of Science, and EMBASE were searched based on a defined search strategy to identify eligible studies before July 2021. Data on operative times, blood loss, overall morbidity, major complications, vascular resection, blood transfusion, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), delayed gastric emptying (DGE), conversion rate, reoperation, length of hospital stay (LOS), and lymph node dissection were subjected to meta-analysis.

Results

Overall, the final analysis included 9 retrospective studies comprising 3,732 patients; 1,149 (30.79%) underwent robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD), and 2,583 (69.21%) underwent LPD. The present meta-analysis revealed nonsignificant differences in operative times, overall morbidity, major complications, blood transfusion, POPF, DGE, reoperation, and LOS. Alternatively, compared with LPD, RPD was associated with less blood loss (p = 0.002), less conversion rate (p < 0.00001), less vascular resection (p = 0.0006), and more retrieved lymph nodes (p = 0.01).

Conclusion

RPD is at least equivalent to LPD with respect to the incidence of complication, incidence and severity of DGE, and reoperation and length of hospital stay. Compared with LPD, RPD seems to be associated with less blood loss, lower conversion rate, less vascular resection, and more retrieved lymph nodes.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#recordDetails, identifier CRD2021274057

Surgery for pancreatic cancer: current controversies and challenges

Two areas that remain the focus of improvement in pancreatic cancer include high post-operative morbidity and inability to uniformly translate surgical success into long-term survival. This narrative review addresses specific aspects of pancreatic cancer surgery, including neoadjuvant therapy, vascular resections, extended pancreatectomy, extent of lymphadenectomy and current status of minimally invasive surgery. R0 resection confers longer disease-free survival and overall survival. Vascular and adjacent organ resections should be undertaken after neoadjuvant therapy, only if R0 resection can be ensured based on high-quality preoperative imaging, and that too, with acceptable post-operative morbidity. Extended lymphadenectomy does not offer any advantage over standard lymphadenectomy. Although minimally invasive distal pancreatectomies offers some short-term benefits over open distal pancreatectomy, safety remains a concern with minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy. Strict adherence to principles and judicious utilization of surgery within a multimodality framework is the way forward.

Effectiveness and stability of robot-assisted anastomosis in minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy

Purpose

Reconstruction using robotic assistance in pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) was expected to be an effective means to overcome the limitations of laparoscopic surgery. To our knowledge, few comparative reports exist on the outcomes of totally laparoscopic PD (TLPD) and robot-assisted laparoscopic PD (RLPD). This retrospective study aimed to analyze the surgical results of TLPD and RLPD in a high-volume pancreatic center.

Methods

We analyzed the surgical results of consecutive patients who underwent a minimally invasive PD for malignant or benign periampullary lesions between January 2016 and May 2020. Forty-three TLPD patients and 49 RLPD patients were enrolled.

Results

There were no significant differences in the demographic characteristics between the 2 groups except for tumor size, which was significantly larger in the RLPD group than in the TLPD group (mean, 3.1 cm vs. 2.5 cm; P = 0.035). The RLPD group had shorter whole operative times (mean, 400.4 minutes vs. 352.2 minutes; P = 0.003) and shorter anastomosis times than the TLPD group (mean, 94.5 minutes vs. 54.9 minutes; P < 0.001). There was no significant difference between the 2 groups in the rate of pancreatic fistulas, morbidity, and mortality. However, a significantly lower wound infection rate was found in the RLPD group relative to the TLPD group (0% vs. 9.3%, P = 0.038).

Conclusion

RLPD showed the advantage of reducing the operation time compared to TLPD as well as technical feasibility and safety.

Robotic-assisted Pancreaticoduodenectomy: Technique Description and Performance Evaluation After 60 Cases

PURPOSE

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) remains one of the most challenging abdominal operations. During the implementation of new surgical technologies, safety and efficacy outcomes must be rigorously monitored and the learning curve clearly identified.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The authors investigated their experience during the adoption of RPD, analyzing the outcomes of our first 60 consecutive cases, divided into group A (1 to 30) and group B (31 to 60). The cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis was used to define the learning curve.

RESULTS

The authors observed a reduction in operative time (125 min) and estimated blood loss (185 mL) between the firsts 1 to 30 and the latest 30 cases. The overall rate of complications showed the tendency to decrease during the experience (46.7% vs. 23.3%, P=0.02), conversely, severe complications and the rate of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula did not show a significant reduction in the incidence (P=0.37 and P=0.67, respectively). The mean number of lymph nodes harvested improved significantly after 30 cases (P=0.004).

CONCLUSION

Surgical performance improved significantly after the first 30 cases.

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.

Does center or surgeon volume influence adoption of minimally invasive versus open pancreatoduodenectomy? A systematic review and meta-regression

BACKGROUND

There has been increasing uptake of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy during the past decade, but it remains a highly specialized procedure as benefits over open pancreatoduodenectomy remain contentious. This study aimed to evaluate current evidence on minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy versus open pancreatoduodenectomy in terms of impact of center volume on outcomes.

METHODS

A systematic review of articles on comparative cohort and registry studies on minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy versus open pancreatoduodenectomy published until 31st December 2019 were identified, and meta-analyses were performed. Primary endpoints were International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistula grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula and 30-day mortality.

RESULTS

After screening 7,390 studies, 43 comparative cohort studies (8,755 patients) with moderate methodological quality and 3 original registry studies (43,735 patients) were included. For the cohort studies, the median annual hospital minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy volume was 10. No significant differences were found in grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula (odds ratio: 0.98, 95% confidence interval: 0.78-1.23) or 30-day mortality (odds ratio: 1.14, 95% confidence interval: 0.65-2.01) between minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy when compared with open. No publication biases were present and meta-regression identified no confounding for grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula, center volume or 30-day mortality. Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy was only strongly associated with significantly lower rates of postoperative pulmonary complications and surgical site infection, shorter length of stay, and significantly higher rates of R0 margin resections.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy remains noninferior to open pancreatoduodenectomy for grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula but is strongly associated with significantly lower rates of postoperative pulmonary complications and surgical site infection. Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy can be adopted safely with good outcomes irrespective of annual center resection volume.

International expert consensus on laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy

IMPORTANCE

While laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) is being adopted with increasing enthusiasm worldwide, it is still challenging for both technical and anatomical reasons. Currently, there is no consensus on the technical standards for LPD.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this consensus statement is to guide the continued safe progression and adoption of LPD.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

An international panel of experts was selected based on their clinical and scientific expertise in laparoscopic and open pancreaticoduodenectomy. Statements were produced upon reviewing the literature and assessed by the members of the expert panel. The literature search and its critical appraisal were limited to articles published in English during the period from 1994 to 2019. The Web of Science, Medline, and Cochrane Library and Clinical Trials databases were searched, The search strategy included, but was not limited to, the terms 'laparoscopic', 'pancreaticoduodenectomy, 'pancreatoduodenectomy', 'Whipple's operation', and 'minimally invasive surgery'. Reference lists from the included articles were manually checked for any additional studies, which were included when appropriate. Delphi method was used to establish expert consensus and the AGREE II-GRS Instrument was applied to assess the methodological quality and externally validate the final statements. The statements were further discussed during a one-day face-to-face meeting at the 1st Summit on Minimally Invasive Pancreatico-Biliary Surgery in Wuhan, China.

FINDINGS

Twenty-eight international experts from 8 countries constructed the expert panel. Sixteen statements were produced by the members of the expert panel. At least 80% of responders agreed with the majority (80%) of statements. Other than three randomized controlled trials published to date, most evidences were based on level 3 or 4 studies according to the AGREE II-GRS Instrument.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The Wuhan international expert consensus meeting on LPD has produced a set of clinical practice statements for the safe development and progression of LPD. LPD is currently in its development and exploration stages, as defined by the international IDEAL framework for surgical innovation. More robust randomized controlled trial and registry study are essential to proceed with the assessment of LPD.

Outcome of robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy during initial learning curve versus laparotomy

To analyze the initial learning curve (LC) for robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (RAPD) and compare RAPD during the initial LC with open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) in terms of outcome. This study is a retrospective review of patients who consecutively underwent RAPD and OPD between October 2015 and January 2020 in our hospital. 41 consecutive RAPD cases and 53 consecutive open cases were enrolled for review. Compared with OPD, RAPD required a significantly longer operative time (401.1 ± 127.5 vs. 230.8 ± 44.5 min, P < 0.001) and higher cost (194621 ± 78342 vs. 121874 ± 39973 CNY, P < 0.001). Moreover, compared with the OPD group, the RAPD group revealed a significantly smaller mean number of lymph nodes harvested in malignant cases (15.6 ± 5.9 vs 18.9 ± 7.3, P = 0.025). No statistically significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of incidence of Clavien-Dindo grade III-V morbidities and 90-day mortality and readmission (P>0.05). In the CUSUM graph, one peak point was observed at the 8th case, after which the operation time began to decrease. LC for RAPD may be less than 30 cases, and RAPD is safe and feasible during the initial LC.

Hybrid pancreatoduodenectomy in laparoscopic and robotic surgery: a single-center experience in China

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery is beneficial for pancreatic surgery, and the indication has been expanded to pancreatoduodenectomy (PD). The aim of this study was to share our experiences with hybrid PD in laparoscopic and robotic surgery.

METHODS

Sixty-four patients underwent hybrid PD in which specimen resection and gastrojejunostomy were performed through the laparoscopic route and pancreatojejunostomy and hepaticojejunostomy were performed via a robotic approach by the same surgeon at a single institution between July 2016 and June 2019. The primary endpoint was complications; secondary endpoints were operative time (OT), the length of hospital stay, and blood loss. The data for the patients were retrospectively obtained from electrical medical records.

RESULTS

All patients underwent surgery with the hybrid procedure. The mean OTs and estimated blood loss (EBL) were 309.7 ± 77.6 min (range 17-620 min), 160 ± 31.7 mL (range 50-800 mL). The mean number of lymph nodes retrieved was 7.3 ± 6.7 (range 0-37), and that among 45 malignant cases was 8.42 ± 6.7 (range 1-37). The average length of postoperative stay in the hospital was 11.14 ± 7.03 days (range 6-47 days). Clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistulas (POPFs) occurred in 39 (60.9%) cases, and most were biochemical leak POPF (29 cases, 45.3%); only 10 (15.6%) cases were grade B/C (8 cases were Grade B and 2 cases were Grade C treated with digital subtraction angiography). Bile leakage occurred in 2 (3.1%) patients. One (1.5%) patient had a gastric fistula, and 3 (4.7%) developed postoperative delayed gastric emptying categorized as International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) Grade A. Three (4.7%) patients were readmitted for postoperative bleeding, and 2 (3.1%) died within 30 days.

CONCLUSION

Hybrid PD with laparoscopic and robot surgery is safe and feasible. OT can be reduced by switching from the laparoscopic approach to the robotic procedure at the appropriate timepoint.

A systematic review and network meta-analysis of different surgical approaches for pancreaticoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) is a demanding surgical procedure, thus explaining its slow expansion and limited popularity amongst Hepato-Pancreatico-Biliary (HPB) surgeons. However, three main advantages of robotic assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) including improved dexterity, 3D vision less surgical fatigue, may overcome some of the hurdles and ultimately lead to a wider adoption. This systematic review and network meta-analysis aims to evaluate the current literature on open and MIPD.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted for studies reporting robotic, laparoscopic and open surgery for PD. Network meta-analysis of intraoperative (operating time, blood loss, transfusion rate), postoperative (overall and major complications, pancreatic fistula, delayed gastric emptying, length of hospital stay) and oncological outcomes (R0 resection, lymphadenectomy) were performed.

RESULTS

Sixty-one studies including 62,529 patients were included in the network meta-analysis, of which 3% (n = 2131) were totally robotic (TR) and 10% (n = 6514) were totally laparoscopic (TL). There were no significant differences between surgical techniques for major complications, overall and grade B/C fistula, biliary leak, mortality and R0 resections. Transfusion rates were significantly lower in TR compared to TL and open. Operative time for TR was longer compared with open and TL. Both TL and TR were associated with significantly lower rates of wound infections, pulmonary complications, shorter length of stay and higher lymph nodes examined when compared to open. TR was associated with significantly lower conversion rates than TL.

CONCLUSION

In summary, this network meta-analysis highlights the variability in techniques within MIPD and compares other variations to the conventional open PD. Current evidence appears to demonstrate MIPD, both laparoscopic and robotic techniques are associated with improved rates of surgical site infections, pulmonary complications, and a shorter hospital stay, with no compromise in oncological outcomes for cancer resections.

Comparison Between Robotic and Laparoscopic or Open Anastomoses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Robotic surgery has been increasingly used in fashioning various surgical anastomoses. Our aim was to collect and analyze outcomes related to anastomoses performed using a robotic approach and compare them with those done using laparoscopic or open approaches through meta-analysis.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted for articles comparing robotic with laparoscopic and/or open operations (colectomy, low anterior resection, gastrectomy, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), pancreaticoduodenectomy, radical cystectomy, pyeloplasty, radical prostatectomy, renal transplant) published up to June 2019 searching Medline, Scopus, Google Scholar, Clinical Trials and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Studies containing information about outcomes related to hand-sewn anastomoses were included for meta-analysis. Studies with stapled anastomoses or without relevant information about the anastomotic technique were excluded. We also excluded studies in which the anastomoses were performed extracorporeally in laparoscopic or robotic operations.

RESULTS

We included 83 studies referring to the aforementioned operations (4 randomized controlled and 79 non-randomized, 10 prospective and 69 retrospective) apart from colectomy and low anterior resection. Anastomoses done using robotic instruments provided similar results to those done using laparoscopic or open approach in regards to anastomotic leak or stricture. However, there were lower rates of stenosis in robotic than in laparoscopic RYGB (p=0.01) and in robotic than in open radical prostatectomy (p<0.00001). Moreover, all anastomoses needed more time to be performed using the robotic rather than the open approach in renal transplant (p≤0.001).

CONCLUSION

Robotic anastomoses provide equal outcomes with laparoscopic and open ones in most operations, with a few notable exceptions.

Predicting Selection Preference of Robotic Pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) in a Chinese Single Center Population: Development and Assessment of a New Predictive Nomogram

BACKGROUND Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) is a novel type of minimally invasive surgery to treat tumors located at the head of the pancreas. This study aimed to construct a novel prediction model for predicting selection preference for RPD in a Chinese single medical center population. MATERIAL AND METHODS The clinical data from 451 pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma patients were collected and analyzed from January 2013 to December 2016. Twenty-three items affecting clinical strategies were optimized by LASSO (least absolute shrinkage and selection operator) regression analysis and then were incorporated in multivariable logistic regression analysis. C-index was used for evaluating the discriminative ability. Decision curve was applied to determine clinical application of this model and the calibration of this nomogram was evaluated by calibration plot. The model was internally validated through bootstrapping validation. RESULTS Clinicopathological factors included in the model were age, history of diabetes mellitus, history of hypertension, history of heart, brain and kidney disease, history of abdominal surgery, symptoms (jaundice, accidental discovery and weight loss), anemia, elevated carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), smoking, alcohol intake, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scores, vascular invasion, overweight, preoperative lymph node metastasis and tumor size >3.5 cm. A C-index of 0.831 indicated good discrimination and calibration of this model. Interval validation generated an acceptable C-index of 0.787. When surgical approach was determined at the threshold of preference possibility less than 63%, decision curve analysis indicated that this model had good clinical application value in this range. CONCLUSIONS This new nomogram could be conveniently used to predict the selection preference of robotic surgery for patients with pancreatic head cancer.

Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) offers theoretical advantages to conventional laparoscopic surgery including improved instrument dexterity, 3D visualization and better ergonomics. This review aimed to determine if these theoretical advantages translate into improved patient outcomes comparing patients having either robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy or laparoscopic (LPD) equivalent.

METHOD

A systematic literature search was conducted for studies reporting minimally invasive surgery for pancreaticoduodenectomy either robotic assisted or totally laparoscopic. Meta-analysis of intra-operative (blood loss, operating times, conversion and R0 resections) and postoperative outcomes (overall complications, pancreatic fistula, length of hospital stay) was performed using a random effects model.

RESULT

This review identified 44 studies, of which six were non-randomised comparative studies including 3462 patients (1025 robotic and 2437 laparoscopic). Intraoperatively, RPD was associated with significantly lower conversion rates (OR 0.45, p < 0.001) and transfusion rates (OR: 0.60, p = 0.002) compared to LPD. However, no significant difference in blood loss (mean: 220 vs 287 mL, p = 0.1), operating time (mean: 405 vs 418 min, p = 0.3) was noted. Postoperatively RPD was associated with a shorter hospital stay (mean: 12 vs 11 days, p < 0.001) but no significant difference was noted in postoperative complications, incidence of pancreatic fistulae and R0 resection rates.

CONCLUSION

RPD appears to offer some advantages compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery, although both approaches appear to offer equivalent clinical outcomes. Importantly, the quality of evidence is generally limited to cohort studies and a high-quality randomised trial comparing both techniques is needed.

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: are the best times coming?

Background

The introduction of laparoscopic technology has greatly promoted the development of surgery, and the trend of minimally invasive surgery is becoming more and more obvious. However, there is no consensus as to whether laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) should be performed routinely.

Main body

We summarized the development of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) in recent years by comparing with open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) and evaluated its feasibility, perioperative, and long-term outcomes including operation time, length of hospital stay, estimated blood loss, and overall survival. Then, several relevant issues and challenges were discussed in depth.

Conclusion

The perioperative and long-term outcomes of LPD are no worse and even better in length of hospital stay and estimated blood loss than OPD and RPD except for a few reports. Though with strict control of indications, standardized training, and learning, ensuring safety and reducing cost are still and will always the keys to the healthy development of LPD; the best times for it are coming.