Robotic versus open pancreatoduodenectomy: a propensity score-matched analysis based on factors predictive of postoperative pancreatic fistula

BACKGROUND

Improvement in morbidity of pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) largely depends on the reduction in the incidence of clinically relevant (CR) postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF).

METHODS

After internal validation of the clinical risk score (CRS) of POPF, and identification of other predictive factors for POPF, robotic (RPD), and open (OPD) PDs were stratified into risk categories and matched by propensity scores. The primary endpoint of this study was incidence of CR-POPF. Secondary endpoints were 90-day morbidity and mortality, and sample size calculation for randomized controlled trials (RCT).

RESULTS

No patient undergoing RPD was classified at negligible risk for POPF, and no CR-POPF occurred in 7 RPD at low risk. The matching process identified 48 and 11 pairs at intermediate and high risk for POPF, respectively. In the intermediate-risk group, RPD was associated with higher rates of CR-POPF (31.3% vs 12.5%) (p = 0.0026), with equivalent incidence of grade C POPF. In the high-risk group, CR-POPF occurred frequently, but in similar percentages, after either procedures. Starting from an unadjusted point estimate of the effect size of 1.71 (0.91-3.21), the pair-matched odds ratio for CR-POPF after RPD was 2.80 (1.01-7.78) for the intermediate-risk group, and 0.20 (0.01-4.17) for the high-risk group. Overall morbidity and mortality were equivalent in matched study groups. Sample size calculation for a non-inferiority RCT demonstrated that a total of 31,669 PDs would be required to randomize 682 patients at intermediate risk and 1852 patients at high risk.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients at intermediate risk, RPD is associated with higher rates of CR-POPF. Incidence of grade C POPF is similar in RPD and OPD, making overall morbidity and mortality also equivalent. A RCT, with risk stratification for POPF, would require an enormous number of patients. Implementation of an international registry could be the next step in the assessment of RPD.

Oncological outcomes of robotic-assisted versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a propensity score-matched analysis

Background

Robotic-assisted minimally invasive surgery is associated with worse oncologic outcomes for some but not other types of cancers. We conducted a propensity score-matched analysis to compare oncologic outcomes of robotic-assisted laparoscopic (RPD) vs. open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).

Methods

Treatment-naïve PDAC patients undergoing either RPD or OPD at our hospital between January 2013 and December 2017 were included. Propensity score matching was conducted at a ratio of 1:2. The primary outcome was disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS).

Results

A total of 672 cases were identified. The propensity score-matched cohort included 105 patients receiving RPD and 210 patients receiving OPD. The 2 groups did not differ in the number of retrieved lymph nodes [11 (7–16) vs. 11 (6–17), P = 0.622] and R0 resection rate (88.6% vs. 89.0%, P = 0.899). There was no statistically significant difference in median DFS (14 [95% CI 11–22] vs. 12 [95% CI 10–14] months (HR 0.94; 95% CI 0.87–1.50; log-rank P = 0.345) and median OS (27 [95% CI 22–35] vs. 20 [95% CI 18–24] months (HR 0.77; 95% CI 0.57–1.04; log-rank P = 0.087) between the two groups. Multivariate COX analysis showed that RPD was not an independent predictor of DFS (HR 0.90; 95% CI 0.68–1.19, P = 0.456) or OS (HR 0.77; 95% CI 0.57–1.05, P = 0.094).

Conclusion

Comparable DFS and OS were observed between patients receiving RPD and OPD. This preliminary finding requires further confirmation with prospective randomized controlled trials.

Robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy with the da Vinci Xi: can the costs of advanced technology be offset by clinical advantages? A case-matched cost analysis versus open approach

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) has shown some advantages over open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) but few studies have reported a cost analysis between the two techniques. We conducted a structured cost-analysis comparing pancreatoduodenectomy performed with the use of the da Vinci Xi, and the traditional open approach, and considering healthcare direct costs associated with the intervention and the short-term post-operative course.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty RPD and 194 OPD performed between January 2011 and December 2020 by the same operator at our high-volume multidisciplinary center for robot-assisted surgery and for pancreatic surgery, were retrospectively analyzed. Two comparable groups of 20 patients (Xi-RPD-group) and 40 patients (OPD-group) were obtained matching 1:2 the RPD-group with the OPD-group. Perioperative data and overall costs, including overall variable costs (OVCs) and fixed costs, were compared.

RESULTS

No difference was reported in mean operative time: 428 min for Xi-RPD-group versus 404 min for OPD, p = 0.212. The median overall length of hospital stay was significantly lower in the Xi-RPD-group: 10 days versus 16 days, p = 0.001. In the Xi-RPD-group, consumable costs were significantly higher (€6149.2 versus €1267.4, p < 0.001), while hospital stay costs were significantly lower: €5231.6 versus €8180 (p = 0.001). No significant differences were found in terms of OVCs: €13,483.4 in Xi-RPD-group versus €11,879.8 in OPD-group (p = 0.076).

CONCLUSIONS

Robot-assisted surgery is more expensive because of higher acquisition and maintenance costs. However, although RPD is associated to higher material costs, the advantages of the robotic system associated to lower hospital stay costs and the absence of difference in terms of personnel costs thanks to the similar operative time with respect to OPD, make the OVCs of the two techniques no longer different. Hence, the higher costs of advanced technology can be partially compensated by clinical advantages, particularly within a high-volume multidisciplinary center for both robot-assisted and pancreatic surgery. These preliminary data need confirmation by further studies.

Minimally invasive versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: Individual patient data meta-analysis of randomized trials

OBJECTIVE

Assessment of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is scarce and limited to non-randomized studies. This study aimed to compare oncological and surgical outcomes after MIPD compared to open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) for patients after resectable PDAC from published randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

A systematic review was performed to identify RCTs comparing MIPD and OPD including PDAC (Jan 2015-July 2021). Individual data of patients with PDAC were requested. Primary outcomes were R0 rate and lymph node yield. Secondary outcomes were blood-loss, operation time, major complications, hospital stay and 90-day mortality.

RESULTS

Overall, 4 RCTs (all addressed laparoscopic MIPD) with 275 patients with PDAC were included. In total, 128 patients underwent laparoscopic MIPD and 147 patients underwent OPD. The R0 rate (risk difference(RD) -1%, P = 0.740) and lymph node yield (mean difference(MD) +1.55, P = 0.305) were comparable between laparoscopic MIPD and OPD. Laparoscopic MIPD was associated with less perioperative blood-loss (MD -91ml, P = 0.026), shorter length of hospital stay (MD -3.8 days, P = 0.044), while operation time was longer (MD +98.5 min, P = 0.003). Major complications (RD -11%, P = 0.302) and 90-day mortality (RD -2%, P = 0.328) were comparable between laparoscopic MIPD and OPD.

CONCLUSIONS

This individual patient data meta-analysis of MIPD versus OPD in patients with resectable PDAC suggests that laparoscopic MIPD is non-inferior regarding radicality, lymph node yield, major complications and 90-day mortality and is associated with less blood loss, shorter hospital stay, and longer operation time. The impact on long-term survival and recurrence should be studied in RCTs including robotic MIPD.

Short‑ and long‑term outcomes after laparoscopic and open pancreatoduodenectomy for elderly patients: a propensity score‑matched study

BACKGROUND

The feasibility and safety of laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) in elderly patients is still controversial. This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of LPD and open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) in elderly patients.

METHODS

Clinical and follow-up data of elderly patients (≥ 65 years) who underwent LPD or OPD between 2015 and 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. A 1:1 propensity score-matching (PSM) analysis was performed to minimize differences between groups. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis were used to select independent prognostic factors for 90-day mortality.

RESULTS

Of the 410 elderly patients, 236 underwent LPD and 174 OPD. After PSM, the LPD group had a less estimated blood loss (EBL) (100 vs. 200 mL, P < 0.001), lower rates of intraoperative transfusion (10.4% vs. 19.0%, P = 0.029), more lymph node harvest (11.0 vs. 10.0, P = 0.014) and shorter postoperative length of stay (LOS) (13.0 vs. 16.0 days, P = 0.013). There were no significant differences in serious complications, reoperation, 90-day readmission and mortality rates (all P > 0.05). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH) was an independent risk factor for 90-day mortality. Elderly patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) who underwent LPD or OPD had similar overall survival (OS) (22.5 vs.20.4 months, P = 0.672) after PSM.

CONCLUSIONS

It is safe and feasible for elderly patients to undergo LPD with less EBL and a shorter postoperative LOS. There was no statistically significant difference in long-term survival outcomes between elderly PDAC patients who underwent LPD or OPD.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Pancreatoduodenectomy for Periampullary Tumors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) has emerged as an alternative to open technique in treating periampullary tumors. However, the safety and efficacy of LPD compared to open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) remain unclear. Thus, we conducted an updated meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of LPD versus OPD in patients with periampullary tumors, with a particular focus on the pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma patient subgroup.

METHODS

According to PRISMA guidelines, we searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library in December 2023 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that directly compare LPD versus OPD in patients with periampullary tumors. Endpoints and sensitive analysis were conducted for short-term endpoints. All statistical analysis was performed using R software version 4.3.1 with a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Five RCTs yielding 1018 patients with periampullary tumors were included, of whom 511 (50.2%) were randomized to the LPD group. Total follow-up time was 90 days. LPD was associated with a longer operation time (MD 66.75; 95% CI 26.59 to 106.92; p = 0.001; I2 = 87%; Fig. 1A), lower intraoperative blood loss (MD - 124.05; 95% CI - 178.56 to - 69.53; p < 0.001; I2 = 86%; Fig. 1B), and shorter length of stay (MD - 1.37; 95% IC - 2.31 to - 0.43; p = 0.004; I2 = 14%; Fig. 1C) as compared with OPD. In terms of 90-day mortality rates and number of lymph nodes yield, no significant differences were found between both groups.

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis of RCTs suggests that LPD is an effective and safe alternative for patients with periampullary tumors, with lower intraoperative blood loss and shorter length of stay.