Feasibility of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy

Navigating the learning curve of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy: Competency, proficiency, and mastery in a first-generation robotic surgeon with established open pancreatic expertise

OBJECTIVE

This study delineates the learning curve of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy for first-generation surgeons, using the Comprehensive Complication Index to assess patient outcomes.

BACKGROUND

Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy is a promising alternative to open pancreatoduodenectomy, but patient safety and quality of outcomes during the learning phase remain critical.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 313 consecutive robotic pancreatoduodenectomies performed by a single surgeon. The cumulative-sum method defined the learning curve, and Comprehensive Complication Index, adjusted for robotic pancreatoduodenectomy difficulty by PD-ROBOSCORE, was the dependent variable.

RESULTS

The median PD-ROBOSCORE was 8 (4.8-10.9), and the median Comprehensive Complication Index was 29.6 (20.9-39.5). At 90 days, severe morbidity and mortality rates were 24% and 5.4%, respectively. Three learning phases were identified: competency (63 procedures), proficiency (176), and mastery (263). Early phases involved simpler cases, whereas later phases showed greater complexity and a higher proportion of patients with ASA scores >2. Pancreatic cancer cases tripled in phases 2 and 3. Each phase showed progressive reductions in operative time and Comprehensive Complication Index. The mastery phase demonstrated further improvements in Comprehensive Complication Index, lymph node harvest, and margin status. Compared with proficiency, mastery saw improved outcomes in delayed gastric emptying, harvested lymph nodes, and R1 rates in pancreatic cancer. Operative time was longer, but morbidity and mortality remained stable.

CONCLUSION

The robotic pancreatoduodenectomy learning process involves competency, proficiency, and mastery phases. Structured training programs may accelerate this learning curve, but high procedural volumes are essential to improve outcomes. Future studies should account for surgeon experience and case complexity when evaluating robotic pancreatoduodenectomy outcomes.

A comprehensive analysis of robotic assisted vs. laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy using propensity score matching

Using the propensity-matched methodology, this meta-analysis and comprehensive review aimed to compare robotic distal pancreatectomy with laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy in terms of perioperative and short-term oncologic outcomes. Within the scope of this investigation, complete and total adherence to the PRISMA guidelines for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses was established. The search we conducted in PubMed, Google Scholar, and EMBASE was automated to find relevant papers that matched the tendency up to July 1, 2024. The length of time spent while operating, the rate of conversion, and the collection of lymph nodes were the primary factors that were considered. Other metrics that were taken into consideration were the approximate amount of blood loss, the length of time spent in the hospital, the need for transfusions, and the occurrence of major adverse events. In the end, there were 8 studies that involved 1649 patients. Of those patients, 758 had robotic assisted distal pancreatectomy, whereas 891 underwent laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. In comparison to laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy, the robotic assisted technique did result in higher anticipated blood loss and conversion rates; however, it also required longer durations of operation due to its lengthier duration. In terms of lymph node retrieval, the duration of hospital stay, the need for blood transfusions, and the incidence of postoperative pancreatic fistula, there were no distinctions that could be considered statistically significant between the two techniques. A realistic and risk-free surgical alternative is a distal pancreatectomy that is performed with the aid of robotic technology. When compared to laparoscopic surgery, the outcomes of robot-assisted surgery were superior in terms of conversion rates to laparotomy and less anticipated intraoperative blood loss. However, the operation took longer to complete than laparoscopic surgery.

Robotic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy in octogenarians: a comparative propensity score analysis of perioperative outcomes

BACKGROUND

Compared to open pancreaticoduodenectomies (OPD), the robotic (RPD) approach decreases the rate of complication and the length of stay (LOS). However, it remains unknown if these benefits persist in octogenarians, who are at higher risk for perioperative morbidity and mortality.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of the ACS-NSQIP database was performed to identify patients aged 80 years or older who underwent PD for pancreatic adenocarcinoma between 2015-2021. Patients who underwent RPD or OPD were compared using inversed probability weighting of the propensity score. Outcomes assessed include operative time, LOS, non-home discharge, major complications, unplanned readmission, return to the operating room, mortality, and clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula.

RESULTS

Of 30,751 patients, 1720 were octogenarians. One thousand six hundred twenty-five patients (94 %) underwent OPD, and 95 (6 %) underwent RPD. RPD was significantly associated with a reduced incidence of major complications (32.6 % vs. 45.6 %; p < 0.01) and a lower rate of non-home discharge (24.7 % vs. 34.3%; p < 0.05). However, RPD was associated with a longer operative time (438 min vs. 342 min; p < 0.0001). There was no difference in other assessed outcomes.

CONCLUSION

RPD may reduce major postoperative complications and non-home discharges compared to the open approach for octogenarians.

Proposal of a revised 3-tier "2 mm" risk classification model for postoperative pancreatic fistula in robotic pancreatoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

The recent International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) risk classification for postoperative pancreatic fistula (grade B/C) was developed based on data from open and mixed minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy. The ISGPS risk classification model has not been validated specifically for POPF after robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD).

METHODS

We calculated the rate of POPF (ISGPS 2016 definition, grade B/C) by analyzing consecutive patients after RPD by surgeons after their learning curves (80 RPDs per surgeon). The validation of the ISGPS 4-tier and the simplified 3-tier risk classification was conducted using the area under the receiver operating curve (AUC).

RESULTS

From 2019 to 2023, 187 patients after RPD were included. Neither the ISGPS 4-tier nor the simplified 3-tier classification model showed robust discrimination (AUC: 0.696 and 0.685, respectively). Moreover, both risk classifications failed to differentiate the rates of POPF and major complications among subgroups. Multivariate analysis suggested that soft pancreatic texture and pancreatic duct ≤ 2 mm were independent risk factors for POPF after RPD. After adjusting the duct size's cutoff from 3 to 2 mm, the revised 4-tier "2 mm" classification model showed no significant difference between risk categories B and C (6.7% vs. 9.4%, P = 0.063). The revised 3-tier "2 mm" classification model stratified patients into A (n = 54), B (n = 68), and C (n = 65) groups, with corresponding POPF rates of 0.0%, 8.8%, and 23.1% (P < 0.001), and major complication rates of 5.6, 14.7, and 24.6% (P = 0.014), respectively. Compared to the simplified 3-tier classification model, the revised 3-tier "2 mm" classification model showed improved discrimination (AUC: 0.753 vs. 0.685, P = 0.034) and clinical utility.

CONCLUSIONS

The current ISGPS 4-tier and the simplified 3-tier classification models lacked sufficient discrimination in patients after RPD. We propose a revised 3-tier "2 mm" risk classification model for RPD with a robust discrimination, which requires further international validation with prospectively obtained data.

Transatlantic differences in the use and outcome of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy: an international multi-registry analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) has emerged as an alternative to open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD). However, the extent of variation in the use and outcomes of MIPD in relation to OPD among countries is unclear as international studies using registry data are lacking. This study aimed to investigate the use, patient selection, and outcomes of MIPD and OPD in four transatlantic audits for pancreatic surgery.

METHODS

A post hoc comparative analysis including consecutive patients after MIPD and OPD from four nationwide and multicenter pancreatic surgery audits from North America, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden (2014-2020). Patient factors related to MIPD were identified using multivariable logistic regression. Outcome analyses excluded the Swedish audit because < 100 MIPD were performed during the studied period.

RESULTS

Overall, 44,076 patients who underwent pancreatoduodenectomy were included (29,107 North America, 7586 Germany, 4970 the Netherlands, and 2413 Sweden), including 3328 MIPD procedures (8%). The use of MIPD varied widely among countries (absolute largest difference [ALD] 17%, p < 0.001): 7% North America, 4% Germany, 17% the Netherlands, and 0.1% Sweden. Over time, the use of MIPD increased in North America and the Netherlands (p < 0.001), mostly driven by robotic MIPD, but not in Germany (p = 0.297). Patient factors predicting the use of MIPD included country, later year of operation, better performance status, high POPF-risk score, no vascular resection, and non-malignant indication. Conversion rates were higher in laparoscopic MIPD (range 28-45%), compared to robotic MIPD (range 9-37%). In-hospital/30-day mortality differed among North America, Germany, and the Netherlands; MIPD (2%, 7%, 4%; ALD 5%, p < 0.001) and OPD (2%, 5%, 3%; ALD 3%, p < 0.001), similar to major morbidity; MIPD (25%, 42%, 38%, ALD 17%, p < 0.001) and OPD (25%, 31%, 30%, ALD 6%, p < 0.001), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Considerable differences were found in the use and outcome, including conversion and mortality rates, of MIPD and OPD among four transatlantic audits for pancreatic surgery. Our findings highlight the need for international collaboration to optimize treatment standards and patient outcome.

Robotic Pancreatoduodenectomy: Increasing Complexity and Decreasing Complications with Experience: Single-Center Results from 150 Consecutive Patients

BACKGROUND

This report describes the authors' experience with 150 consecutive robotic pancreatoduodenectomies.

METHODS

The study enrolled 150 consecutive patients who underwent robotic pancreatoduodenectomy between 2018 and 2023. Pre- and intraoperative variables such as age, gender, indication, operation time, diagnosis, and tumor size were analyzed. The patients were divided into two groups. Group 1 comprised the first 75 patients, and group 2 comprised the last 75 cases. The median age of the patients was 62.4 years and did not differ between the two groups.

RESULTS

Morbidity was lower in group 2. The mortality rate was 0.7% at 30 days and 1.3% at 90 days, and there was no difference between the groups. There was a significant reduction (p < 0.05) in operative time, resection time, reconstruction time, and conversion to open surgery in group 2. Partial resection of the portal vein was performed in 17 patients and more common in group 2 (p < 0.01). The number of resected lymph nodes was higher in group 2. The indication for pancreatoduodenectomy did not differ between the two groups. There was no difference in tumor size or clinical characteristics of the patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The robotic platform is useful for pancreatoduodenectomy, facilitates adequate lymphadenectomy, and is helpful for digestive tract reconstruction after resection. Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy is safe and feasible for selected patients. It should be performed in specialized centers by surgeons experienced in open and minimally invasive pancreatic surgery.

Instrumentless liver suspension for liver retraction in robotic pancreatoduodenectomy

The popularity of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) is increasing, yet it remains a complex procedure. Outcomes are influenced by various factors, including patient-specific variables, disease characteristics, and surgical technique. Numerous and intricate details contribute to the technical success of RPD. In this study, our focus is on achieving effective and "gentle" liver retraction. The use of liver retractors has been associated with the risk of retractor-related liver injury (RRLI), which can have serious consequences. Here, we introduce a refined technique for instrumentless liver retraction in RPD, developed progressively through a series of over 300 procedures. The core concept of this technique involves suspending the liver to the diaphragmatic dome. This is accomplished by securing the round ligament to the anterior abdominal wall using transparietal sutures and attaching the fundus of the gallbladder and the anterior margin of liver segment number 3 to the diaphragm. Our consecutive series of over 300 RPDs demonstrates the feasibility and safety of this approach, with no clinically relevant RRLI observed. Instrumentless liver retraction offers a valuable refinement in RPD, streamlining the procedure while reducing potential complications associated with dedicated retractors.

Internal hernia through the Treitz fossa after robotic pancreatoduodenectomy: pathogenesis and preventive measures

Internal hernia through the Treitz fossa following robotic pancreatoduodenectomy is a rare but potentially serious complication. In our review of 328 cases of robotic pancreatoduodenectomies, two patients (0.6%) required repeat surgery due to internal herniation of the entire small bowel through the Treitz fossa. This complication can present as afferent loop syndrome, with symptoms including nausea, vomiting, and abdominal distension, possibly leading to cholangitis and pancreatitis. Timely diagnosis and intervention are paramount, as conservative management often fails. Preventive measures involve closing the peritoneal defect in the Treitz fossa at the end of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy, particularly in lean patients with thin mesentery who are at increased risk of internal hernia due to increased mobility of the small bowel. This technical note elucidates the pathogenesis of Treitz hernia following robotic pancreatoduodenectomy and underscores the importance of closing the peritoneal breach to prevent this rare yet potentially serious complication.

Association between quality metric adherence and overall survival among patients undergoing resection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

Process-based quality metrics are important for improving long-term outcomes after surgical resection. We sought to develop a practical surgical quality score for patients diagnosed with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma undergoing curative-intent resection.

METHODS

Patients who underwent surgical resection for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma between 2010 and 2017 were identified using the National Cancer Database. Five surgical quality metrics were defined: minimally invasive approach, adequate lymphadenectomy, negative surgical margins, receipt of adjuvant therapy, and no prolonged hospitalization. Log-rank test and multivariable Cox regression analysis were used to determine the association of quality metrics with overall survival.

RESULTS

A total of 38,228 patients underwent curative-intent resection for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Median age at diagnosis was 68 years (interquartile range = 61-75), and roughly half the cohort was male (n = 19,562; 51.2%). Quality metrics were achieved on a varied basis: minimally invasive approach (n = 5,701; 14.9%), adequate lymphadenectomy (n = 27,122; 80.0%), negative surgical margin (n = 29,248; 76.5%), receipt of adjuvant therapy (n = 26,006; 68.0%), and absence of prolonged hospitalization (n = 26,470; 69.2%). An integer-based surgical quality score from 0 (no quality metrics) to 16 (all quality metrics) was calculated. Patients with higher scores had progressively better overall survival. Median overall survival differed substantially among the score categories (score = 0-4 points, 8.7 [8.0-9.6] months; 5-8 points, 17.5 [16.9-18.2] months; 9-12 points, 22.1 [21.6-22.8] months; and 13-16 points, 30.8 [30.2-31.3] months; P <  .001). On multivariable analysis, risk-adjusted mortality hazards decreased in a stepwise manner with higher scores (0-4 points: reference; 5-8 points: multivariable adjusted hazard ratio = 0.60; 95% CI, 0.57-0.63; 9-12 points: adjusted hazard ratio = 0.49; 95% CI, 0.47-0.52; 13-16 points: and adjusted hazard ratio = 0.37; 95% CI, 0.34-0.40; all P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Adherence to quality metrics may be associated with improved overall survival. Efforts aimed at increasing compliance with quality metric measures may help optimize long-term outcomes among patients undergoing surgical resection for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

Outcomes of minimally invasive vs. open pancreatoduodenectomies in pancreatic adenocarcinoma: analysis of ACS-NSQIP data

INTRODUCTION

Pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) for pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) presents a significant challenge owing to its aggressive nature. Traditionally performed as open surgery, the advent of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) including laparoscopic and robotic techniques, offers a potential alternative. This study assessed the use and outcomes of MIS and open PD for PDAC treatment.

METHODS

We analyzed ACS-NSQIP data (2015-2021) using regression models to compare patient outcomes across open PD, MIS PD, and conversions from MIS to open (MIS-O).

RESULTS

Of 19,812 PDAC patients, 1,293 (6.53%) underwent MIS, 18,116 (91.44%) underwent open PD, and 403 (2.03%) underwent MIS converted to open PD (MIS-O). The MIS rate increased from 6.1% to 9.2%. Black patients had a higher MIS-O rate (RR, 1.55; p = 0.025). Open PD was associated with more severe conditions (ASA ≥ III, malnutrition) and prior radiation therapy. MIS patients more often had neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Complex procedures, such as vein resection, favored open PD. Need for arterial resection was associated with MIS-O (RR, 2.11; p = 0.012), and operative time was significantly associated with MIS (OR: 4.32, 95% CI: 3.43-5.43, p-value: < 0.001) No differences in the overall morbidity or 30-day mortality were observed. MIS led to shorter stays but higher risks of reoperation and pulmonary embolism. MIS-O increased the delayed gastric emptying rate (RR, 1.79; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

During 2015-2021, an increasing number of patients with PDAC are undergoing MIS PD. Morbidity and mortality did not differ between open and MIS PD. MIS was performed more frequently in patients with better nutritional status and lower ASA, or when vascular resection was not anticipated. In well selected patients, short-term outcomes of MIS and open PD seem similar.

Effect of robotic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy on postoperative length of hospital stay and complications for pancreatic head or periampullary tumours: a multicentre, open-label randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The flexibility of the robotic system in resection and reconstruction provides potential benefits in pancreaticoduodenectomy. Increasingly, robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) has been reported with favourable outcomes, but high-level evidence is still scarce. We aimed to compare the short-term postoperative outcomes of RPD with those of open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD), and hypothesised that postoperative length of hospital stay would be shorter after RPD than after OPD.

METHODS

This multicentre, open-label randomised controlled trial was conducted at three high-volume hospitals in China. Patients were considered for participation in this trial if they were aged 18-75 years, had a resectable benign, premalignant, or malignant tumour in the pancreatic head or periampullary region; and were suitable for both RPD and OPD. Patients with distant metastases were excluded. Block randomisation was done with random block sizes of four, stratified by centre. Allocation was concealed via individual, sequentially numbered, opaque sealed envelopes. Eligible patients were randomly assigned to the RPD group or the OPD group in a 1:1 ratio by a masked research assistant. Surgeons and patients were not masked to trial group, but data collectors, postoperative outcome assessors, and data analysts were. All patients underwent RPD or OPD according to previously reported techniques. Participating surgeons had surpassed the learning curves of at least 40 RPD and 60 OPD procedures. The primary outcome was postoperative length of hospital stay, which was analysed in the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population. This trial is registered with the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2200056809) and is complete.

FINDINGS

Between March 5 and Dec 20, 2022, 292 patients were screened for eligibility, of whom 164 were enrolled and randomly assigned to the RPD group (n=82) or the OPD group (n=82). 161 patients who underwent surgical resection were included in the mITT analysis (81 in the RPD group and 80 in the OPD group). 94 (58%) participants were male and 67 (42%) were female. Postoperative length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the RPD group than in the OPD group (median 11·0 days [IQR 9·0 to 19·5] vs 13·5 days [11·5 to 18·0]; median difference -2·0 [95% CI -4·0 to 0·0]; p=0·029). During a follow-up period of 90 days, six (7%) of 81 patients in the RPD group and five (6%) of 80 patients in the OPD group required readmission. Reasons for readmission were intra-abdominal haemorrhage (one in each group), vomiting (two in the RPD group and one in the OPD group), electrolyte disturbance (one in each group), and fever (two in each group). There were two (1%) in-hospital deaths within 90 days of surgery, one in each group. The postoperative 90-day mortality rate (difference -0·02% [-5·6 to 5·5]; p=1·00) and the incidence of severe complications (ie, Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3; difference -1·5% [-14·5 to 11·4]; p=0·82) were similar between the two groups.

INTERPRETATION

For surgeons who had passed the learning curve, RPD was safe and feasible with the advantage of shorter postoperative length of hospital stay than OPD. Future research should focus on the medium-term and long-term outcomes between RPD and OPD.

FUNDING

None.

What are the true benefits of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy for patients with pancreatic cancer?

INTRODUCTION

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is a devastating disease, and multimodal treatment including high-quality surgery can improve survival outcomes. Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) has evolved with minimally invasive approaches including the implementation of robotic PD (RPD). In this special report, we review the literature whilst evaluating the 'true benefits' of RPD compared to open approach for the treatment of PDAC.

AREAS COVERED

We have performed a mini-review of studies assessing PD approaches and compared intraoperative characteristics, perioperative outcomes, post-operative complications and oncological outcomes.

EXPERT OPINION

RPD was associated with similar or longer operative times, and reduced intra-operative blood loss. Perioperative pain scores were significantly lower with shorter lengths of stay with the robotic approach. With regards to post-operative complications, post-operative pancreatic fistula rates were similar, with lower rates of clinically relevant fistulas after RPD. Oncological outcomes were comparable or superior in terms of margin status, lymph node harvest, time to chemotherapy and survival between RPD and OPD. In conclusion, RPD allows safe implementation of minimally invasive PD. The current literature shows that RPD is either equivalent, or superior in certain aspects to OPD. Once more centers gain sufficient experience, RPD is likely to demonstrate clear superiority over alternative approaches.

Expanding the utility of robotics for pancreaticoduodenectomy: a 10-year review and comparison to international benchmarks in pancreatic surgery

BACKGROUND

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) is an emerging alternative to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD). Although RPD offers various theoretical advantages, it is used in less than 10% of all pancreaticoduodenectomies. The aim of this study was to report our 10-year experience and compare RPD outcomes with international benchmarks for OPD.

METHODS

A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained institutional database was performed of consecutive patients who underwent RPD between January 2011 and December 2021. Patients were categorized into low-risk and high-risk groups according to the selection criteria set by the benchmark study. Their outcomes were compared to the international benchmark cut off values. Outcomes were then evaluated over time to identify improvements in practice and establish a learning curve.

RESULTS

Of 201 RPDs, 36 were low-risk and 165 high-risk patients. Compared to the OPD benchmarks, outcomes of low-risk patients were within the cutoff values. High-risk patients were outside the cutoff for blood transfusions (26% vs. ≤ 23%), overall complications (78% vs. ≤ 73%), grade I-II complications (68% vs. ≤ 62%), and readmissions (22% vs ≤ 21%). Oncologic outcomes for high-risk patients were within benchmark cutoffs. Cases at the end of the learning curve included more pancreatic cancer (42% from 17%) and fewer low-risk patients (10% from 24%) than those at the beginning. After 41 RPD there was a decline in conversion rates and operative time. Between 95 and 143 cases operative time, transfusion rates, and LOS declined significantly. Complications did not differ over time.

CONCLUSION

RPD yields results comparable to the established benchmarks in OPD in both low- and high-risk patients. Along the learning curve, RPD evolved with the inclusion of more high-risk cases while outcomes remained within benchmarks. Addition of a robotic HPB surgery fellowship did not compromise outcomes. These results suggest that RPD may be an option for high-risk patients at specialized centers.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Pancreatoduodenectomy in Patients With Periampullary Tumors: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials compared laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) versus open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) in patients with periampullary tumors.

BACKGROUND

LPD has gained attention; however, its safety and efficacy versus OPD remain debatable.

METHODS

We searched PubMed and Embase. Primary outcomes were the length of hospital stay (LOS) (day), Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III complications, and 90-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were blood loss (milliliter), blood transfusion, duration of operation (minute), readmission, reoperation, comprehensive complication index score, bile leak, gastrojejunostomy or duodenojejunostomy leak, postoperative pancreatic fistula, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage, delayed gastric emptying, surgical site infection, intra-abdominal infection, number of harvested lymph nodes, and R0 resection. Pooled odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD) of data was calculated using the random-effect model. The grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluation approach was used for grading the level of evidence.

RESULTS

Four randomized controlled trials yielding 818 patients were included, of which 411 and 407 patients underwent LPD and OPD, respectively. The meta-analysis concluded that 2 approaches were similar, except in the LPD group, the LOS tended to be shorter [MD=-2.54 (-5.17, 0.09), P =0.06], LOS in ICU was shorter [MD=-1 (-1.8, -0.2), P =0.01], duration of operation was longer [MD=75.16 (23.29, 127.03), P =0.005], blood loss was lower [MD=-115.40 (-152.13, -78.68), P <0.00001], blood transfusion was lower [OR=0.66 (0.47, 0.92), P =0.01], and surgical site infection was lower [OR=0.35 (0.12, 0.96), P =0.04]. The overall certainty of the evidence was moderate.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the hands of highly skilled surgeons in high-volume centers, LPD is feasible and as safe and efficient as OPD.

Perioperative and Oncological Outcomes of Robotic Versus Open Pancreaticoduodenectomy in Low-Risk Surgical Candidates: A Multicenter Propensity Score-Matched Study

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to perform a multicenter comparison between robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD).

BACKGROUND

Previous comparisons of RPD versus OPD have only been carried out in small, single-center studies of variable quality.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent RPD (n = 1032) or OPD (n = 1154) at 7 centers in China between July 2012 and July 2020 were included. A 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) was performed.

RESULTS

After PSM, 982 patients in each group were enrolled. The RPD group had significantly lower estimated blood loss (EBL) (190.0 vs 260.0 mL; P < 0.001), and a shorter postoperative 1length of hospital stay (LOS) (12.0 (9.0-16.0) days vs 14.5 (11.0-19.0) days; P < 0.001) than the OPD group. There were no significant differences in operative time, major morbidity including clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF), bile leakage, delayed gastric emptying, postoperative pancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), reoperation, readmission or 90-day mortality rates. Multivariable analysis showed R0 resection, CR-POPF, PPH and reoperation to be independent risk factors for 90-day mortality. Subgroup analysis on patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) (n = 326 in each subgroup) showed RPD had advantages over OPD in EBL and postoperative LOS. There were no significant differences in median disease-free survival (15.2 vs 14.3 months, P = 0.94) or median overall survival (24.2 vs 24.1 months, P = 0.88) between the 2 subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

RPD was comparable to OPD in feasibility and safety. For patients with PDAC, RPD resulted in similar oncologic and survival outcomes as OPD.

Tips and tricks for robotic pancreatoduodenectomy with superior mesenteric/portal vein resection and reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Open pancreatoduodenectomy with vein resection (OPD-VR) is now standard of care in patients who responded to neoadjuvant therapies. Feasibility of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) with vein resection (RPD-VR) was shown, but no study provided a detailed description of the technical challenges associated with this formidable operation. Herein, we describe the trips and tricks for technically successful RPD-VR.

METHODS

The vascular techniques used in RPD-VR were borrowed from OPD-VR, as well as from our experience with robotic transplantation of both kidney and pancreas. Vein resection was classified into 4 types according to the international study group of pancreatic surgery. Each type of vein resection was described in detail and shown in a video.

RESULTS

Between October 2008 and November 2021, a total of 783 pancreatoduodenectomies were performed, including 233 OPDs-VR (29.7%). RPD was performed in 256 patients (32.6%), and RPDs-VR in 36 patients (4.5% of all pancreatoduodenectomies; 15.4% of all pancreatoduodenectomies with vein resection; 14.0% of all RPDs). In RPD-VR vein resections were: 4 type 1 (11.1%), 10 type 2 (27.8%), 12 type 3 (33.3%) and 10 type 4 (27.8%). Vascular patches used in type 2 resections were made of peritoneum (n = 8), greater saphenous vein (n = 1), and deceased donor aorta (n = 1). Interposition grafts used in type 4 resections were internal left jugular vein (n = 8), venous graft from deceased donor (n = 1) and spiral saphenous vein graft (n = 1). There was one conversion to open surgery (2.8%). Ninety-day mortality was 8.3%. There was one (2.8%) partial vein thrombosis, treated with heparin infusion.

CONCLUSIONS

We have reported 36 technically successful RPDs-VR. We hope that the tips and tricks provided herein can contribute to safer implementation of RPD-VR. Based on our experience, and according to data from the literature, we strongly advise that RPD-VR is performed by expert surgeons at high volume centers.

Standardized right artery first approach during laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary neoplasms: technical aspects and perioperative outcomes

BACKGROUND

The most debated aspects of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) concern the dissection of the pancreas from the surrounding vessels and the achievement of adequate resection margins, especially in patients with pancreatic cancer.

METHODS

Data of consecutive patients undergoing LPD with right artery first approach from September 2020 to September 2021 for periampullary neoplasms (pancreatic, ampullary, duodenal, distal common biliary duct) were prospectively collected and retrospectively analyzed. The overall cohort was divided into two groups: patients affected by pancreatic carcinoma (PC) and patients affected by other periampullary neoplasms (OP). Surgical and postoperative outcomes between PC and OP were compared.

RESULTS

Thirty-one patients (15 PC and 16 OP) were selected. No difference was found between PC and OP in terms of baseline characteristics. Median resection time and overall surgical time of the entire cohort were 275 min and 530 min, respectively, without difference between the groups (p = 0.599 and 0.052, respectively). Blood loss was similar between the groups, being 350 ml in PC and 325 ml in OP (p = 0.762). One patient (3.2%) was converted to laparotomy. No difference was found between the groups in terms of pathological outcomes. Median number of retrieved lymph nodes was 17. The majority of the patients (83.9%) received an R0 resection (73.3% and 93.7% in PC and OP, respectively; p = 0.172). Postoperative surgical outcomes did not differ between the groups, excepting for overall complication rate that was higher in the OP group (26.7% vs 68.7% in PC and OP, respectively; p = 0.032).

CONCLUSION

Standardized right artery first approach during LPD was feasible and did not show worse surgical and postoperative outcomes in patients with pancreatic cancer as compared to those affected by other periampullary neoplasms, except for a higher rate of minor complications.

Feasibility of "cold" triangle robotic pancreatoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

Triangle pancreatoduodenectomy adds to the conventional procedure the en bloc removal of the retroperitoneal lympho-neural tissue included in the triangular area bounded by the common hepatic artery (CHA), the superior mesenteric artery (SMA), and the superior mesenteric vein/portal vein. We herein aim to show the feasibility of "cold" triangle robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (C-Tr-RPD) for pancreatic cancer (PDAC).

METHODS

Cold dissection corresponds to sharp arterial divestment performed using only the tips of robotic scissors. After division of the gastroduodenal artery, triangle dissection begins by lateral-to-medial divestment of the CHA and anterior-to-posterior clearance of the right side of the celiac trunk. Next, after a wide Kocher maneuver, the origin of the SMA, and the celiac trunk are identified. After mobilization of the first jejunal loop and attached mesentery, the SMA is identified at the level of the first jejunal vein and is divested along the right margin working in a distal-to-proximal direction. Vein resection and reconstruction can be performed as required. C-Tr-RPD was considered feasible if triangle dissection was successfully completed without conversion to open surgery or need to use energy devices. Postoperative complications and pathology results are presented in detail.

RESULTS

One hundred twenty-seven consecutive C-Tr-RPDs were successfully performed. There were three conversions to open surgery (2.3%), because of pneumoperitoneum intolerance (n = 2) and difficult digestive reconstruction. Thirty-four patients (26.7%) required associated vascular procedures. No pseudoaneurysm of the gastroduodenal artery was observed. Twenty-eight patients (22.0%) developed severe postoperative complications (≥ grade III). Overall 90-day mortality was 7.1%, declining to 2.3% after completion of the learning curve. The median number of examined lymph nodes was 42 (33-51). The rate of R1 resection (7 margins < 1 mm) was 44.1%.

CONCLUSION

C-Tr-RPD is feasible, carries a risk of surgical complications commensurate to the magnitude of the procedure, and improves staging of PDAC.

Comparing Minimally Invasive and Open Pancreaticoduodenectomy for the Treatment of Pancreatic Cancer: a Win Ratio Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Despite its rising adoption, the use of minimally invasive (MIS) pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) in the treatment of pancreatic cancer remains controversial. We sought to compare MIS and open PD for pancreatic cancer resection in terms of short-term, long-term, and oncologic outcomes using the win ratio, a novel statistical approach.

METHODS

Patients undergoing PD for pancreatic adenocarcinoma 2010-2016 were identified from the National Cancer Database (NCDB). Patients were paired based on age, sex, race, tumor size, Charlson-Deyo score, and receipt of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The win ratio was calculated based on 30-day and 3-year mortality, receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy, surgical margin status, examination of at least 11 lymph nodes, extended length of stay, and 30-day readmission.

RESULTS

Among 18,936 patients, median age was 67 (IQR: 60-74); most patients had stage II disease at diagnosis (n = 16,530, 87.3%) and tumor size ≥ 2 cm (n = 15,880, 83.9%). The majority of patients underwent open PD (n = 16,409, 86.7%) versus MIS PD (n = 2527, 13.3%). For every matched patient-patient pair, the odds of the patient undergoing MIS PD "winning" were 1.14 (95%CI 1.13-1.15) higher versus open PD. The benefits of MIS PD were most pronounced among patients with tumor size < 2 cm (WR 1.21, 95%CI 1.13-1.30 versus ≥ 2 cm, WR 1.13, 95%CI 1.12-1.14) and patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy prior to resection (WR 1.28, 95%CI 1.23-1.32 versus no neoadjuvant chemotherapy, WR 1.13, 95%CI 1.11-1.14).

CONCLUSIONS

MIS PD may be preferable to open PD based on a hierarchical composite outcome that considered short-term, long-term, and oncologic outcomes.

Reduced-port robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: a single-surgeon experience

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Multiple-port robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) has been increasingly used as an alternative to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) in pancreatic cancer. However, the comparative safety and efficacy of reduced-port RPD versus OPD are unknown.

METHODS

This was a prospective cohort study comprising adult patients who underwent reduced-port RPD (single-port or single-site plus one port) or OPD for malignant tumors of the pancreas and periampullary region from July 2015 to October 2020 at a single center. We collected data on the patient demographics, perioperative results, oncologic outcomes, and one-year survival.

RESULTS

Forty-five patients underwent reduced-port RPD, and 13 underwent OPD. There were no significant differences in the age, sex, body mass index, ASA score, tumor location, or occurrences of postoperative complications between the two groups. Compared with OPD, reduced-port RPD was associated with less blood loss (300 ml [95% confidence interval {CI} 155-700] vs. 650 ml [95% CI 300-850], p value = 0.11) but a longer operative time (325 min [95% CI 290-370] vs. 215 min [95% CI 180-270], p value < 0.001). Compared with patients who underwent OPD, patients who underwent reduced-port RPD had a higher 1-year survival rate (68% [95% CI 49-81] vs. 22% [95% CI 3-51], log-rank, p value = 0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

Reduced-port RPD can be safely performed in experienced surgeons and is associated with better perioperative and oncologic outcomes than OPD.

International Expert Consensus on Precision Anatomy for minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy: PAM-HBP Surgery Project

BACKGROUND

Surgical views with high resolution and magnification have enabled us to recognize the precise anatomical structures that can be used as landmarks during minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP). This study aimed to validate the usefulness of anatomy-based approaches for MIDP before and during the Expert Consensus Meeting: Precision Anatomy for Minimally Invasive HBP Surgery (February 24, 2021).

METHODS

Twenty-five international MIDP experts developed clinical questions regarding surgical anatomy and approaches for MIDP. Studies identified via a comprehensive literature search were classified using Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network methodology. Online Delphi voting was conducted after experts had drafted the recommendations, with the goal of obtaining >75% consensus. Experts discussed the revised recommendations in front of the validation committee and an international audience of 384 attendees. Finalized recommendations were made after a second round of online Delphi voting.

RESULTS

Four clinical questions were addressed, resulting in 10 recommendations. All recommendations reached at least a 75% consensus among experts.

CONCLUSIONS

The expert consensus on precision anatomy for MIDP has been presented as a set of recommendations based on available evidence and expert opinions. These recommendations should guide experts and trainees in performing safe MIDP and foster its appropriate dissemination worldwide.

Surgical approaches to the superior mesenteric artery during minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) has recently been safely performed by experts, and various methods for resection have been reported. This review summarizes the literature describing surgical approaches for MIPD.

METHODS

A systematic literature search of PubMed (MEDLINE) was conducted for studies reporting robotic and laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy; the reference lists of review articles were searched. Of 444 articles yielded, 23 manuscripts describing the surgical approach to dissect around the superior mesenteric artery (SMA), including hand-searched articles, were assessed.

RESULTS

Various approaches to dissect around the SMA have been reported. These approaches were categorized according to the direction toward the SMA when initiating dissection around the SMA: anterior approach (two articles), posterior approach (four articles), right approach (16 articles), and left approach (three articles). Thus, many reports used the right approach. Most articles provided a technical description. Some articles showed the advantage of their method in a comparison study. However, these were single-center retrospective studies with a small sample size.

CONCLUSIONS

Various approaches for MIPD have been reported; however, few authors have reported the advantage of their methods compared to other methods. Further discussion is needed to clarify the appropriate surgical approach to the SMA during MIPD.

International expert consensus on precision anatomy for minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy: PAM-HBP surgery project

BACKGROUND

The anatomical structure around the pancreatic head is very complex and it is important to understand its precise anatomy and corresponding anatomical approach to safely perform minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD). This consensus statement aimed to develop recommendations for elucidating the anatomy and surgical approaches to MIPD.

METHODS

Studies identified via a comprehensive literature search were classified using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network method. Delphi voting was conducted after experts had drafted recommendations, with a goal of obtaining >75% consensus. Experts discussed the revised recommendations with the validation committee and an international audience of 384 attendees. Finalized recommendations were made after a second round of online Delphi voting.

RESULTS

Three clinical questions were addressed, providing six recommendations. All recommendations reached at least a consensus of 75%. Preoperatively evaluating the presence of anatomical variations and superior mesenteric artery (SMA) and superior mesenteric vein (SMV) branching patterns was recommended. Moreover, it was recommended to fully understand the anatomical approach to SMA and intraoperatively confirm the SMA course based on each anatomical landmark before initiating dissection.

CONCLUSIONS

MIPD experts suggest that surgical trainees perform resection based on precise anatomical landmarks for safe and reliable MIPD.

The long-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for ampullary carcinoma showed similar survival: a case-matched comparative study

BACKGROUND

Few studies have compared the oncological benefit of laparoscopic (LPD) and open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) for ampullary carcinoma. The aim of this study was to compare the oncological results of these two approaches.

METHODS

Between 2011 and 2020, 103 patients who underwent PD for ampullary carcinoma, including 31 LPD and 72 OPD, were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were matched on a 1:2 basis for age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anaesthesiologists score, and preoperative biliary drainage. Short- and long-term outcomes of LPD and OPD were compared.

RESULTS

The 31 LPD were matched (1:2) to 62 OPD. LPD was associated with a shorter operative time (298 vs. 341 min, p = 0.02) than OPD and similar blood loss (361 vs. 341 mL, p = 0.747), but with more intra- and post-operative transfusions (29 vs. 8%, p = 0.008). There was no significant difference in postoperative mortality (6 vs. 2%), grades B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula (22 vs. 21%), delayed gastric emptying (23 vs. 35%), bleeding (22 vs. 11%), Clavien ≥ III morbidity (22 vs. 19%), or the length of hospital stay (26 vs. 21 days) between LPD and OPD, respectively, but there were more reinterventions (22 vs. 5%, p = 0.009). Pathological characteristics were similar for tumor size (21 vs. 22 mm), well differentiated tumors (41 vs. 38%), the number of harvested (23 vs. 26) or invaded lymph nodes (48 vs. 52%), R0 resection (84 vs. 90%), and other subtypes (T1/2, T3/4, phenotype). With a comparable mean follow-up (41 vs. 37 months, p = 0.59), there was no difference in 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall (p = 0.725) or recurrence-free survival (p = 0.155) which were (93, 74, 67% vs. 97, 79, 76%) and (85, 58, 58% vs. 90, 73, 73%), respectively.

CONCLUSION

This study showed a similar long-term oncological results between LPD and OPD for ampullary carcinoma. However, the higher morbidity observed with LPD compared to OPD, restricting its use to experienced centers.

Comparison of robotic and open pancreaticoduodenectomy for primary nonampullary duodenal adenocarcinoma: a retrospective cohort study

PURPOSE

Robotic surgery has been increasingly applied in pancreatic surgery and showed many advantages over conventional open surgery. The robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) is a surgical option for primary nonampullary duodenal adenocarcinoma (PNDA). However, whether RPD is superior to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) for PNDA has not been reported. The comparative study was designed to analyze the short- and long-term outcomes of RPD versus OPD on patients with PNDA.

METHODS

Demographics, perioperative, and survival outcomes among patients who underwent RPD (n = 49) versus OPD (n = 43) for PNDAs between January 2013 and March 2018 were collected and analyzed RESULTS: Demographic characteristics were comparable between the RPD group and the OPD group. The RPD group demonstrated a decreased estimated blood loss (100 vs. 200 ml, p < 0.001), time to oral intake (4.0 vs. 4.0 days, p = 0.04), and postoperative hospital stay (12.9 vs. 15.0 days, p = 0.01) compared with the OPD group. However, no differences were observed between the two groups in terms of operative time and the rates of major complications, grade B and C POPF, PPH, grade B and C DGE, biliary fistular, reoperation, and 90-day readmission. No patient died within 90 days. There were no significant differences in tumor size, differentiation, TNM stage, number of harvested lymph nodes, and the rates of nerve invasion, lymph node invasion, R0 resection, and the median overall survival between the two groups (p > 0.05) CONCLUSIONS: RPD is a safe, feasible, and effective treatment for PNDA compared with OPD and can be used as an alternative for surgeons in the treatment of PNDA. Further multicenter randomized controlled trials are needed to evaluate the effectiveness of RPD in patients with PNDA.

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic head cancer and periampullary lesions

Pancreaticoduodenectomy, so-called "Whipple operation," is a time-consuming and technically demanding complex operation. Traditionally, this procedure has been performed most usually by open approach, which results in a large and painful wound. With the introduction of laparoscopic and robotic surgery, minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has emerged as a worldwide trend to improve wound cosmesis and to minimize wound pain. Although MIS for pancreaticoduodenectomy has also been attempted at some centers, the role of MIS, either robotic or laparoscopic approach, has not been well-established for complex pancreaticoduodenectomy. Given that laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy has been limited by its technical complexity and the high level of advanced laparoscopic skills required for pancreatic reconstruction, a robotic surgical system is introduced to overcome several limitations related to the laparoscopic approach. Providing high-quality three-dimensional (3-D) vision, high optical magnification, articulation of robotic instruments, greater precision with suture targeting, and elimination of surgeon tremor, robotic surgical systems innovatively perform more delicate and complex procedures involving extensive dissection and suturing techniques such as pancreaticoduodenectomy. Although associated with longer operative time, robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) has been claimed to have the benefits of less delayed gastric emptying, less blood loss, shorter length of postoperative stay, and lower wound infection rate, as compared with the traditional open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD). Moreover, RPD seems to be not only technically feasible but also justified without compromising the survival outcomes for pancreatic head and ampullary adenocarcinomas. Therefore, RPD could be recommended not only to surgeons but also to patients in terms of surgical feasibility, surgical outcomes, and patient satisfaction.

The standardized technique and surgical video of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy at the Chinese PLA General Hospital

The technical complexity of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) and lack of technical surgical standardization have slowed its widespread application. RPD is only routinely performed in a few highly specialized centers. This study describes in detail the standard steps and core techniques of an experienced robotic center in China. We took advantage of our single experience to provide a step-by-step technique and surgical video of our RPD standardized procedure. We divided RPD into 18 key steps. Demographics and perioperative outcomes of consecutive 20 patients who underwent the RPD standardized procedure were analyzed. For the 20 consecutive patients, the mean operative time was 253.6 min, and the median estimated blood loss was 210.0 mL. One patient required conversion to laparotomy due to the need for PV reconstruction. One patient had grade 3 complication. The median postoperative hospital stay was 11.0 days. No 90-day mortality was observed. By simplifying and optimizing the surgical techniques, the RPD procedure can be standardized and modeled to improve feasibility and repeatability.

Robotic pancreas surgery: an overview of history and update on technique, outcomes, and financials

The use robotics in surgery is gaining momentum. This approach holds substantial promise in pancreas surgery. Robotic surgery for pancreatic lesions and malignancies has become well accepted and is expanding to more and more center annually. The number of centers using robotics in pancreatic surgery is rapidly increasing. The most studied robotic pancreas surgeries are pancreaticoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy. Most studies are in their early phases, but they report that robotic pancreas surgery is safe feasible. Robotic pancreas surgery offers several advantages over open and laparoscopic techniques. Data regarding costs of robotics versus conventional techniques is still lacking. Robotic pancreas surgery is still in its early stages. It holds promise to become the new surgical standard for pancreatic resections in the future, however, more research is still needed to establish its safety, cost effectiveness and efficacy in providing the best outcomes.

Perioperative Outcomes of Robotic Pancreaticoduodenectomy: a Propensity-Matched Analysis to Open and Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy

INTRODUCTION

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy is slowly gaining acceptance within pancreatic surgery. Advantages have been demonstrated for robotic surgery in other fields, but robust data for pancreaticoduodenectomy is limited. The aim of this study was to compare the short-term outcomes of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) and laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD).

METHODS

Patients who underwent a pancreaticoduodenectomy between January 2011 and July 2019 at the Johns Hopkins Hospital were included in this retrospective propensity-matched analysis. The RPD cohort was matched to patients who underwent OPD in a 1:2 fashion and LPD in a 1:1 fashion. Short-term outcomes were analyzed for all three cohorts.

RESULTS

In total, 1644 patients were included, of which 96 (5.8%) underwent RPD, 131 (8.0%) LPD, and 1417 (86.2%) OPD. RPD was associated with a decreased incidence of delayed gastric emptying (9.4%) compared to OPD (23.5%; P = 0.006). The median estimated blood loss was significantly less in the RPD cohort (RPD vs OPD, 150 vs 487 mL; P < 0.001, RPD vs LPD, 125 vs 300 mL; P < 0.001). Compared to OPD, the robotic approach was associated with a shorter median length of stay (median 8 vs 9 days; P = 0.014) and a decrease in wound complications (4.2% vs 16.7%; P = 0.002). The incidence of other postoperative complications was comparable between RPD and OPD, and RPD and LPD.

CONCLUSION

In the hands of experienced surgeons, RPD may have a modest yet statistically significant reduction in estimated blood loss, postoperative length of stay, wound complications, and delayed gastric emptying comparing to OPD in similar patients.

State of the art of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy

Current evidence shows that robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) is feasible with a safety profile equivalent to either open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) or laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD). However, major intraoperative bleeding can occur and emergency conversion to OPD may be required. RPD reduces the risk of emergency conversion when compared to LPD. The learning curve of RPD ranges from 20 to 40 procedures, but proficiency is reached only after 250 operations. Once proficiency is achieved, the results of RPD may be superior to those of OPD. As for now, RPD is at least equivalent to OPD and LPD with respect to incidence and severity of POPF, incidence and severity of post-operative complications, and post-operative mortality. A minimal annual number of 20 procedures per center is recommended. In pancreatic cancer (versus OPD), RPD is associated with similar rates of R0 resections, but higher number of examined lymph nodes, lower blood loss, and lower need of blood transfusions. Multivariable analysis shows that RPD could improve patient survival. Data from selected centers show that vein resection and reconstruction is feasible during RPD, but at the price of high conversion rates and frequent use of small tangential resections. The true Achilles heel of RPD is higher operative costs that limit wider implementation of the procedure and accumulation of a large experience at most single centers. In conclusion, when proficiency is achieved, RPD may be superior to OPD with respect to CR-POPF and oncologic outcomes. Achievement of proficiency requires commitment, dedication, and truly high volumes.

Feasibility and safety of robotic-assisted total pancreatectomy: a pilot western series

This study was designed to demonstrate non-inferiority of robot-assisted total pancreatectomy (RATP) to open total pancreatectomy (OPT) based on an intention-to-treat analysis, having occurrence of severe post-operative complications (SPC) as primary study endpoint. The two groups were matched (2:1) by propensity scores. Assuming a rate of SPC of 22.5% (non-inferiority margin: 15%; α: 0.05; β: 0.20; power: 80%), a total of 25 patients were required per group. During the study period (October 2008–December 2019), 209 patients received a total pancreatectomy. After application of exclusion and inclusion criteria, matched groups were extracted from an overall cohort of 132 patients (OPT: 107; RATP: 25). Before matching, the two groups were different with respect to prevalence of cardiac disease (24.3% versus 4.0%; p = 0.03), presence of jaundice (45.8% versus 12.0%; p = 0.002), presence of a biliary drainage (23.4% versus 0; p  = 0.004), history of weight loss (28.0% versus 8.0%; p = 0.04), and vein involvement (55.1% versus 28.0%) (p = 0.03). After matching, the two groups (OTP: 50; RATP: 25) were well balanced. Regarding primary study endpoint, SPC developed in 13 patients (26.0%) after OTP and in 6 patients (24.0%) after RATP (p = 0.85). Regarding secondary study endpoints, RATP was associated with longer median operating times [475 (408.8–582.5) versus 585 min (525–637.5) p = 0.003]. After a median follow-up time of 23.7 months (10.4–71), overall survival time [22.6 (11.2–81.2) versus NA (27.3–NA) p = 0.006] and cancer-specific survival [22.6 (11.2–NA) versus NA (27.3–NA) p = 0.02] were improved in patients undergoing RATP. In carefully selected patients, robot-assisted total pancreatectomy is non-inferior to open total pancreatectomy regarding occurrence of severe post-operative complications.

500 Minimally Invasive Robotic Pancreatoduodenectomies: One Decade of Optimizing Performance

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to present the outcomes of our decade-long experience of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy and provide insights into successful program implementation.

BACKGROUND

Despite significant improvement in mortality over the past 30 years, morbidity following open pancreatoduodenectomy remains high. We implemented a minimally invasive pancreatic surgery program based on the robotic platform as one potential method of improving outcomes for this operation.

METHODS

A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained institutional database was performed to identify patients who underwent robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) between 2008 and 2017 at the University of Pittsburgh.

RESULTS

In total, 500 consecutive RPDs were included. Operative time, conversion to open, blood loss, and clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula improved early in the experience and have remained low despite increasing complexity of case selection as reflected by increasing number of patients with pancreatic cancer, vascular resections, and higher Charlson Comorbidity scores (all P<0.05). Operating room time plateaued after 240 cases at a median time of 391 minutes (interquartile rang 340-477). Major complications (Clavien >2) occurred in less than 24%, clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula in 7.8%, 30- and 90-day mortality were 1.4% and 3.1% respectively, and median length of stay was 8 days. Outcomes were not impacted by integration of trainees or expansion of selection criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

Structured implementation of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy can be associated with excellent outcomes. In the largest series of RPD, we establish benchmarks for the surgical community to consider when adopting this approach.

The outcome of laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy is improved with patient selection and the learning curve

BACKGROUND

In our first experience, laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) was associated with higher morbidity than open PD. Since, the surgical technique has been improved and LPD was avoided in some patients at very high risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF). We provide our most recent results.

METHOD

Between 2011 and 2018, 130 LPD were performed and divided into 3 consecutive periods based on CUSUM analysis and compared: first period (n = 43), second period (n = 43), and third period (n = 44).

RESULTS

In the third period of this study, LPD was more frequently performed in women (46%, 39%, 59%, p = 0.21) on dilated Wirsung duct > 3 mm (40%, 44%, 57%; p = 0.54). Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) became the primary indication (12%, 39%, 34%; p = 0.037) compared to pancreatic adenocarcinoma (35%, 16%, 16%; p = 0.004). Malignant ampulloma re-increased during the third period (30%, 9%, 20%; p = 0.052) with the amelioration of surgical technique. The operative time increased during the second period and decreased during the third period (330, 345, 270; p < 0.001) with less blood loss (300, 200, 125; p < 0.001). All complications decreased, including POPF grades B/C (44%, 28%, 20%; p = 0.017), bleeding (28%, 21%, 14%; p = 0.26), Clavien-Dindo III-IV (40%, 33%, 16%; p = 0.013), re-interventions (19%, 14%, 9%; p = 0.43), and the hospital stay (26, 19, 18; p = 0.045). Less patients with similar-sized adenocarcinoma were operated during the second period (70%, 33%, 59%; p = 0.002) with more harvested lymph nodes in the third period (21,19, 25; p = 0.031) and higher R0 resection (70%, 79%, 84%; p = 0.5). On multivariate analysis the protective factors against POPF of grades B/C were pancreatic adenocarcinoma and invasive IPMN, BMI < 22.5 kg/m², and patients operated in the third period.

CONCLUSION

This study showed that the outcome of LPD significantly improves with the learning curve and patient selection. For safe implementation and during the early learning period, LPD should be indicated in patients at lower risk of POPF.

Learning curve of three European centers in laparoscopic, hybrid laparoscopic, and robotic pancreatoduodenectomy

INTRODUCTION

There are limited numbers of high-volume centers performing minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) routinely. Several approaches to MIPD have been described. Aim of this analysis was to show the learning curve of three different approaches to MIPD. Focus was on determining the number of cases necessary to obtain proficient level in MIPD.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Retrospective study wherein outcomes of 300 consecutive patients at three centers-at each center the initial 100 consecutive patients undergoing MIPD for malignant and benign tumors of the head of the pancreas and perimpullary area, performed by three experienced surgeons were collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

Overall, 300 patients after MIPD were included: the three different cohorts (laparoscopic n = 100, hybrid n = 100, robotic n = 100). CUSUM analysis of operating time in each center demonstrated that the plateau for laparoscopic PD was n = 61, for hybrid PDes was n = 32 and for robotic PD was n = 68. Median operative time for laparoscopic, hybrid, and robotic approaches was 395 min, 404 min, 510 min, respectively. Intraoperative blood loss for laparoscopic PD, hybrid PD, and robotic PD was 250 ml, 250 ml, and 413 ml, respectively. Delayed gastric emptying occurred 12% in laparoscopic cohort, 10% in hybrid, and 53% in robotic cohort. Major complications (Clavien-Dindo III/IV) rate for laparoscopic PD, hybrid PD, and robotic PD was 32%, 37%, and 22% with 5% death in each cohorts, respectively.

CONCLUSION

This analysis of the learning curve of three European centers found a shorter learning curve with hybrid PD as compared to laparoscopic and robotic PD. In implementation of a MIPD program, a stepwise approach might be beneficial.

Propensity score-matched comparison of the oncological feasibility and survival outcomes for pancreatic adenocarcinoma with robotic and open pancreatoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

This study is to clarify the feasibility of and justification for robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

METHODS

A 1-to-1 propensity score-matched comparison of RPD and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) was performed based on six covariates commonly used to predict the survival outcome for pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

RESULTS

A total of 130 patients were enrolled, with 65 in each study group after propensity score matching. The median operating time was longer for RPD (8.3 h vs. 7.0 h, P = 0.002). However, RPD was associated with less blood loss, lower overall surgical complication rate, and lower incidence of delayed gastric emptying. The resection radicality was oncologically similar between these two groups, but the median lymph node yield was higher for RPD (18 vs. 16, P = 0.038). Before propensity score matching, the 5-year survival was better in RPD (27.0% vs. 17.6%, P = 0.006). After matching, there was still a trend towards improved overall survival in the RPD group; however, the difference in 5-year survival between RPD and OPD was not significant (24.5% vs. 19.7%, P = 0.088).

CONCLUSION

RPD is not only technically feasible with no increase in surgical risk but also oncologically justifiable without compromising survival outcome. However, unlike randomized control trials, the limitations in this propensity score-matched analysis only accounted for 6 observed covariates commonly used to predict the survival outcome in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma, and confounders not included in this study could also affect our results.

Minimally invasive versus open radical resection surgery for hilar cholangiocarcinoma: Comparable outcomes associated with advantages of minimal invasiveness

Background

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) provides a new approach for patients with hilar cholangiocarcinoma (HCCA). However, whether it can achieve similar outcomes to traditional open surgery (OS) remains controversial.

Methods

To assess the safety and feasibility of MIS for HCCA, a systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to compare the outcomes of MIS with OS. Seventeen outcomes were assessed.

Results

Nine studies involving 382 patients were included. MIS was comparable in blood transfusion rate, R0 resection rate, lymph nodes received, overall morbidity, severe morbidity (Clavien–Dindo classification > = 3), bile leakage rate, wound infection rate, intra-abdominal infection rate, days until oral feeding, 1-year overall survival, 2-year overall survival and postoperative mortality with OS. Although operation time was longer (mean difference (MD) = 93.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 64.10 to 122.91, P < 0.00001) and hospital cost (MD = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.03 to 1.33, P = 0.04) was higher in MIS, MIS was associated with advantages of minimal invasiveness, that was less blood loss (MD = -81.85, 95% CI = -92.09 to -71.62, P < 0.00001), less postoperative pain (MD = -1.21, 95% CI = -1.63 to -0.79, P < 0.00001), and shorter hospital stay (MD = -4.22, 95% CI = -5.65 to -2.80, P < 0.00001).

Conclusions

The safety and feasibility of MIS for HCCA is acceptable in selected patients. MIS is a remarkable alternative to OS for providing comparable outcomes associated with a benefit of minimal invasiveness and its application should be considered more.

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.

Cost Analysis of Pancreaticoduodenectomy at a High-Volume Robotic Hepatopancreaticobiliary Surgery Program

BACKGROUND

The robotic approach to pancreaticoduodenectomy is thought by many to be associated with increased financial burden for hospitals. We undertook this study to analyze and compare the cost of "open" pancreaticoduodenectomy with that associated with the application of the robotic surgical system to pancreaticoduodenectomy in our hepatobiliary program.

STUDY DESIGN

With IRB approval, all patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy at our institution, from August 2012 to November 2019, were prospectively followed. Cost, including total, variable, fixed-direct, fixed-indirect, and profitability for robotic and "open" pancreaticoduodenectomy were analyzed and compared. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD).

RESULTS

There were 386 patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy; 205 patients underwent robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy and 181 underwent "open" pancreaticoduodenectomy. Costs are presented as mean ± SD. Overall, the cost of care for robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy was $31,389 ($36,611 ± $20,545.40) vs $23,132 ($31,323 ± $28,885.50) for "open" pancreaticoduodenectomy (p = 0.04); total variable cost was $20,355 ($22,747 ± $11,127.60) vs $11,680 ($16,032 ± $14,817.20) (p = 0.01), total fixed direct cost was $1,999 ($2,330 ± $1,363.10) vs $2,073 ($2,983 ± $3,209.00) (p = 0.01), and total indirect cost was $7,217 ($9,354 ± $6,802.40) vs $6,802 ($9,505 ± $9,307.20) (p = 0.86), for robotic vs "open" pancreaticoduodenectomy, respectively. Since 2016, profitability was achieved in 29% of patients undergoing robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy had lower estimated blood loss and shorter length of stay. Cost of care for robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy was greater across all categories, except for total indirect cost, than "open" pancreaticoduodenectomy. For our institution, profitability was accomplished in less than one-third of patients undergoing robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. The role of the robotic platform for pancreaticoduodenectomy needs to be discussed among all stakeholders.

Major robotic hepatectomies: technical considerations

Robotic approach to the liver may allow to perform difficult resections with a minimally invasive strategy in an easier way as compared to standard laparoscopy. The aim of this study is to review our experience with robotic major hepatectomies, reporting technical considerations, and describing the outcomes of patients that underwent either left (LRH) or right robotic hepatectomy (RRH). Our prospectively maintained database was screened to identify all patients that received a major liver resection for benign or malignant disease. Preoperative data and postoperative short-term and long-term outcomes were reported. 261 robotic procedures were performed in our Center between May 2014 and October 2020. 12 patients underwent robotic left hepatectomy (RLH) and 10 patients were treated by robotic right hepatectomy (RRH). In the RLH group, median operative time (OT) was 383 min, median estimated blood loss (EBL) was 300 ml, and median in-hospital stay was of 3 days. In the RRH group, median OT was 490 min, median EBL 725 ml, and median hospital stay was 5 days. Although one of the advantages of minimally invasive surgery is to obtain radical resections with parenchyma sparing strategies, patients that need a major hepatectomy may benefit of a robotic resection with good postoperative outcomes. Team learning curve and growth instead of personal progression is crucial to expand the limits of novel surgical techniques.

Robotic vs open distal pancreatectomy: A multi-institutional matched comparison analysis

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic surgery is still a challenge even in high-volume centers. Clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) represents the greatest contributor to major morbidity and mortality, especially following pancreatic distal resection. In this study, we compared robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) to open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) in terms of CR-POPF development and analyzed oncologic efficacy of RDP in the subgroup of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).

METHODS

We collected data from five high-volume centers for pancreatic surgery and performed a matched comparison analysis to compare short and long-term outcomes after ODP or RDP. Patients were matched with a 2:1 ratio according to age, ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) score, body mass index (BMI), final pathology, and TNM (Tumour, Node, Metastasis) staging system VIII ed.

RESULTS

Two hundred and forty-six patients who underwent 82 RDPs and 164 ODPs were included. No differences were found in the incidence of CR-POPF. In the PDAC group, median DFS and OS were 10.8 months and 14.8 months in the ODP group and 10.4 months and 15 months in the RDP group, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic distal pancreatectomy is a safe surgical strategy for PDAC and incidence of CR-POPF is equivalent between RDP and ODP. RDP should be considered equivalent to ODP in terms of oncological efficacy when performed in high-volume and proficient centers.

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.

Totally laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: A propensity score matching analysis of short-term outcomes

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) is a demanding operation that has not yet gained popularity. Safety, feasibility, and clinical advantages of LPD in comparison with open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) have not been clearly demonstrated. The aim of this study was to compare the short term outcomes of LPD with those of OPD.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Data from a prospectively collected database of patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy at our institution between January 2013 and March 2020 were retrieved and analyzed, comparing the short-term postoperative outcomes of LPD and OPD, using a propensity score matching analysis.

RESULTS

In the study period, 177 patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy were selected, 52 of these were LPD. In the LPD group, the conversion rate to OPD was 3.8%. After matching, a total of 50 LPD and 50 OPD were compared. LPD was associated with a shorter length of stay (14 vs 20 days, p = 0.011), decreased blood loss (255 vs 350 ml, p = 0.022), but longer median operative time (590 vs 382.5 min; p < 0.001). No significant difference was found between LPD and OPD in terms of overall complications (56% vs 62%, p = 0.542), severe complications (26% vs 22%, p = 0.640), and postoperative mortality (4% vs 6%, p = 0.646). The groups had similar reoperation rate, pancreatic-specific complications, and readmission rate.

CONCLUSIONS

In comparison with the open approach, LPD seems associated to with improved short-term outcomes in terms of hospital stay and blood loss, but with a longer operative time. No difference in morbidity and mortality rate were found in our series.

Transition from open and laparoscopic to robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy in a UK tertiary referral hepatobiliary and pancreatic centre - Early experience of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

Pancreaticoduodenectomy is performed using an open technique (OPD) as the gold standard. An increase in those performed laparoscopically (LPD) and robotically (RPD) are now reported. We compared the short-term outcomes of RPD cases with LPD and OPD.

METHODS

A retrospective review of a prospectively collected database was undertaken of our first consecutive RPD, our first LPD and consecutive OPD cases. Those requiring venous and/or arterial resection were excluded.

RESULTS

RPD (n = 25) had longer median operating times (461 (IQR 358-564) mins) than LPD (n = 41) (330 (IQR 262.5-397.5) mins) and OPD (n = 37) (330 (IQR 257-403) mins, p < 0.0001). Estimated blood loss and transfusion requirement was less after RPD and LPD compared to OPD (p = 0.012 and p < 0.0001 respectively). No RPD cases required conversion to open operation compared to 24.4% of LPD. Morbidity was comparable with a Clavien Dindo score ≥3 in 20.00%, 24.39% and 18.92% for RPD, LPD and OPD respectively (p = 0.83). Post-operative pancreatic fistula rates were seen in 16.00%, 29.27% and 21.62% of our RPD, LPD and OPD cohorts respectively (p = 0.81). 90-day mortality was seen in 0.97% of the total cohort. Length of hospital stay (LOS) was shorter for RPD compared to both LPD (p = 0.030) and OPD (p = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

RPD is safe to perform with comparable outcomes to LPD and OPD. Further evidence is provided that a randomised controlled trial for PD techniques is required.

Robotic and open pancreaticoduodenectomy: results from Taipei Veterans General Hospital in Taiwan

This study is to clarify the feasibility and justification of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) by comparing the outcomes between RPD and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) groups. All perioperative data and outcomes were prospectively collected. There were 304 (63.9%) RPD and 172 (36.1%) OPD. The median operation time was longer in RPD group than OPD (7.5 vs 7.0 h). The blood loss was much lower in RPD group, with a median of 130 vs. 400 c.c. in OPD group. Based on Clavien-Dindo classification, grade 0 (no complication) was 51.8% in RPD group, higher than 43.2% in OPD. Delayed gastric emptying was only 3.5% in RPD group, much lower than 13.6% in OPD. Wound infection rate was also lower in RPD group, 3.2% vs. 7.7% in OPD. The postoperative hospital stay was shorter in RPD group, with a median of 20 days, vs. 24 days in OPD. There was no significant difference regarding the lymph node yield, surgical mortality, postoperative pancreatic fistula, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage, chyle leakage and bile leakage between RPD and OPD groups. For pancreatic head adenocarcinoma, the survival outcome was better in RPD group, with 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year survival of 82.9%, 45.3%, and 26.8% respectively, as compared with 63.8%, 26.2%, and 17.4% in OPD. RPD is not only feasible but also justified without increasing the surgical risks and compromising the survival outcomes. Moreover, RPD might provide benefits of less blood loss, less delayed gastric emptying, lower wound infection rate and shorter length of postoperative stay, as compared with OPD.

Additional modifications to the Blumgart pancreaticojejunostomy: Results of a propensity score-matched analysis versus Cattel-Warren pancreaticojejunostomy

BACKGROUND

Postoperative pancreatic fistula continues to occur frequently after pancreatoduodenectomy.

METHODS

We have described a modification of the Blumgart pancreaticojejunostomy. The modification of the Blumgart pancreaticojejunostomy was compared to the Cattel-Warren pancreaticojejunostomy in cohorts of patients matched by propensity scores based on factors predictive of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula, which was the primary endpoint of this study. Based on a noninferiority study design, 95 open pancreatoduodenectomies per group were needed. Feasibility of the modification of the Blumgart pancreaticojejunostomy in robotic pancreatoduodenectomy was also shown. All pancreaticojejunostomies were performed by a single surgeon.

RESULTS

Between October 2011 and May 2019, there were 415 pancreatoduodenectomies with either a Cattel-Warren pancreaticojejunostomy (n = 225) or a modification of the Blumgart pancreaticojejunostomy (n = 190). There was 1 grade C postoperative pancreatic fistula in 190 consecutive modification of the Blumgart pancreaticojejunostomies (0.5%). Logistic regression analysis showed that the rate of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula was not affected by consecutive case number. After exclusion of robotic pancreatoduodenectomies (the Cattel-Warren pancreaticojejunostomy: 82; modification of the Blumgart pancreaticojejunostomy: 66), 267 open pancreatoduodenectomies were left, among which the matching process identified 109 pairs. The modification of the Blumgart pancreaticojejunostomy was shown to be noninferior to the Cattel-Warren pancreaticojejunostomy with respect to clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (11.9% vs 22.9%; odds ratio: 0.46 [0.21-0.93]; P = .03), grade B postoperative pancreatic fistula (11.9% vs 18.3%; P = .18), and grade C postoperative pancreatic fistula (0 vs 4.6%; P = .05) as well as to all secondary study endpoints. The modification of the Blumgart pancreaticojejunostomy was feasible in 66 robotic pancreatoduodenectomies. In this subgroup with 1 conversion to open surgery (1.5%), a clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula occurred after 9 procedures (13.6%) with no case of grade C postoperative pancreatic fistula and a 90-day mortality of 3%.

CONCLUSION

The modification of the Blumgart pancreaticojejunostomy described herein is noninferior to the Cattel-Warren pancreaticojejunostomy in open pancreatoduodenectomy. This technique is also feasible in robotic pancreatoduodenectomy.

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy in elderly and younger patients: A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) has gradually been accepted as it has overcome some of the limitations of laparoscopic surgery. Outcomes following RPD in elderly patients are still uncertain. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and feasibility of RPD in elderly patients.

METHODS

The demographics and perioperative outcomes of a consecutive series of patients who underwent RPD between January 2018 and September 2019, were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were divided into 2 groups: elderly patients (≥75 years) and younger patients (<75 years).

RESULTS

Of 431 patients who were included in this study, 77 were elderly patients and 354 were younger patients. Elderly patients had a significantly higher ASA score than younger patients (P < 0.001). There were no significant differences in operative time, estimated blood loss and blood transfusion rate between groups (P > 0.05). Elderly patients had significantly higher morbidity and longer postoperative hospital stay than younger patients (49.3% vs. 31.1%, P = 0.002; 22.8 vs. 13.3 days, P < 0.001, respectively). However, the reoperation, 90-day readmission and mortality rates were comparable in the two groups (P > 0.05). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that a higher ASA score was the only independent factor for postoperative morbidity (OR 2.02, 95% CI 1.06-3.88, P = 0.03), while old age was not (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.36-1.81, P = 0.80).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated that RDP was safe and feasible in elderly patients. Age should not be a contraindication to RPD. Elderly patients with careful patient selection should be considered for 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.

Current status and future perspectives of minimally invasive surgery in gallbladder carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Gallbladder carcinoma (GBC) is the most common biliary tract malignancy, which is characterized by easy local invasion, lymph nodes metastasis, local vascular invasion. Hence, minimally invasive surgery (MIS) can be performed in a limited number of patients. In our study, we reviewed the current studies on laparoscopic surgery (LS) and robotic surgery (RS) for GBC and analysed the limitations and difficulties of MIS for GBC.

METHODS

Multiple electronic databases were used for a systematic literature retrieval. All studies involving MIS of GBC were included (up to August 2019).

RESULTS

A total of 24 studies were included, of which 18 studies involved LS for GBC and six studies concerned RS of GBC. For LS, 16 studies contained relevant information of T stage, and 323 patients (98.8%) had T3 or lower stage; the average rate of R0 resection, conversion, postoperative complications and mortality was 95.3% (range 80.5-100%), 1.9% (range 0-16.7%), 13.4% (range 0-33.3%) and 1.0% (range 0-10%), respectively. For RS, four studies contained relevant information of T stage, and all patients were T3 or lower stage; the average rate of R0 resection, conversion and postoperative complications was 96.8% (range 81.8-100%), 5.5% (range 0-14.8%) and11.9% (range 0-36.4%), respectively. In addition, no patient had perioperative mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

MIS for GBC is limited to highly selected patients and is considered to be technically feasible in experienced surgeons. However, improvements in technical and instrumental are needed to reduce the associated postoperative complications and implantation metastasis, and to promote MIS in the treatment of GBC.