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

Introduction of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy following phase 2a IDEAL guidelines

BACKGROUND

Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) is a newly introduced procedure, which is still evolving and lacks standardization. An objective assessment is essential to investigate the feasibility of RPD. The current study aimed to assess our initial ten cases of RPD based on IDEAL (Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, and Long-term study) guidelines.

METHODS

This was a prospective phase 2a study following the IDEAL framework. Ten consecutive cases of RPD performed by two surgeons with expertise in open procedures at a single center were assigned to the study. With objective evaluation, each case was classified into four grades according to the achievements of the procedures. Errors observed in the previous case were used to inform the procedure in the next case. The surgical outcomes of the ten cases were reviewed.

RESULTS

The median total operation time was 634 min (interquartile range [IQR], 594-668) with a median resection time of 363 min (IQR, 323-428) and reconstruction time of 123 min (IQR, 107-131). The achievement of the whole procedure was graded as A, "successful", in two patients. In two patients, reconstruction was performed with a mini-laparotomy due to extensive pneumoperitoneum, probably caused by insertion of a liver retractor from the xyphoid. Major postoperative complications occurred in two patients. One patient, in whom the jejunal limb was elevated through the Treitz ligament, had a bowel obstruction and needed to undergo re-laparotomy.

CONCLUSIONS

RPD is feasible when performed by surgeons experienced in open procedures. Specific considerations are needed to safely introduce RPD.

Robotic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy using the first domestic surgical robot platform (the hinotori™ Surgical Robot System): a case report

BACKGROUND

Robotic pancreatectomy has been performed worldwide mainly using the da Vinci® Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical, Inc., Sunnyvale, CA, USA). Recently, because of the death of some patents related to the da Vinci® system, new surgical robot systems have been introduced that are characterized by unique technical refinements. In Japan, the hinotori™ Surgical Robot System (Medicaroid Corporation, Kobe, Japan) was approved for use in gastroenterological surgery in October 2022. Since then, we have attempted complicated procedures using this robot. In this report, we report our first experience performing spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy with conservation of the splenic artery and vein using this first Japanese domestic surgical robot.

CASE PRESENTATION

The patient was a 58-year-old woman with a mass in the pancreatic tail identified during medical screening. Further examinations resulted in a diagnosis of a pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor. The patient consented to surgical resection, and we planned robotic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy with conservation of the splenic artery and vein, using the hinotori™. Five trocars, including one port for the assistant surgeon, were placed in the upper abdomen. The operating unit was rolled in from the patient's right side. The pivot position was set for each robotic arm, and this setting was specific to the hinotori™. The cockpit surgeon performed all surgical procedures, excluding port placement and pancreatic transection. There were no unrecoverable device errors during the operation. The operation time was 531 min, and blood loss was 192 ml. The postoperative course was uneventful. We were able to safely perform this highly complicated surgery for a pancreatic tumor using the first Japanese domestic surgical robot platform.

CONCLUSIONS

The first Japanese domestic surgical robot platform, hinotori™, has different features from those of the da Vinci® and performed sufficiently as a surgical robot system in highly advanced pancreatic surgery.

Robotic distal pancreatectomy using a docking-free system (the hinotori™ Surgical Robot System)

BACKGROUND

Although robotic surgery has rapidly spread in pancreatectomy [1], the procedure is performed by the da Vinci™ Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical Inc., CA), the most common surgical robot in the world [2]. We herein present our first experience of robotic distal pancreatectomy using a new Japanese surgical robot named the hinotori™ Surgical Robot System (Medicaroid Corporation, Kobe, Japan).

METHODS

A 68-year-old man who was found to have the mass lesion in the pancreatic tail in a medical examination. Investigations, including various imaging studies suggested a diagnosis of pancreatic cancer (Fig. 1). The patient was considered for robotic pancreatectomy.

RESULTS

Five trocars, including one port for the assistant surgeon, were placed at the upper abdomen. The operation unit was rolled in from the right side (Fig. 2). The patient successfully underwent robotic distal pancreatectomy combined with dissection of the regional lymph nodes using the hinotori™ system. The cockpit surgeon performed all procedures, excluding port placement, vessel clipping, and transection of the pancreas. There were no unrecoverable device errors in this operation. The total operation time was 473 minutes, and the estimated blood loss was 182 ml. The postoperative course was uneventful, and hospital length of stay was 10 days. Pathological diagnosis was pancreatic cancer, T1N1M0, Stage ⅡB. Adjuvant chemotherapy using S-1 was administered, and he has survived without recurrence for 3 months after the curative resection.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first report of robotic pancreatectomy using the hinotori™ system, which showed the favorable perioperative results. The accumulation of experience and further studies are required to confirm its clinical benefits.

Prospective minimally invasive pancreatic resections from the IGOMIPS registry: a snapshot of daily practice in Italy on 1191 between 2019 and 2022

This retrospective analysis of the prospective IGOMIPS registry reports on 1191 minimally invasive pancreatic resections (MIPR) performed in Italy between 2019 and 2022, including 668 distal pancreatectomies (DP) (55.7%), 435 pancreatoduodenectomies (PD) (36.3%), 44 total pancreatectomies (3.7%), 36 tumor enucleations (3.0%), and 8 central pancreatectomies (0.7%). Spleen-preserving DP was performed in 109 patients (16.3%). Overall incidence of severe complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3) was 17.6% with a 90-day mortality of 1.9%. This registry analysis provided some important information. First, robotic assistance was preferred for all MIPR but DP with splenectomy. Second, robotic assistance reduced conversion to open surgery and blood loss in comparison to laparoscopy. Robotic PD was also associated with lower incidence of severe postoperative complications and a trend toward lower mortality. Fourth, the annual cut-off of ≥ 20 MIPR and ≥ 20 MIPD improved selected outcome measures. Fifth, most MIPR were performed by a single surgeon. Sixth, only two-thirds of the centers performed spleen-preserving DP. Seventh, DP with splenectomy was associated with higher conversion rate when compared to spleen-preserving DP. Eighth, the use of pancreatojejunostomy was the prevalent reconstruction in PD. Ninth, final histology was similar for MIPR performed at high- and low-volume centers, but neoadjuvant chemotherapy was used more frequently at high-volume centers. Finally, this registry analysis raises important concerns about the reliability of R1 assessment underscoring the importance of standardized pathology of pancreatic specimens. In conclusion, MIPR can be safely implemented on a national scale. Further analyses are required to understand nuances of implementation of MIPR in Italy.

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.

Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy on perioperative outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Robotic surgery has become a promising surgical method in minimally invasive pancreatic surgery due to its three-dimensional visualization, tremor filtration, motion scaling, and better ergonomics. Numerous studies have explored the benefits of RDP over LDP in terms of perioperative safety and feasibility, but no consensus has been achieved yet. This article aimed to evaluate the benefits and drawbacks of RDP and LDP for perioperative outcomes. By June 2022, all studies comparing RDP to LDP in the PubMed, the Embase, and the Cochrane Library database were systematically reviewed. According to the heterogeneity, fix or random-effects models were used for the meta-analysis of perioperative outcomes. Odds ratio (OR), weighted mean differences (WMD), and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. A sensitivity analysis was performed to explore potential sources of high heterogeneity and a trim and fill analysis was used to evaluate the impact of publication bias on the pooled results. Thirty-four studies met the inclusion criteria. RDP provides greater benefit than LDP for higher spleen preservation (OR 3.52 95% CI 2.62-4.73, p < 0.0001) and Kimura method (OR 1.93, 95% CI 1.42-2.62, p < 0.0001) in benign and low-grade malignant tumors. RDP is associated with lower conversion to laparotomy (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.33-0.52, p < 0.00001), and shorter postoperative hospital stay (WMD - 0.57, 95% CI - 0.92 to - 0.21, p = 0.002), but it is more costly. In terms of postoperative complications, there was no difference between RDP and LDP except for 30-day mortality (RDP versus LDP, 0.1% versus 1.0%, p = 0.03). With the exception of its high cost, RDP appears to outperform LDP on perioperative outcomes and is technologically feasible and safe. High-quality prospective randomized controlled trials are advised for further confirmation as the quality of the evidence now is not high.