Does robotic distal pancreatectomy surgery offer similar results as laparoscopic and open approach? A comparative study from a single medical center

[Robotic pancreatic surgery]

Robotic operations as a further development of conventional laparoscopic surgery have been introduced for nearly all interventions in visceral surgery during the last decade. They also currently have a high importance and acceptance in pancreatic surgery despite a relevant learning curve and high associated costs. Standard procedures, such as robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) and partial pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) are most frequently performed, whereas extended resections, e.g., vascular reconstructions of the portal vein, are still limited to a small number of centers worldwide. Potential advantages of robotic pancreatic surgery compared to open surgery include, in particular, less blood loss and a faster postoperative recovery of the patients leading to a shorter hospital stay. Compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery, robotic approaches offer advantages with respect to better visualization and three-dimensional dexterity of the instruments; however, the currently published literature comprises only retrospective or prospective observational studies and randomized controlled results are not yet available but first study results in this respect are expected within the next 2-3 years.

ROBOTIC ASSISTED VERSUS LAPAROSCOPIC DISTAL PANCREATECTOMY: A RETROSPECTIVE STUDY

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) is associated with less blood loss and faster functional recovery. However, the benefits of robotic assisted distal pancreatectomy (RDP) over laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) are unknown.

AIMS

To compare RDP versus LDP for surgical treatment of benign lesions, pre-malignant and borderline malignant pancreatic neoplasias.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study comparing LDP with RDP. Main outcomes were overall morbidity and overall costs. Secondary outcomes were pancreatic fistula (PF), infectious complications, readmission, operative time (OT) and length of hospital stay (LOS).

RESULTS

Thirty patients submitted to LDP and 29 submitted to RDP were included in the study. There was no difference regarding preoperative characteristics. There was no difference regarding overall complications (RDP - 72,4% versus LDP - 80%, p=0,49). Costs were superior for patients submitted to RDP (RDP=US$ 6,688 versus LDP=US$ 6,149, p=0,02), mostly due to higher costs of surgical materials (RDP=US$ 2,364 versus LDP=1,421, p=0,00005). Twenty-one patients submitted to RDP and 24 to LDP developed pancreatic fistula (PF), but only 4 RDP and 7 LDP experienced infectious complications associated with PF. OT (RDP=224 min. versus LDP=213 min., p=0.36) was similar, as well as conversion to open procedure (1 RDP and 2 LDP).

CONCLUSIONS

The postoperative morbidity of robotic distal pancreatectomy is comparable to laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. However, the costs of robotic distal pancreatectomy are slightly higher.

A Comparison of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy for Benign or Malignant Lesions: A Meta-Analysis

Background: The momentum of robotic surgery is increasing, and it has great prospects in pancreatic surgery. It has been widely accepted and expanding to more and more centers. Robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) is the most recent advanced minimally invasive approach for pancreatic lesions and malignancies. However, laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) also showed good efficacy. We compared the effect of RDP with LDP using a meta-analysis. Methods: From January 2010 to June 2023, clinical trials of RDP versus LDP were determined by searching PubMed, Medline, and EMBASE. A meta-analysis was conducted to compare the effect of RDP with LDP. This meta-analysis evaluated the R0 resection rate, lymph node metastasis rate, conversion to open surgery rate, spleen preservation rate, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative pancreatic fistula, postoperative hospital stay, 90-day mortality rate, surgical cost, and total cost. Results: This meta-analysis included 38 studies. Conversion to open surgery, blood loss, and 90-day mortality in the RDP group were all significantly less than that in the LDP group (P < .05). There was no difference in lymph node resection rate, R0 resection rate, or postoperative pancreatic fistula between the two groups (P > .05). Spleen preservation rate in the LDP group was higher than that in the RDP group (P < .05). Operation cost and total cost in the RDP group were both more than that in the LDP group (P < .05). It is uncertain which group has an advantage in postoperative hospital stay. Conclusions: To some degree, RDP and LDP were indeed worth comparing in clinical practice. However, it may be difficult to determine which is absolute advantage according to current data. Large sample randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm which is better treatment. PROSPERO ID: CRD4202345576.

Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis including patient subgroups

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RDP) has been suggested to hold some benefits over laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) but consensus and data on specific subgroups are lacking. This systematic review and meta-analysis reports the surgical and oncological outcome and costs between RDP and LDP including subgroups with intended spleen preservation and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).

METHODS

Studies comparing RDP and LDP were included from PubMed, Cochrane Central Register, and Embase (inception-July 2022). Primary outcomes were conversion and unplanned splenectomy. Secondary outcomes were R0 resection, lymph node yield, major morbidity, operative time, intraoperative blood loss, in-hospital mortality, operative costs, total costs and hospital stay.

RESULTS

Overall, 43 studies with 6757 patients were included, 2514 after RDP and 4243 after LDP. RDP was associated with a longer operative time (MD = 18.21, 95% CI 2.18-34.24), less blood loss (MD = 54.50, 95% CI - 84.49-24.50), and a lower conversion rate (OR = 0.44, 95% CI 0.36-0.55) compared to LDP. In spleen-preserving procedures, RDP was associated with more Kimura procedures (OR = 2.23, 95% CI 1.37-3.64) and a lower rate of unplanned splenectomies (OR = 0.32, 95% CI 0.24-0.42). In patients with PDAC, RDP was associated with a higher lymph node yield (MD = 3.95, 95% CI 1.67-6.23), but showed no difference in the rate of R0 resection (OR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.67-1.37). RDP was associated with higher total (MD = 3009.31, 95% CI 1776.37-4242.24) and operative costs (MD = 3390.40, 95% CI 1981.79-4799.00).

CONCLUSIONS

RDP was associated with a lower conversion rate, a higher spleen preservation rate and, in patients with PDAC, a higher lymph node yield and similar R0 resection rate, as compared to LDP. The potential benefits of RDP need to be weighed against the higher total and operative costs in future randomized trials.

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.

Comparative analysis of open, laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatic resection: The United Kingdom's first single-centre experience

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) has potential advantages over its open equivalent open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) for pancreatic disease in the neck, body and tail. Within the United Kingdom (UK), there has been no previous experience describing the role of robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP). This study evaluated differences between ODP, LDP and RDP.

METHODS

Patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy performed in the Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery at the Freeman Hospital between September 2007 and December 2018 were included from a prospectively maintained database. The primary outcome measure was length of hospital stay, and the secondary outcome measures were complication rates graded according to the Clavien-Dindo classification.

RESULTS

Of the 125 patients, the median age was 61 years and 46% were male. Patients undergoing RDP (n = 40) had higher American Society of Anesthesiologists grading III compared to ODP (n = 38) and LDP (n = 47) (57% vs. 37% vs. 38%, P = 0.02). RDP had a slightly lower but not significant conversion rate (10% vs. 13%, P = 0.084), less blood loss (median: 0 vs. 250 ml, P < 0.001) and a higher rate of splenic preservation (30% vs. 2%, P < 0.001) and shorter operative time, once docking time excluded (284 vs. 300 min, P < 0.001) compared to LDP. RDP had a higher R0 resection rate than ODP and LDP (79% vs. 47% vs. 71%, P = 0.078) for neoplasms. RDP was associated with significantly shorter hospital stay than LDP and ODP (8 vs. 9 vs. 10 days, P = 0.001). While there was no significant different in overall complications across the groups, RDP was associated with lower rates of Grade C pancreatic fistula than ODP and LDP (2% vs. 5% vs. 6%, P = 0.194).

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive pancreatic resection offers potential advantages over ODP, with a trend showing RDP to be marginally superior when compared to conventional LDP, but it is accepted that that this is likely to be at greater expense compared to the other current techniques.

Surgery for pancreatic cancer: current controversies and challenges

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

A comparison of robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: Propensity score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to assess the perioperative and pathologic outcomes of robotic distal pancreatectomy compared with a laparoscopic approach.

METHODS

A total of 121 robotic distal pancreatectomies and 992 laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies were retrospectively evaluated, comparing the demographic, perioperative and pathologic outcomes. After 1:2 propensity score matching (PSM) with 11 demographic variables, the factors were analysed again.

RESULTS

Following PSM, 104 robotic distal pancreatectomy patients were compared with 208 laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy patients. The operation time and proportion of spleen preservation were not different between the groups. The rates of open conversion were lower, whereas the hospital costs were higher in the robotic group. Other perioperative outcomes and pathologic factors did not differ between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Although robotic distal pancreatectomy is more expensive, this operation is feasible, with a higher probability of proceeding with the planned operation and with low open conversion rate.

Minimally Invasive Techniques for Pancreatic Resection

There is increasing interest in the role of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for pancreatectomy. Prospective data indicate significant advantages for MIS when performed for left-sided pancreatic pathologies and may be deemed as the standard of care. However, there is reluctance in implementing this technique to pancreaticoduodenectomy because of the complexity of the operation and the mixed results from randomized trials. A detailed description of the technical aspects of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy is presented in this article in addition to a summary of the most important prospective and cohort studies. We also provide insights into patient selection and the learning curve of MIS surgery for pancreatectomy.

A National Assessment of Optimal Oncologic Surgery for Distal Pancreatic Adenocarcinomas

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to create a composite measure, optimal oncologic surgery (OOS), for patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma and identify factors associated with OOS.

METHODS

Adult patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy were identified from the National Cancer Database between 2010 and 2016. Patients were stratified based on receipt of OOS. Criteria for OOS included 90-day survival, no 30-day readmission, length of stay ≤7 days, negative resection margins, ≥12 lymph nodes harvested, and receipt of chemotherapy. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to identify predictors of OOS. Survival curves and a Cox proportional hazards model were created to compare survival and identify risk factors for mortality.

RESULTS

Three thousand five hundred forty-six patients were identified. The rate of OOS was 22.3%. Diagnosis after 2012, treatment at an academic medical center, and a minimally invasive surgical approach (MIS) were associated with OOS. Survival was superior for patients undergoing OOS. Decreasing age at diagnosis, fewer comorbidities, surgery at an academic medical center, MIS, and lower pathologic stage were also associated with improved survival on multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Rates of OOS for distal pancreatectomy are low. Time trends show increasing rates of OOS that may be related to increasing MIS, adjuvant chemotherapy, and referrals to academic medical centers.

[Evidence for robotics in oncological pancreatic surgery]

Robotic surgical procedures have been implemented and have become an important development in pancreatic surgery with an increasing acceptance worldwide. Nearly all types of pancreatic surgery have now been performed robotically and especially standardized resections, such as distal pancreatectomy (RDP) and partial pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) have gained importance despite a potentially long learning curve and high associated procedural costs. The present review article summarizes the available literature and evidence on the respective procedures focused on their use for indications of malignancy.

Oncologic Outcomes of Robotic Left Pancreatectomy for Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: A Single-Center Comparison to Laparoscopic Resection

BACKGROUND

Feasibility and safety of robotic surgery for pancreatic disease has been well demonstrated; however, there is scarce literature on long-term oncologic outcomes. We compared perioperative and oncologic outcomes between robotic left pancreatectomy (RLP) and laparoscopic left pancreatectomy (LLP) for pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

METHODS

A retrospective review evaluated left pancreatectomies performed for pancreatic adenocarcinoma from 2009 to 2019 in a tertiary institution. Baseline characteristics, operative and oncologic outcomes were compared between RLP and LLP.

RESULTS

There were 75 minimally invasive left pancreatectomy cases for pancreatic adenocarcinoma identified of which 33 cases were done robotically and 42 laparoscopically. Baseline characteristics demonstrated no difference in gender, age, BMI, T stage, N stage, neoadjuvant, or adjuvant chemotherapy. An analysis of operative variables demonstrated no difference in blood loss, increased duration, and higher lymph node yield with RLP (20 vs 12; P = .0029). Postoperatively, both cohorts had 30% pancreatic fistulas and no difference in complications. There were no differences in length of stay (LOS), 30- or 90-day readmission rates, or 90-day mortality. The analysis of oncologic outcomes demonstrated similar R0 resections (RLP: 72% vs OLP: 67%), recurrence rates (RLP: 36% vs OLP: 41%), and time to recurrence (RLP: 324 vs OLP 218 days). There was increased survival in the RLP cohort that was not significant (32 vs 19 months).

CONCLUSION

This analysis demonstrates RLP is at least equivalent to LLP in perioperative and oncologic outcomes. The significantly higher lymph node yield and trend toward an improved survival suggests oncologic advantage. Randomized controlled studies are needed to clarify benefit.

Comparison of 3 Minimally Invasive Methods Versus Open Distal Pancreatectomy: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

The efficacy and safety of open distal pancreatectomy (DP), laparoscopic DP, robot-assisted laparoscopic DP, and robotic DP have not been established. The authors aimed to comprehensively compare these 4 surgical methods using a network meta-analysis.

Safety and Feasibility of Robotic Reduced-Port Distal Pancreatectomy: a Multicenter Experience of a Novel Technique

BACKGROUND

A reduced-port approach including single-site surgery has been used for distal pancreatectomy. However, triangulation is difficult in reduced-port laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy, and instrument crowding, and collision may occur, so this approach has not been widely used. Recently, an innovative technique for distal pancreatectomy using a robotic single-site surgical system was introduced. Herein, we evaluate the safety and feasibility of this technique.

METHODS

Twenty-seven patients with a pancreatic tail mass underwent robotic single-site plus one-port distal pancreatectomy at six centers. We collected clinicopathologic data and evaluated the short-term perioperative outcomes of robotic single-site plus one-port distal pancreatectomy.

RESULTS

We evaluated 26 patients who underwent robotic single-site plus one-port distal pancreatectomy excluding one patient who needed more ports because of fatty abdomen. The mean age and body mass index were 47.3 years (range 21-74) and 22.6 kg/m2 (range 15.8-28.8), respectively. The most common pathologic diagnosis was solid papillary neoplasm followed by a neuroendocrine tumor. The mean operating time was 201 min. The mean length of hospital stay after surgery was 7 days (range 4-10). The rate of spleen preservation was 34.6% (9/26). Six patients had postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) grade A, and no patients had POPF grade B or C. Only one patient had class II morbidity.

CONCLUSION

Robotic single-site plus one-port distal pancreatectomy is safe and feasible in terms of short-term outcomes. This technique could be performed in select cases to expand the surgical boundaries of the robotic single-site platform. Further studies are needed with more cases to investigate long-term outcomes.

Up-to-date comparison of robotic-assisted versus open distal pancreatectomy: A PRISMA-compliant meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Although robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RADP) has been successfully performed since 2003, its advantages over open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) are still uncertain. The objective of this meta-analysis is to compare the clinical and oncologic safety and efficacy of RADP vs ODP.

METHODS

Multiple databases (PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library) were searched to identify studies that compare the outcomes of RADP and ODP (up to February, 2020). Fixed and random effects models were applied according to different conditions.

RESULTS

A total of 7 studies from high-volume robotic surgery centers comprising 2264 patients were included finally. Compared with ODP, RADP was associated with lower estimated blood loss, lower blood transfusion rate, lower postoperative mortality rate, and shorter length of hospital stay. No significant difference was observed in operating time, the number of lymph nodes harvested, positive margin rate, spleen preservation rate, rate of severe morbidity, incidence of postoperative pancreatic fistula, and severe postoperative pancreatic fistula (grade B and C) between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

With regard to perioperative outcomes, RADP is a safe and feasible alternative to ODP in centers with expertise in robotic surgery. However, the evidence is limited and more randomized controlled trials are needed to further clearly define this role.

A retrospective comparison of robotic versus laparoscopic distal resection and enucleation for potentially benign pancreatic neoplasms

PURPOSE

The present study aimed to compare robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic distal pancreatic resection and enucleation for potentially benign pancreatic neoplasms.

METHODS

Patients were retrieved from a prospectively maintained database. Demographic data, tumor types, and the perioperative outcomes were retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

In a 10-year period, 75 patients (female, n = 44; male, n = 31; median age, 53 years [range, 9-84 years]) were identified. The majority of patients had pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (n = 39, 52%) and cystic neoplasms (n = 23, 31%) with a median tumor size of 17 (3-60) mm. Nineteen (25.3%) patients underwent enucleation (robotic, n = 11; laparoscopic, n = 8) and 56 (74.7%) patients underwent distal pancreatic resection (robotic, n = 24; laparoscopic, n = 32), of those 48 (85%) underwent spleen-preserving procedures. Eight (10.7%) procedures had to be converted to open surgery. The rate of vessel preservation in distal pancreatectomy was significantly higher in robotic-assisted procedures (62.5% vs. 12.5%, p = 0.01). Twenty-six (34.6%) patients experienced postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo grade > 3). Twenty (26.7%) patients developed a pancreatic fistula type B. There was no mortality. After a median follow-up period of 58 months (range 2-120 months), one patient (1.3%) developed local recurrence (glucagonoma) after enucleation, which was treated with a Whipple procedure.

CONCLUSION

The robotic approach is comparably safe, but increases the rate of splenic vessel preservation and reduces the risk of conversion to open surgery.

Full Robotic Distal Pancreatectomy: Safety and Feasibility Analysis of a Multicenter Cohort of 236 Patients

Introduction. Despite the widespread use of the robotic technology, only a few studies with small sample sizes report its application to pancreatic diseases treatment. Our aim is to present the results of a multicenter study on the safety and feasibility of robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RDP). Materials and Methods. All RDPs for benign, borderline, and malignant diseases performed in 5 referral centers from 2008 to 2016 were included. Perioperative outcomes were evaluated. Results. Two hundred thirty-six patients were included. Spleen preservation was performed in 114 cases (48.3%). Operative time was 277.8 ± 93.6 minutes. Progressive improvement in operative time was observed over the study period. Conversion rate was 6.3%. Morbidity occurred in 102 cases (43.2%), mainly due to grade A fistulas. Reoperation was required in 10 patients. Postoperatively, 2 patients died of sepsis due to a grade C fistula. Hospital readmission was necessary in 11 cases. A R0 resection was always achieved, with a mean number of 16.2 ± 15 harvested lymph nodes. Conclusion. To our knowledge, this is one of the largest RDP series. Safety and feasibility including the low conversion rate, the high spleen preservation rate, the adequate operative time, and the acceptable morbidity and mortality rates confirm the validity of this technique. Appropriate oncological outcomes have been also obtained.

Comparison of robotic vs laparoscopic vs open distal pancreatectomy. A systematic review and network meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The current evidence comparing oncological adequacy and effectiveness of robotic and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy to open distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma is inconclusive. Recent pairwise meta-analyses demonstrated reduced blood loss and length of stay as the principal advantages of RDP and LDP compared to ODP. The aim of this study was to compare the three approaches to distal pancreatectomy conducting a pairwise meta-analysis and consequently network meta-analysis.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed using the databases, EMBASE, Pubmed, the Cochrane library, and Google Scholar. Meta-analyses were performed using both fixed-effect and random-effect models.

RESULTS

RDP cohort represented only 11% of the total sample; significantly younger patients with smaller size tumours were included in the RDP and LDP cohorts compared to ODP cohort. Significantly less blood loss and shorter length of stay were the advantages of both RDP and LDP compared to ODP. The ODP cohort included significantly more specimens with positive resection margins compared to RDP and LDP cohorts.

DISCUSSION

The results of the present study demonstrate that reduced blood losses and shorter length of stay are the advantages of RDP and LDP compared to ODP. However, demographic discrepancies, underpowered RDP sample and differences in oncological burden do not permit certain conclusions regarding the oncological safety of RDP and LDP for pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic distal pancreatic resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery offers theoretical advantages to conventional laparoscopic surgery including improved instrument dexterity, 3D visualization and better ergonomics. This review aimed to determine if these theoretical advantages translate into improved patient outcomes in patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy through laparoscopic (LDP) or robotic (RDP) approaches.

METHOD

A systematic literature search was conducted for studies reporting minimally invasive surgery for distal pancreatectomy. Meta-analysis of intraoperative (blood loss, operating times, conversion and R0 resections) and postoperative outcomes (overall complications, pancreatic fistula, length of hospital stay) was performed using random effects models.

RESULT

Twenty non-randomised studies including 3112 patients (793 robotic and 2319 laparoscopic) were considered appropriate for inclusion. LDP had significantly shorter operating time than RDP (mean: 28, p < 0.001) but no significant difference in blood loss (mean: 52 mL, p = 0.07). RDP was associated with significantly lower conversion rates than LDP (OR 0.48, p < 0.001), but no difference in spleen preservation rate and R0 resection. There were no significant differences in overall and major complications, overall and high-grade pancreatic fistula. However, RDP was associated with a shorter length of hospital stay (mean: 1, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

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

Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for left-sided pancreatic tumors: a single surgeon's experience of 228 consecutive cases

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) has gained popularity for the treatment of left-sided pancreatic tumors. Robotic systems represent the most recent advancement in minimally invasive surgical treatment for such tumors. Theoretically, robotic systems are considered to have several advantages over laparoscopic systems. However, there have been few studies comparing both systems in the treatment of distal pancreatectomy. We compared perioperative and oncological outcomes between the two treatment modalities.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted of all consecutive minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy cases performed by a single surgeon at a high-volume center between January 2015 and December 2017.

RESULTS

The analysis included 228 consecutive patients (LDP, n = 182; Robotic-assisted laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy [R-LDP], n = 46). Operative time was significantly longer in the R-LDP group than in the LDP group (166.4 vs. 140.7 min; p = 0.001). In a subgroup analysis of patients who underwent the spleen-preserving approach, the spleen preservation rate associated with R-LDP was significantly higher than that associated with LDP (96.8% vs. 82.5%; p = 0.02). In another subgroup analysis of patients with pancreatic cancer, there were no significant differences in median overall and disease-free survival between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

R-LDP is a safe and feasible approach with perioperative and oncological outcomes comparable to those of LDP. R-LDP offers an added technical advantage that enables the surgeon to perform a complex procedure with good ergonomic comfort.

The oncological safety in minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The safety of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) and open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) regarding oncological outcomes of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains inconclusive. Therefore, the aim of this study was to examine the oncological safety of MIDP and ODP for PDAC. Major databases including PubMed, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies comparing outcomes in patients undergoing MIDP and ODP for PDAC from January 1994 to August 2018. In total, 11 retrospective comparative studies with 4829 patients (MIDP: 1076, ODP: 3753) were included. The primary outcome was long-term survival, including 3-year overall survival (OS) and 5-year OS. The 3-year OS (hazard ratio (HR): 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.89, 1.21; P = 0.66) and 5-year OS (HR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.65, 1.28; P = 0.59) showed no significant differences between the two groups. Furthermore, the positive surgical margin rate (weighted mean difference (WMD): 0.71, 95% CI: 0.56, 0.89, P = 0.003) was lower in the MIDP group. However, patients in the MIDP group had less intraoperative blood loss (WMD: -250.03, 95% CI: -359.68, -140.39; P < 0.00001), a shorter hospital stay (WMD: -2.76, 95% CI: -3.73, -1.78; P < 0.00001) and lower morbidity (OR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.46, 0.71; P < 0.00001) and mortality (OR: 0.50, 95% CI: 0.31, 0.81, P = 0.005) than patients in the ODP group. The limited evidence suggested that MIDP might be safer with regard to oncological outcomes in PDAC patients. Therefore, future high-quality studies are needed to examine the oncological safety of MIDP.

Comparison of surgical outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy versus laparoscopic and open resections: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RADP) has been developed with the aim of improving surgical quality and overcoming the limitations of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) and open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) for pancreatic resections. A systematic search was performed in the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and China Biology Medicine databases up to December 2016 for studies that compared the surgical outcomes of RADP vs. LDP or ODP for pancreatic resections. The weighted mean differences, odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated, and the data were combined using the random-effects model. The GRADE system was used to interpret the primary outcomes of this meta-analysis. A total of seventeen non-randomized observational clinical studies involving 2133 patients satisfied the eligibility criteria. Compared with LDP, RADP was associated with a longer operative time (P = 0.018), a shorter hospital length of stay (P = 0.030), and a higher rate of spleen preservation (P = 0.022). Moreover, RADP was associated with a shorter hospital LOS (P = 0.014) and a lower total complication rate (P = 0.034) than ODP. We found no statistically significant differences between the techniques in the mean estimated blood loss, severe complication rate, incidence of total pancreatic fistulas or incidence of severe pancreatic fistulas. The overall quality of evidence was poor for all outcomes. This meta-analysis indicates that RADP may be safe and comparable in terms of surgical results to LDP and ODP. Further RCTs are needed to confirm the outcomes of this meta-analysis.

Safety and efficacy for robot-assisted versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This meta-analysis was conducted to compare the clinical safety and efficacy of robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (RAPD) or robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RADP) with open surgery.

METHODS

Multiple databases (PubMed, Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane Library) were searched to identify studies comparing the outcomes of RAPD and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) or RADP and open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) (up to December 31, 2017). Fixed and random effects models were applied according to different conditions.

RESULTS

Fifteen non-randomized controlled trials (11 RAPD vs. OPD and 4 RADP vs. ODP) involving 3690 patients were included. Robot-assisted surgery had longer operative time (RAPD vs. OPD: P = 0.0005; RADP vs. ODP: P < 0.00001) but lesser blood loss than open surgery (RAPD vs. OPD: P = 0.0009; RADP vs. ODP: P = 0.0007). RAPD was associated with less wound infection, a lower positive margin rate, lower overall complications, and faster postoperative off-bed activity. There was no significant difference in the lymph node yield, the rate of pancreatic fistula, delayed gastric emptying, reoperation, length of hospital stay and mortality between the two groups. Compared with ODP, RADP was associated with less blood transfusion, fewer lymph nodes harvested, lower complications and shorter hospital stay. There was no significant difference between the two groups in the rate of spleen preservation, positive margin, pancreatic fistula, and mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Robot-assisted surgery is a safe and feasible alternative to OPD and ODP with regard to perioperative outcomes. However, due to the lack of high-quality randomized controlled trials, the evidence is still limited.

Do patients benefit more from robot assisted approach than conventional laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy? A meta-analysis of perioperative and economic outcomes

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Robotic approach has improved the ergonomics of conventional laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP), but whether patients benefit more from robot assisted distal pancreatectomy (RADP) is still controversial. This meta-analysis aims to compare the perioperative and economic outcomes of RADP with LDP.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was carried out on PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library between January 1990 and March 2017. All eligible studies comparing RADP versus LDP were included. Perioperative and economic outcomes constituted the end points.

RESULTS

13 English studies with 1396 patients were included. Regarding to intraoperative outcomes, RADP was associated with a significant decrease in conversion rate (OR = 0.52; 95%CI: 0.34, 0.78; P = 0.002). Although the spleen-preserving rates were comparable between RADP and LDP, a significant higher splenic vessels conservation rate was observed in the RADP group (OR = 4.71; 95%CI: 1.77, 12.56; P = 0.002). No statistically significant differences were found at operation time, estimated blood loss and blood transfusion rate. Concerning postoperative outcomes, pooled data indicated the overall morbidity, pancreatic fistula and the length of hospital stay did not differ significantly between the RADP and LDP groups. And concerning pathological outcomes, positive margin rate and the number of lymph nodules harvested were comparable between the two groups. The operative cost of RADP was almost double that of LDP (WMD = 2350.2 US dollars; 95%CI: 1165.62, 3534.78; P = 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

RADP showed a slight technical advantage. But whether this benefit is worth twofold cost should be considered by patient's individuation.

Robotic distal pancreatectomy: Comparison of spleen-preservation by the Warshaw technique and splenectomy

BACKGROUND

Outcomes after robotic distal pancreatectomy with spleen preservation (RDP-SP) by the Warshaw technique and with splenectomy (RDP-S) were compared.

METHODS

All the data for patients undergoing robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) were prospectively collected.

RESULTS

A total of 66 patients were included, with 33 in each group. The console time was significantly shorter in the RDP-SP group than in the RDP-S group (165 minutes vs. 220 minutes). The median blood loss was 50 cm³ in the RDP-SP group and 100 cm³ in the RDP-S group. The surgical morbidity was significantly lower in RDP-SP group (18% vs. 58%). Spleen infarction (15%), gastric varices (6%) and perigastric varices (45%) after RDP-SP were not associated with any subsequent complication. Postoperative platelet count and white blood cell (WBC) count were significantly higher in the RDP-S group.

CONCLUSIONS

Both RDP-SP and RDP-S are feasible in selected patients. RDP-SP is feasible and time-saving. Although gastric/perigastric varices and spleen infarction are not uncommon after RDP-SP, they appear to be clinically irrelevant.

Robotic versus standard open pancreatectomy: a propensity score-matched analysis comparison

Interest in robotic pancreatectomy has been greatly increasing over the last decade. However, evidence supporting the benefits of robotic over open pancreatectomy is still outstanding. This study aims to assess the safety and efficacy of robotic pancreatectomy compared with the conventional open surgical approach. Propensity score-matched (1:1) was used to balance age, sex, BMI, ASA, tumor size, and malignancy of 17 robotic pancreaticoduodenectomies (PD), 12 pancreatic enucleations (PE), and 28 distal pancreatectomies (DP); and was compared with the open standard approach. Robotic PD was associated with longer operative time (594 vs. 413 min; p = 0.03) and decreased blood loss (190 vs. 394 ml; p = 0.001). Robotic PE showed a lower mean length of hospital stay (8.4 vs. 12.8 days; p = 0.04) and, in addition, robotic DP showed less blood loss (175 vs. 375 ml; p = 0.01), less severe morbidities (7.14 vs. 17.9%; p = 0.02), and a reduced mean length of hospital stay (8.9 vs. 15.1; p = 0.001). Overall, conversion rate was 4 (7%). Robotic pancreatectomy is as safe and effective as the standard open surgical approach with reduced blood loss in PD and DP, length of hospital stay in PE and DP, and severe morbidity in DP.

Surgical resection of pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasm by minimally invasive surgery-the robotic approach?

Over the past decade, there has been increasing adoption of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery world-wide and this has naturally expanded to the management of pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (PNENs). More recently, robotic pancreatic surgery (RPS) was introduced to overcome the limitations during laparoscopic pancreatic surgery (LPS). Due to the relative rarity of PNEN and the novelty of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery in particular RPS today, the evidence for robotic surgery in PNENs remains extremely limited. Presently, the available evidence is limited to a few low level retrospective case-control studies. These studies suggest that RPS may be associated with a higher splenic preservation rates and lower open conversion rates compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery. Ideally a prospective randomized trial should be performed but this would be extremely challenging due to the rarity of PNEN, making it almost impossible to conduct a sufficiently powered trial.

Role of robotic-assisted pancreatic surgery: lessons learned from our initial experience

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery has achieved worldwide acceptance in various fields, however, pancreatic surgery remains one of the most challenging abdominal procedures. In fact, the indication for robotic surgery in pancreatic disease has been controversial. The present study aimed to assess the safety and feasibility of robotic pancreatic resection.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed our experience of robotic pancreatic resection done in Sanchinarro University Hospital. Clinicopathologic characteristics, and perioperative and postoperative outcomes were recorded and analyzed.

RESULTS

From October 2010 to April 2016, 50 patients underwent robotic-assisted surgery for different pancreatic pathologies. All procedures were performed using the da Vinci robotic system. Of the 50 patients, 26 were male and 24 female. The average age of all patients was 62 years. Operative time was 370 minutes. Among the procedures performed were 16 pancreaticoduodenectomies (PD), 23 distal pan-createctomies (DP), 11 tumor enucleations (TE). The mean hospital stay was 17.6 days in PD group, 9.0 days in DP group and 8.4 days in TE group. Pancreatic fistula occurred in 10 cases (20%), 2 after PD, 3 after DP, and 5 after TE. Four patients had postoperative transfusion in PD group and one in DP group. Conversion to open laparotomy occurred in four patients (8%). No serious intraoperative complications were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

From our early experience, robotic pancreatic surgery is a safe and feasible procedure. Further experience and follow-up are required to confirm the role of robotic approach in pancreatic surgery.

Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: an up-to-date meta-analysis

Background

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) reduces postoperative morbidity, hospital stay and recovery as compared with open distal pancreatectomy. Many authors believe that robotic surgery can overcome the difficulties and technical limits of LDP thanks to improved surgical manipulation and better visualization. Few studies in the literature have compared the two methods in terms of surgical and oncological outcome. The aim of this study was to compare the results of robotic (RDP) and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy.

Methods

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted of control studies published up to December 2016 comparing LDP and RDP. Two Reviewers independently assessed the eligibility and quality of the studies. The meta-analysis was conducted using either the fixed-effect or the random-effect model.

Results

Ten studies describing 813 patients met the inclusion criteria. This meta-analysis shows that the RDP group had a significantly higher rate of spleen preservation [OR 2.89 (95% confidence interval 1.78-4.71, p < 0.0001], a lower rate of conversion to open OR 0.33 (95% CI 0.12-0.92), p = 0.003] and a shorter hospital stay [MD -0.74; (95% CI -1.34 -0.15), p = 0.01] but a higher cost than the LDP group, while other surgical outcomes did not differ between the two groups.

Conclusion

This meta-analysis suggests that the RDP procedure is safe and comparable in terms of surgical results to LDP. However, even if the RDP has a higher cost compared to LDP, it increases the rate of spleen preservation, reduces the risk of conversion to open surgery and is associated to shorter length of hospital stay.

First experience of robotic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy in a child with insulinoma

Background

An insulinoma is a functional neuroendocrine pancreatic tumor, and surgical resection is indicated. Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgeries have been shown to be generally safe and feasible for treatment of pediatric cases of urologic and digestive disease.

Case presentation

In July 2016, a 9-year-old girl (24 kg, 120 cm) was admitted with a pancreatic tail insulinoma and underwent robot-assisted spleen-preserving laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. The total procedure time was 155 min, and the blood loss was about 10 ml. The patient recovered without complications.

Conclusions

This case supports that robot-assisted spleen-preserving laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy may be safe and feasible in pediatric insulinoma patients.

Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: A comparative study of clinical outcomes and costs analysis

BACKGROUND

The robotic surgery cost presents a critical issue which has not been well addressed yet. This study aims to compare the clinical outcomes and cost differences of robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP).

METHODS

Data were abstracted prospectively from 2011 to 2017. An independent company performed the financial analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 28 RDP and 26 LDP were included. The mean operative time was significantly lower in the LDP (294 vs 241 min; p = 0.02). The main intra and post-operative data were similar, except for the conversion rate (RDP: 3.6% vs LDP: 19.2%; p = 0.04) and hospital stay (RDP: 8.9 vs LDP 13.1 days; p = 0.04). The mean total costs were similar in both groups (RDP: 9198.64 € vs LDP: 9399.74 €; p > 0.5).

CONCLUSIONS

RDP showed lower conversion rate and shorter hospital stay than LDP at the price of longer operative time. RDP is financially comparable to LDP.

Comparison of Perioperative Outcomes between Open, Laparoscopic, and Robotic Distal Pancreatectomy: an Analysis of 1815 Patients from the ACS-NSQIP Procedure-Targeted Pancreatectomy Database

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery is gaining acceptance for distal pancreatectomy (DP). Nevertheless, no multi-institutional data exist to demonstrate the ideal clinical circumstances for use and the efficacy of the robot compared to the open or laparoscopic techniques, in terms of perioperative outcomes.

METHODS

The 2014 ACS-NSQIP procedure-targeted pancreatectomy data for patients undergoing DP were analyzed. Demographics and clinicopathological and perioperative variables were compared between the three approaches. Univariate and multivariable analyses were used to evaluate outcomes.

RESULTS

One thousand eight hundred fifteen DPs comprised 921 open distal pancreatectomies (ODPs), 694 laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies (LDPs), and 200 robotic distal pancreatectomies (RDPs). The three groups were comparable with respect to demographics, ASA score, relevant comorbidities, and malignant histology subtype. Compared to the ODP group, patients undergoing RDP had lower T-stages of disease (P = 0.0192), longer operations (P = 0.0030), shorter hospital stays (P < 0.0001), and lower postoperative 30-day morbidity (P = 0.0476). Compared to the LDP group, RDPs were longer operations (P < 0.0001) but required fewer concomitant vascular resections (P = 0.0487) and conversions to open surgery (P = 0.0068). On multivariable analysis, neoadjuvant therapy (P = 0.0236), malignant histology (P = 0.0124), pancreatic reconstruction (P = 0.0006), and vascular resection (P = 0.0008) were the strongest predictors of performing an ODP.

CONCLUSIONS

The open, laparoscopic, and robotic approaches to distal pancreatectomy offer particular advantages for well-selected patients and specific clinicopathological contexts; therefore, clearly demonstrating the most suitable use and superiority of one technique over another remains challenging.

[Robot-assisted pancreatic resection]

Although robot-assisted pancreatic surgery has been considered critically in the past, it is nowadays an established standard technique in some centers, for distal pancreatectomy and pancreatic head resection. Compared with the laparoscopic approach, the use of robot-assisted surgery seems to be advantageous for acquiring the skills for pancreatic, bile duct and vascular anastomoses during pancreatic head resection and total pancreatectomy. On the other hand, the use of the robot is associated with increased costs and only highly effective and professional robotic programs in centers for pancreatic surgery will achieve top surgical and oncological quality, acceptable operation times and a reduction in duration of hospital stay. Moreover, new technologies, such as intraoperative fluorescence guidance and augmented reality will define additional indications for robot-assisted pancreatic surgery.

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND

The first International conference on Minimally Invasive Pancreas Resection was arranged in conjunction with the annual meeting of the International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association (IHPBA), in Sao Paulo, Brazil on April 19th 2016. The presented evidence and outcomes resulting from the session for minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) is summarized and addressed perioperative outcome, the outcome for cancer and patient selection for the procedure.

METHODS

A literature search was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to compare MIDP and open distal pancreatectomy. Patient selection was discussed based on plenary talks, panel discussions and a worldwide survey on MIDP.

RESULTS

Of 582 studies, 52 (40 observational and 12 case-matched) were included in the assessment for outcome for LDP (n = 5023) vs. ODP (n = 16,306) whereas 16 observational comparative studies were identified for cancer outcome. No randomized trials were identified. MIDP resulted in similar outcome to ODP with a tendency for lower blood loss and shorter hospital stay in the MIDP group.

DISCUSSION

Available evidence for comparison of MIDP to ODP is weak, although the number of studies is high. Observed outcomes of MIDP are promising. In the absence of randomized control trials, an international registry should be established.

Laparoscopic surgery for pancreatic neoplasms: the European association for endoscopic surgery clinical consensus conference

BACKGROUND

Introduced more than 20 years ago, laparoscopic pancreatic surgery (LAPS) has not reached a uniform acceptance among HPB surgeons. As a result, there is no consensus regarding its use in patients with pancreatic neoplasms. This study, organized by the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES), aimed to develop consensus statements and clinical recommendations on the application of LAPS in these patients.

METHODS

An international panel of experts was selected based on their clinical and scientific expertise in laparoscopic and open pancreatic surgery. Each panelist performed a critical appraisal of the literature and prepared evidence-based statements assessed by other panelists during Delphi process. The statements were further discussed during a one-day face-to-face meeting followed by the second round of Delphi. Modified statements were presented at the plenary session of the 24th International Congress of the EAES in Amsterdam and in a web-based survey.

RESULTS

LAPS included laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP), pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD), enucleation, central pancreatectomy, and ultrasound. In general, LAPS was found to be safe, especially in experienced hands, and also advantageous over an open approach in terms of intraoperative blood loss, postoperative recovery, and quality of life. Eighty-five percent or higher proportion of responders agreed with the majority (69.5%) of statements. However, the evidence is predominantly based on retrospective case-control studies and systematic reviews of these studies, clearly affected by selection bias. Furthermore, no randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been published to date, although four RCTs are currently underway in Europe.

CONCLUSIONS

LAPS is currently in its development and exploration stages, as defined by the international IDEAL framework for surgical innovation. LDP is feasible and safe, performed in many centers, while LPD is limited to few centers. RCTs and registry studies are essential to proceed with the assessment of LAPS.

Hepatobilio-pancreatic robotic surgery: initial experience from a single center institute

The use of robotic surgery in the hepatobilio-pancreatic (HBP) field is still limited. Our aim is to present our early experience of robotic liver resection. A retrospective review of robotic pancreatic and liver resection was performed at Sanchinarro University hospital from October 2010 to April 2016. Since the beginning of the robotic program in our center, 22 hepatic procedures and 45 pancreatic robotic procedures have been performed. Of the 21 patients subjected to liver resection, 13 (65%) were for malignancy. There were two left hepatectomies, one right hepatectomy, one associated liver partition and portal vein ligation staged procedure (both steps by robotic approach), three bisegmentectomies and three segmentectomies, eight wedge resections, and three pericystectomies. The mean operating time was 282 min. The overall conversion rate and postoperative complication rate were 4.7 and 19%, respectively. The mean length of hospital stay was 13.4 days (range 4-64 days). Of the 45 patients subjected to pancreatic resection, 22 were male and 23 female. The average age of all patients was 62 years (range 31-82 years). The mean operating room (OR) time was 370 min (120-780 min). Among the procedures performed were 15 pancreatico-duodenectomies, 19 distal pancreatectomies, and 11 enucleations. All procedures in the HBP area were R0. Our early experience shows that robotic surgery is a safe and feasible procedure in the HBP area. The complication and mortality rates are comparable to those of open surgery, but with the advantages of minimally invasive surgery.

Revisiting robotic approaches to endocrine neoplasia: do the data support their continued use?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Although the advent of the robot has revolutionized the modern treatment of endocrine neoplasia, substantial controversies exist on its applicability, safety and benefits over the conventional laparoscopic operations. The present review aims to review the recent literature on various robotic approaches in treating thyroid, parathyroid, adrenal and pancreatic endocrine neoplasia and see whether its continued use should be supported.

RECENT FINDINGS

In summary, the role of robotic thyroidectomy has been clearly established and should be continued by experienced surgeons on selected patients. Because of the limited availability of evidence, the feasibility of robotic parathyroidectomy has yet to be elucidated. With proven favorable perioperative outcomes, robotic adrenalectomy and pancreatectomy should be continued as potential alternatives to conventional surgery.

SUMMARY

Robotic endocrine procedures still play a pivotal role in minimally invasive endocrine surgery with demonstrable safety and effectiveness. Future research should embark on prospective randomized-controlled trials on robotic endocrine procedures to collect higher level of evidence and long-term survival data.

Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy - The first meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy is considered hazardous for the majority of authors and minimally distal pancreatectomy is still a debated topic. The aim of this study was to compare robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) using meta-analysis.

METHOD

EMBASE, Medline and PubMed were searched systematically to identify full-text articles comparing robotic and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies. The meta-analysis was performed by using Review Manager 5.3.

RESULTS

Nine studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria and included 637 patients (246 robotic and 391 laparoscopic). RDP had a shorter hospital length of stay by 1 day (P = 0.01). On the other hand, LDP had shorter operative time by 30 min, although this was statistically nonsignificant (P = 0.12). RDP showed a significantly increased readmission rate (P = 0.04). There was no difference in the conversion rate, incidence of postoperative pancreatic fistula, International Study Group of Pancreatic Fistula grade B-C rate, major morbidity, spleen preservation rate and perioperative mortality. All surgical specimens of RDP reported R0 negative margins, whereas 7 specimens in the LDP group had affected margins.

CONCLUSIONS

In terms of feasibility, safety and oncological adequacy, there is no essential difference between the two techniques so far. The 30 min longer operative time of the RDP is due to the docking and undocking of the robot. The shorter length of stay by 1 day should be judged in combination with the increased 90-day readmission rate.

Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

Surgical resection is currently the only treatment with the potential for long-term survival and cure of pancreatic cancer. Surgical resection is provided as distal pancreatectomy for cancers of the body and tail of the pancreas. It can be performed by laparoscopic or open surgery. In operations on other organs, laparoscopic surgery has been shown to reduce complications and length of hospital stay as compared with open surgery. However, concerns remain about the safety of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy compared with open distal pancreatectomy in terms of postoperative complications and oncological clearance.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy versus open distal pancreatectomy for people undergoing distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma of the body or tail of the pancreas, or both.

SEARCH METHODS

We used search strategies to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded and trials registers until June 2015 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies. We also searched the reference lists of included trials to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered for inclusion in the review RCTs and non-randomised studies comparing laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer, irrespective of language, blinding or publication status..

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently identified trials and independently extracted data. We calculated odds ratios (ORs), mean differences (MDs) or hazard ratios (HRs) along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using both fixed-effect and random-effects models with RevMan 5 on the basis of intention-to-treat analysis when possible.

MAIN RESULTS

We found no RCTs on this topic. We included in this review 12 non-randomised studies that compared laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy (1576 participants: 394 underwent laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy and 1182 underwent open distal pancreatectomy); 11 studies (1506 participants: 353 undergoing laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy and 1153 undergoing open distal pancreatectomy) provided information for one or more outcomes. All of these studies were retrospective cohort-like studies or case-control studies. Most were at unclear or high risk of bias, and the overall quality of evidence was very low for all reported outcomes.Differences in short-term mortality (laparoscopic group: 1/329 (adjusted proportion based on meta-analysis estimate: 0.5%) vs open group: 11/1122 (1%); OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.11 to 2.17; 1451 participants; nine studies; I(2) = 0%), long-term mortality (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.12; 277 participants; three studies; I(2) = 0%), proportion of people with serious adverse events (laparoscopic group: 7/89 (adjusted proportion: 8.8%) vs open group: 6/117 (5.1%); OR 1.79, 95% CI 0.53 to 6.06; 206 participants; three studies; I(2) = 0%), proportion of people with a clinically significant pancreatic fistula (laparoscopic group: 9/109 (adjusted proportion: 7.7%) vs open group: 9/137 (6.6%); OR 1.19, 95% CI 0.47 to 3.02; 246 participants; four studies; I(2) = 61%) were imprecise. Differences in recurrence at maximal follow-up (laparoscopic group: 37/81 (adjusted proportion based on meta-analysis estimate: 36.3%) vs open group: 59/103 (49.5%); OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.05; 184 participants; two studies; I(2) = 13%), adverse events of any severity (laparoscopic group: 33/109 (adjusted proportion: 31.7%) vs open group: 45/137 (32.8%); OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.66; 246 participants; four studies; I(2) = 18%) and proportion of participants with positive resection margins (laparoscopic group: 49/333 (adjusted proportion based on meta-analysis estimate: 14.3%) vs open group: 208/1133 (18.4%); OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.10; 1466 participants; 10 studies; I(2) = 6%) were also imprecise. Mean length of hospital stay was shorter by 2.43 days in the laparoscopic group than in the open group (MD -2.43 days, 95% CI -3.13 to -1.73; 1068 participants; five studies; I(2) = 0%). None of the included studies reported quality of life at any point in time, recurrence within six months, time to return to normal activity and time to return to work or blood transfusion requirements.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently, no randomised controlled trials have compared laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy versus open distal pancreatectomy for patients with pancreatic cancers. In observational studies, laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy has been associated with shorter hospital stay as compared with open distal pancreatectomy. Currently, no information is available to determine a causal association in the differences between laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy. Observed differences may be a result of confounding due to laparoscopic operation on less extensive cancer and open surgery on more extensive cancer. In addition, differences in length of hospital stay are relevant only if laparoscopic and open surgery procedures are equivalent oncologically. This information is not available currently. Thus, randomised controlled trials are needed to compare laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy versus open distal pancreatectomy with at least two to three years of follow-up. Such studies should include patient-oriented outcomes such as short-term mortality and long-term mortality (at least two to three years); health-related quality of life; complications and the sequelae of complications; resection margins; measures of earlier postoperative recovery such as length of hospital stay, time to return to normal activity and time to return to work (in those who are employed); and recurrence of cancer.

Robotic versus Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy: A Meta-Analysis of Short-Term Outcomes

AIM

To compare the safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RADP) and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP).

METHODS

A literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library database up to June 30, 2015 was performed. The following key words were used: pancreas, distal pancreatectomy, pancreatic, laparoscopic, laparoscopy, robotic, and robotic-assisted. Fixed and random effects models were applied. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

RESULTS

Seven non-randomized controlled trials involving 568 patients met the inclusion criteria. Compared with LDP, RADP was associated with longer operating time, lower estimated blood loss, a higher spleen-preservation rate, and shorter hospital stay. There was no significant difference in transfusion, conversion to open surgery, R0 resection rate, lymph nodes harvested, overall complications, severe complications, pancreatic fistula, severe pancreatic fistula, ICU stay, total cost, and 30-day mortality between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

RADP is a safe and feasible alternative to LDP with regard to short-term outcomes. Further studies on the long-term outcomes of these surgical techniques are required.

Core tip

To date, there is no consensus on whether laparoscopic or robotic-assisted distal pancreatectomy is more beneficial to the patient. This is the first meta-analysis to compare laparoscopic and robotic-assisted distal pancreatectomy. We found that robotic-assisted distal pancreatectomy was associated with longer operating time, lower estimated blood loss, a higher spleen-preservation rate, and shorter hospital stay. There was no significant difference in transfusion, conversion to open surgery, overall complications, severe complications, pancreatic fistula, severe pancreatic fistula, ICU stay, total cost, and 30-day mortality between the two groups.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for benign and malignant pancreatic lesions

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The number of published series on minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy has significantly increased. Robotic systems can overcome some limitations of laparoscopy. This study aimed to compare two techniques in distal pancreatectomy.

METHODS

Multiple electronic databases were systematically searched to identify studies (up to July 2015) that compared perioperative outcomes between robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP). Relative risks with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated.

RESULTS

Nine studies were enrolled in this review. Four studies reported on operative time, indicating no difference between the RDP and LDP groups (WMD = 21.55, 95 % CI -65.28-108.37, P = 0.63). No significant difference between the two groups was indicated with respect to the number of patients who converted to open (OR 0.35, 95 % CI 0.11-1.13, P = 0.08), spleen preservation rate (OR 2.37, 95 % CI 0.50-11.30, P = 0.28), and transfusion rate (OR 1.30, 95 % CI 0.54-3.13, P = 0.56). In addition, no difference was indicated in the incidence of pancreatic fistulas (OR 1.05, 95 % CI 0.67-1.65, P = 0.83) and length of hospital stay between the two groups (WMD = -0.61, 95 % CI -1.40-0.19, P = 0.13).

CONCLUSIONS

RDP seems to be a safe and effective alternative to LDP. Large randomized controlled trials are needed to verify the results of this meta-analysis.

[Comparative results of open robot-assisted and laparoscopic distal pancreatic resection]

It was performed a retrospective analysis of the results of distal pancreatic resections (DPR) in 89 patients with different tumors. Conventional open operations were performed in 60 patients, robot-assisted - in 19 patients, laparoscopic - in 10 cases. Absolute indication for open surgery was pancreatic cancer T3-4 stages. Mini-invasive distal resections (robot-assisted and laparoscopic) were performed in cases of pancreatic cancer T1-2 stages, benign tumors and tumors with low potential of malignancy and diameter up to 4-5 cm. Results of robot-assisted and laparoscopic interventions are similar but robot-assisted technique provides more precise surgery. It improves quality of lymphadenectomy, decreases probability of intraoperative bleeding. Duration of robot-assisted and open operation did not differ significantly. Blood loss was significantly lower in group of robot-assisted method (mean 470 ml) while in cases of open and laparoscopic techniques this parameter was 1013.8 and 833.3 ml respectively. Postoperative complications in open, laparoscopic and robot-assisted groups developed in 45.1, 52.6 and 50% of observations respectively. Pancreatic fistulas were revealed in 58.8, 80 and 58.3% of cases respectively. There were not deaths after laparoscopic and robot-assisted pancreatic resections. 2 patients died after open surgery.

Laparoscopic robot-assisted versus open total pancreatectomy: a case-matched study

BACKGROUND

The enhanced dexterity offered by robotic assistance could be excessive for distal pancreatectomy but not enough to improve the outcome of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy. Total pancreatectomy retains the challenges of uncinate process dissection and digestive reconstruction, but avoids the risk of pancreatic fistula, and could be a suitable operation to highlight the advantages of robotic assistance in pancreatic resections.

METHODS

Eleven laparoscopic robot-assisted total pancreatectomies (LRATP) were compared to 11 case-matched open total pancreatectomies. All operations were performed by one surgeon during the same period of time. Robotic assistance was employed in half of the patients, based on robot availability at the time of surgery. Variables examined included age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, body mass index, estimated blood loss, need for blood transfusions, operative time, tumor type, tumor size, number of examined lymph nodes, margin status, post-operative complications, 90-day or in-hospital mortality, length of hospital stay, and readmission rate.

RESULTS

No LRATP was converted to conventional laparoscopy, hand-assisted laparoscopy or open surgery despite two patients (18.1 %) required vein resection and reconstruction. LRATP was associated with longer mean operative time (600 vs. 469 min; p = 0.014) but decreased mean blood loss (220 vs. 705; p = 0.004) than open surgery. Post-operative complications occurred in similar percentages after LRATP and open surgery. Complications occurring in most patients (5/7) after LRATP were of mild severity (Clavien-Dindo grade I and II). One patient required repeat laparoscopic surgery after LRATP, to drain a fluid collection not amenable to percutaneous catheter drainage. One further patient from the open group required repeat surgery because of bleeding. No patient had margin positive resection, and the mean number of examined lymph nodes was 45 after LRATP and 36 after open surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

LRATP is feasible in selected patients, but further experience is needed to draw final conclusions.