Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a systematic literature review

Machine learning-based prediction of postoperative pancreatic fistula after laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

Clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) following laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) is a critical complication that significantly worsens patient outcomes. However, the heterogeneity of its risk factors and the clinical utility of predictive models remain to be fully elucidated. This study aims to systematically analyze the risk factors for CR-POPF and develop an optimized predictive model using machine learning algorithms, providing an evidence-based approach for individualized risk assessment in patients undergoing LPD.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted, including 210 patients with periampullary cancer who underwent laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) at the Hepatobiliary Surgery Center, Olympic Stadium Campus, Shandong Provincial Hospital Affiliated to Shandong First Medical University, from January 2017 to January 2024. Patients were classified into the clinically relevant pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) group (n = 34) and the non-clinically relevant pancreatic fistula (non-CR-POPF) group (n = 176) according to the 2016 criteria of the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS). Potential risk factors were identified through intergroup comparisons, and independent risk factors were determined using univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses. Based on these findings, a predictive model for CR-POPF was developed using machine learning algorithms.

RESULTS

CR-POPF was associated with higher BMI, monocyte levels, platelet count, total bilirubin, AST, ALT, and lower albumin. Pathological diagnosis of ampullary carcinoma and soft pancreatic texture were significantly more common in the CR-POPF group. Multivariate analysis identified soft pancreatic texture as an independent predictor (OR = 4.99, 95% CI: 1.93-12.86). Among all models, the random forest model showed the best performance (AUC = 0.747, sensitivity = 0.917, specificity = 0.574), using only preoperative variables such as age, gender, BMI, hypertension, diabetes, hemoglobin, platelets, AST, and ALT.

CONCLUSION

Soft pancreatic texture was identified as an independent risk factor for postoperative pancreatic fistula following laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD). The random forest model based on preoperative clinical variables enables individualized risk prediction, offering value for preoperative planning and postoperative care.

Which technical difficulty score can best predict postoperative outcomes after minimally invasive liver resections?

BACKGROUND

To assess technical difficulty scores for laparoscopic liver resections (LLR) in a large well-characterized cohort of low to high difficulty LLR.

METHODS

Patients undergoing LLR and open liver resection (OLS) (2007-2022) at Massachusetts General Hospital were included. Patients were classified according to the technical difficulty scores Ban difficulty score, IWATE criteria, Hasegawa score, IMM score, and Southhampton score (SHH) and calibration of these scores in predicting postoperative outcome parameters was assessed.

RESULTS

301 patients underwent LLR. Median age was 59 years and 58.5% of the patients were female. Median lesion size was 42.2 mm, median operative time was 197.7 min, and median estimated blood loss was 400.5 ml. According to the different scoring systems, 18.9% (SHH) to 52.2% (IWATE) of the LLR were high difficulty. Overall intraoperative events according to the modified Satava classification grade II (6.6%) and grade III (2.7%) were low as was postoperative 90 days major morbidity (5.3%) and mortality (1.0%). The respective scores' calibration for predicting non-textbook outcomes, intraoperative events, operative time, major postoperative morbidity, blood transfusion rates, and length of hospital stay was moderate to good for the respective scores and best for the IWATE criteria.

DISCUSSION

Even high technical difficulty LLR can be performed with low postoperative morbidity and mortality rates. The scores evaluated performed well in predicting major liver surgery outome parameters. Among the different difficulty scoring systems, the IWATE criteria performed best.

Robotic versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for periampullary neoplasm: a propensity matched analysis of peri-operative and oncologic outcomes

INTRODUCTION

Though open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) is the gold standard, robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) is on the rise due to its technical ease with robotic armamentarium and claim to decrease morbidity in the perioperative period. This study compares the perioperative and oncologic outcomes of RPD performed for periampullary neoplasms (PANs) with OPD.

METHOD

This is a retrospective study conducted from January 2018 to December 2023 for all the patients who underwent either OPD or RPD for PANs. Demographic, peri-operative outcomes and oncological parameters [disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS)] were analysed and compared. The two groups were matched using 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) to reduce the risk of confounding.

RESULTS

A hundred patients were analysed (30 in RPD and 70 in OPD), and both groups were similar in demographic characteristics. Post-operative morbidity in terms of clinically relevant pancreatic fistula, post-pancreatectomy haemorrhage, delayed gastric emptying and overall Clavien-Dindo ≥ Grade 3 complications were similar in both groups. Surgical site infection (SSI) was significantly higher in the OPD group compared to RPD (31.4% vs. 6.7, p = 0.008); however, the median postoperative hospital stay was similar in both groups. After PSM (26 patients in each group), the RPD group had significantly more operative time (480 min vs. 360 min, p = 0.007) less blood loss (250 ml vs. 400 ml, p = 0.004), and similar SSI [2(7.7%) vs. 6(23.1%), p = 0.178). The R0 resection rate, lymph nodal yield, lymph nodal positivity, DFS and OS were similar in both groups.

CONCLUSION

The robotic approach for PD is technically safe and feasible with equivalent resection quality and oncological outcomes compared to the open approach. RPD has equivalent postoperative morbidity, DFS and OS.

Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy With Open Reconstruction: The Buddha's Middle Path

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) is not universally adopted because of its steep learning curve. Its technical complexity discourages many surgeons. We believe that laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy with open reconstruction (LPOR) has all the benefits of LPD without its drawbacks and combines the ease of open surgery with the benefits of minimal access surgery. We assessed the feasibility and safety of LPOR and compared it with open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD), with the objectives being perioperative and short-term clinical/oncologic outcomes.

METHODS

Retrospective review of prospectively maintained database; study period from January 2013 to December 2019. Till 2015, we did only OPD. In 2016, we started with LPD but soon switched to LPOR. The resection part was done laparoscopically and the reconstruction part was done through a 8-cm mini-laparotomy.

RESULTS

We did 19 OPDs and 15 LPORs. Demographic data of the 2 groups were comparable. The duration of surgery was significantly longer in the LPOR group (360 vs. 410 min; P =0.01), whereas the blood loss and hospital stay were longer in the OPD group (520 vs. 360 mL; P =0.03 and 13 vs. 11 d; P =0.08, respectively). Clinically significant complication rates, including delayed gastric emptying and postoperative pancreatic fistulas, were not different in either group. No patients in the LPOR group had wound-related/pulmonary complications. Lymph node yield was similar in both groups (20 vs. 22) and we had 100% R0 resections.

CONCLUSIONS

LPOR was better than OPD in terms of short-term outcomes and was not inferior to OPD in terms of complications/oncologic outcomes.

A Comparison of Preoperative Predictive Scoring Systems for Postoperative Pancreatic Fistula after Pancreaticoduodenectomy Based on a Single-Center Analysis

Background: Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is associated with major postoperative morbidity and mortality. Several scoring systems have been described to stratify patients into risk groups according to the risk of POPF. The aim of this study was to compare scoring systems in patients who underwent a PD. Methods: A total of 196 patients undergoing PD from July 2019 to June 2022 were identified from a prospectively maintained database of the University Hospital Ghent. After performing a literature search, four validated, solely preoperative risk scores and the intraoperative Fistula Risk Score (FRS) were included in our analysis. Furthermore, we eliminated the variable blood loss (BL) from the FRS and created an additional score. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed for all risk factors, followed by a ROC analysis for the six scoring systems. Results: All scores showed strong prognostic stratification for developing POPF (p < 0.001). FRS showed the best predictive accuracy in general (AUC 0.862). FRS without BL presented the best prognostic value of the scores that included solely preoperative variables (AUC 0.783). Soft pancreatic texture, male gender, and diameter of the Wirsung duct were independent prognostic factors on multivariate analysis. Conclusions: Although all predictive scoring systems stratify patients accurately by risk of POPF, preoperative risk stratification could improve clinical decision-making and implement preventive strategies for high-risk patients. Therefore, the preoperative use of the FRS without BL is a potential alternative.

Real-Time Reporting of Complications in Hospitalized Surgical Patients by Surgical Team Members Using a Smartphone Application

BACKGROUND

The surgical morbidity and mortality (M&M) conference is a vital part of a resident's surgical education, but methods to collect and store M&M data are often rudimentary and unreliable. The authors propose a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)-compliant, electronic health record (EHR)-connected application and database to report and store complication data.

METHODS

The app is linked to the patient's EHR, and as a result, basic data on each surgical case-including diagnosis, surgery type, and surgeon-are automatically uploaded to the app. In addition, all data are stored in a secure SQL database-with communications between the app and the database end-to-end encrypted for HIPAA compliance. The full surgical team has access to the app, democratizing complications reporting and allowing for reporting in both the inpatient and outpatient settings. This complication information can then be automatically pulled from the app with a premade presentation for the M&M conference. The data can also be accessed by a Power BI dashboard, allowing for easy quality improvement analyses.

RESULTS

When implemented, the app improved data collection for the M&M conference while providing a database for institutional quality improvement use. The authors also identified additional utility of the app, including ensuring appropriate revenue capture. The general appearance of the app and the dashboard can be found in the article.

CONCLUSION

The app developed in this project significantly improves on more common methods for M&M conference complication reporting-transforming M&M data into a valuable resource for resident education and quality improvement.

Feasibility of middle colic artery as a landmark for superior mesenteric artery - first approach in laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy: a prospective study

BACKGROUND

SMA-first approach in pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) has been widely applied in open surgery as well as laparoscopy. Finding the superior mesenteric artery (SMA), inferior pancreatoduodenal artery (IPDA), first jejunal artery (J1A) has become a great challenge in laparoscopic PD (LPD). Meanwhile, exposing the midde colic artery (MCA) might be a feasible approach to determine SMA, IPDA, and J1A. Our study aims to find the anatomical correlation between MCA and SMA, IPDA, J1A, especially in SMA-first approach LPD from the left.

METHODS

Uncontrolled clinical trial with 33 patients undergoing LPD had preoperative contrast abdominal CT scan to analyze the anatomical relevance between MCA and SMA, J1A, IPDA. The operation was performed starting with exposing MCA in advance to find SMA, J1A and IPDA. The data was analyzed by SPSS 25.0.

RESULTS

90.9% of MCA started at 12-3 o'clock from SMA, the mean distance from the SMA root to the MCA and J1A was 56.4 mm and 37.4 mm, respectively. The distance between SMA and J1A was 19 mm. 72.7% J1A started at 9-12 o'clock, 69.7% J1A and IPDA had a common trunk. 78.8% IPDA started at 3-6 o'clock. 100% of the cases had J1A controlled intraoperatively, 81.8% for IPDA when approached from the left, 3% had MCA injury. The mean time to approach from the left was 98 min, median blood loss was 100 ml.

CONCLUSION

Exposing MCA first helps determine SMA, J1A and IPDA safely, efficiently and faciliates SMA-first approach LPD from the left and complete dissection of the mesopancreas and lymph nodes.

Efficacy of the 'Five-Needle' method for pancreatojejunostomy in laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: an observational study

Objective

The five-needle pancreato-intestinal anastomosis method is used in laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD). The aim of this study was to explore the clinical efficacy and adverse reactions of this new surgical method and to provide a scientific reference for promoting this new surgical method in the future.

Methods

A single-centre observational study was conducted to evaluate the safety and practicality of the five-needle method for pancreatojejunostomy in LPD surgeries. The clinical data of 78 patients who were diagnosed with periampullary malignancies and underwent LPD were collected from the 1st of August 2020 to the 31st of June 2023 at Lanzhou University First Hospital. Forty-three patients were treated with the 'Five-Needle' method (test groups), and 35 patients were treated with the 'Duct-to-Mucosa' method (control group) for pancreatojejunostomy. These two methods are the most commonly used and highly preferred pancreatointestinal anastomosis methods worldwide. The primary outcome was pancreatic fistula, and the incidence of which was compared between the two groups.

Results

The incidence of pancreatic fistula in the five-needle method group and the duct-to-mucosa method group was not significantly different (25.6% vs. 28.6%, p=0.767). Additionally, there were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of intraoperative blood loss (Z=-1.330, p=0.183), postoperative haemorrhage rates (p=0.998), length of postoperative hospital stay (Z=-0.714, p=0.475), bile leakage rate (p=0.745), or perioperative mortality rate (p=0.999). However, the operative time in the 'Five-Needle' method group was significantly shorter than that in the 'Duct-to-Mucosa' method group (270 ± 170 mins vs. 300 ± 210 mins, Z=-2.336, p=0.019). Further analysis revealed that in patients with pancreatic ducts smaller than 3 mm, the incidence of pancreatic fistula was lower for the 'Five-Needle' method than for the 'Duct-to-Mucosa' method (12.5% vs. 53.8%, p=0.007).

Conclusion

The five-needle method is safe and efficient for pancreatojejunostomy in LPD, and is particularly suitable for anastomosis in nondilated pancreatic ducts. It is a promising, valuable, and recommendable surgical method worthy of wider adoption.

A propensity score-matched analysis of laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: Is there value to a laparoscopic approach?

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy has been found safe and associated with advantages over open pancreaticoduodenectomy in prior studies. We compared outcomes of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy at a single institution after applying technical aspects and perioperative care learned from laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy to the open pancreaticoduodenectomy practice.

METHODS

From January 2010 to December 2020, all patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy were identified, and information was collected in a prospective fashion. Open pancreaticoduodenectomy (n = 347) and laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (n = 242) were performed using the same selection criteria, operative technique, and recovery protocols at a single institution. Propensity score matching was performed, and then perioperative data and 90-day outcomes were compared, and statistical analysis was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 589 patients underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy, including open pancreaticoduodenectomy (n = 347) and laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (n = 242). After excluding those undergoing total pancreatectomy or major vascular or concomitant organ resection, there were 497 patients (open pancreaticoduodenectomy = 301 and laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy = 196). Propensity score matching was performed, and 187 open pancreaticoduodenectomy patients were matched to 187 laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy patients. Operative time (475 vs 280 minutes) was longer, and estimated blood loss (150 vs 212 mL) was less for laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy than open pancreaticoduodenectomy, respectively. Pancreatic fistula (18.8% vs 5.4%) and delayed gastric emptying (18.8% vs 9.7%) were higher for laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy than open pancreaticoduodenectomy, respectively. Postpancreatectomy hemorrhage, major morbidity, mortality, hospital stay, and readmissions were nonsignificantly higher for laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy than open pancreaticoduodenectomy. Intensive care use and overall costs were significantly higher for laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy than open pancreaticoduodenectomy.

CONCLUSION

In our experience, open pancreaticoduodenectomy offers similar to improved outcomes over laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy, with less use of perioperative resources, thereby offering better value to patients requiring pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Independent external validation and comparison of existing pancreatic fistula risk scores after laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy with Bing's pancreaticojejunostomy

BACKGROUND

The fistula risk score (FRS) is the widely acknowledged prediction model for clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF). In addition, the alternative FRS (a-FRS) and updated alternative FRS (ua-FRS) have been developed. This study performed external validation and comparison of these 3 models in patients who underwent laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) with Bing's pancreaticojejunostomy.

METHODS

The FRS total points and predictive probabilities of a-FRS and ua-FRS were retrospectively calculated using patient data from a completed randomized controlled trial. Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) and CR-POPF were defined according to the 2016 International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery criteria. The correlations of the 4 risk items of the FRS model with CR-POPF and POPF were analyzed and represented using the Cramer V coefficient. The performance of the 3 models was measured using the area under the curve (AUC) and calibration plot and compared using the DeLong test.

RESULTS

This study enrolled 200 patients. Pancreatic texture and pathology had discrimination for CR-POPF (Cramer V coefficient: 0.180 vs 0.167, respectively). Pancreatic duct diameter, pancreatic texture, and pathology had discrimination for POPF (Cramer V coefficient: 0.357 vs 0.322 vs 0.257, respectively). Only the calibration of a-FRS predicting CR-POPF was good. The differences among the AUC values of the FRS, a-FRS, and ua-FRS were not statistically significant (CR-POPF: 0.687 vs 0.701 vs 0.710, respectively; POPF: 0.733 vs 0.741 vs 0.750, respectively). After recalibrating, the ua-FRS got sufficient calibration, and the AUC was 0.713 for predicting CR-POPF.

CONCLUSION

For LPD cases with Bing's pancreaticojejunostomy, the 3 models predicted POPF with better discrimination than predicting CR-POPF. The recalibrated ua-FRS had sufficient discrimination and calibration for predicting CR-POPF.

Role of minimally invasive surgery in the management of localized pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a review

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains a highly lethal malignancy with a minority of patients eligible for curative-intent surgical intervention. Pancreatic resections are technically demanding operations associated with considerable morbidity and mortality. Minimally invasive pancreatic resections (MIPRs), which include laparoscopic and robotic approaches, may enhance postoperative outcomes by lessening physiological impact of open surgery. A limited number of randomized-controlled trials as well as numerous retrospective reports have focused on MIPR outcomes and role in management of a variety of tumors, including PDAC. Today, MIPRs are generally considered acceptable alternatives to open surgery as a trend towards improved short-term metrics is observed. However, several questions remain regarding the oncological adequacy of MIPR's as long-term experience is less extensive compared to open techniques. This review aims to summarize existing evidence on MIPRs with a focus on PDAC.

A modified Blumgart method using a homemade crochet needle facilitates pancreaticojejunostomy in laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Among the safest procedures for anastomosis in pancreaticoduodenectomy, Blumgart pancreaticojejunostomy is associated with low rates of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) and postoperative complications. However, this technique is difficult to perform during laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD). This study presents a modified Blumgart method using a homemade crochet needle to facilitate laparoscopic pancreaticojejunostomy and evaluates its safety and reliability.

METHODS

From February 2019 to October 2022, 96 LPD surgeries with the new technique were performed by the same surgeons in the Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University School of Medicine. The operative details (operative time, pancreaticojejunostomy time, POPF rate, postoperative complication rate, mortality rate) were analyzed along with clinical and pathological indicators (pancreatic duct diameter, pancreatic texture, and histopathological findings).

RESULTS

There were 54 men and 42 women with a mean age of 63.38 ± 10.41 years. The intraoperative bleeding volume, operative time and postoperative length of hospital stay were 198.43 ± 132.97 mL, 445.30 ± 87.05 min and 13.68 ± 4.02 days, respectively. The operation time of pancreaticojejunostomy was 66.28 ± 10.17 min. Clinically relevant POPFs (grades B and C) occurred in 14.6% of patients. Only one patient had postoperative abdominal hemorrhage and was cured after reoperation. There were no operative or in-hospital deaths. With our proposed modification, the pancreatic duct and jejunal orifice are aligned correctly during duct-to-mucosa (DTM) after the application of external traction through the homemade crochet needle. The space between the posterior wall of pancreatic remnant and jejunal loop can be exposed by adjusting the tension of the external threads, which can facilitate DTM.

CONCLUSIONS

A modified Blumgart method using a homemade crochet needle could be technically feasible and safe during LPD. A randomized control trial is needed to confirm these findings.

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for carcinoma of the ampulla of Vater in a medium-volume center: a propensity score matching analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) in a medium-volume medical center.

METHODS

Data for patients who underwent OPD or LPD for carcinoma of the ampulla of Vater (VPC) between January 2017 and June 2022 were acquired retrospectively. Propensity score-matching (PSM) analysis was performed to balance the baseline characteristics between the groups. The primary outcome was disease-free survival (DFS). Cox regression analysis was used to explore the independent risk factors for DFS.

RESULTS

A total of 124 patients with pathologically diagnosed VPC were included. After 1:1 matching, there were 23 cases each in the OPD and LPD groups. Kaplan-Meier survival analyses showed that the median DFS in the OPD and LPD groups was identical (16.0 months vs 16.0 months, respectively). Multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that low levels of alkaline phosphatase and γ-glutamyl transpeptidase, positive surgical margin, and lymph node enlargement were independent risk factors for DFS.

CONCLUSION

LPD in medium-volume centers with acceptable technical conditions may approach or even achieve the efficacy of LPD in large-volume centers.

Impact of Unplanned Intra-Operative Conversions on Outcomes in Minimally Invasive Pancreatoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

Minimally-invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) is fraught with the risk of complication-related deaths (LEOPARD-2), a significant volume-outcome relationship and a long learning curve. With rates of conversion for MIPD approaching 40%, the impact of these on overall patient outcomes, especially, when unplanned, are yet to be fully elucidated. This study aimed to compare peri-operative outcomes of (unplanned) converted MIPD against both successfully completed MIPD and upfront open PD.

METHODS

A systematic review of major reference databases was undertaken. The primary outcome of interest was 30-day mortality. Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to judge the quality of the studies. Meta-analysis was performed using pooled estimates, derived using random effects model.

RESULTS

Six studies involving 20,267 patients were included in the review. Pooled analysis demonstrated (unplanned) converted MIPD were associated with an increased 30-day (RR 2.83, CI 1.62- 4.93, p = 0.0002, I2 = 0%) and 90-day (RR 1.81, CI 1.16- 2.82, p = 0.009, I2 = 28%) mortality and overall morbidity (RR 1.41, CI 1.09; 1.82, p = 0.0087, I2 = 82%) compared to successfully completed MIPD. Patients undergoing (unplanned) converted MIPD experienced significantly higher 30-day mortality (RR 3.97, CI 2.07; 7.65, p < 0.0001, I2 = 0%), pancreatic fistula (RR 1.65, CI 1.22- 2.23, p = 0.001, I2 = 0%) and re-exploration rates (RR 1.96, CI 1.17- 3.28, p = 0.01, I2 = 37%) compared upfront open PD.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient outcomes are significantly compromised following unplanned intraoperative conversions of MIPD when compared to successfully completed MIPD and upfront open PD. These findings stress the need for objective evidence-based guidelines for patient selection for MIPD.

Impact of conversion at time of minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy on perioperative and long-term outcomes: Review of the National Cancer Database

Backgrounds/Aims

Current literature presents limited data regarding outcomes following conversion at the time of minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MI-PD).

Methods

The National Cancer Database was queried for patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy. Patients were stratified into three groups: MI-PD, converted to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (CO-PD), and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (O-PD). Multivariable modeling was applied to compare outcomes of MI-PD and CO-PD to those of O-PD.

Results

Of 17,570 patients identified, 12.5%, 4.2%, and 83.4% underwent MI-PD, CO-PD, and O-PD, respectively. Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (R-PD) resulted in a higher lymph node yield (n = 23.2 ± 12.2) even when requiring conversion (n = 22.4 ± 13.2, p < 0.001). Margin positivity was higher in the CO-PD group (26.6%) than in the MI-PD group (21.3%) and the O-PD (22.6%) group (p = 0.017). Length of stay was shorter in the MI-PD group (laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy 10.4 ± 8.6, R-PD 10.6 ± 8.8) and the robotic converted to open group (10.7 ± 6.4) than in the laparoscopic converted to open group (11.2 ± 9) and the O-PD group (11.5 ± 8.9) (p < 0.001). After adjusting for patient and tumor characteristics, both MI-PD (odds ratio = 1.40; p < 0.001) and CO-PD (odds ratio = 1.24; p = 0.020) were significantly associated with an increased likelihood of long-term survival.

Conclusions

CO-PD does not negatively impact perioperative or oncologic outcomes.

External pancreatic ductal stenting in minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy: How to do it?

It has been shown that external pancreatic ductal stenting (EPDS) can reduce the incidence of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula. Although studies have described EPDS in open pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD), EPDS in minimally invasive PD has not been reported yet. Thus, the objective of this study was to describe the technique of EPDS in minimally invasive PD. The procedure was performed either laparoscopically or using a robot. Once PD was completed, key steps included triple enterotomy, threading of silk-suture through all enterotomies and exteriorization, completing posterior layer of pancreaticojejunostomy (PJ), railroading stent through preplaced silk-suture, intubation of stent into the pancreatic duct, completion of PJ, followed by hepaticojejunostomy and parietalization of jejunum at the stent exit site. EPDS in PD through a minimally invasive approach can be performed safely in selected cases with either a small-sized pancreatic duct or a soft pancreas.

Comparative analysis of clinical efficacy between laparoscopic and open pancreaticoduodenectomy

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) is a technically demanding procedure but is gradually gaining acceptance in clinical practice. This study was performed to compare the short-term outcomes of LPD with open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD). The perioperative data of the patients who underwent LPD (n = 25) and OPD (n = 40) from January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2021 at Zhangjiagang Hospital Affiliated to Soochow University were collected and retrospectively analyzed. All patients received R0 resection, and none of the patients died within the perioperative period. The preoperative data (gender, age, body mass index [BMI], and preoperative bilirubin), the intraoperative data (operative time, number of retrieved lymph nodes), and postoperative data (level 1 monitoring time, postoperative fluid diet time, postoperative fluid feeding time, and hospitalization cost) were comparable between the 2 groups (P > .05). The estimated blood loss, abdominal drainage tube removal time, postoperative hospital stay, catheter removal time, and analgesic drug use were significantly lesser in the LPD group, when compared to the OPD group (P < .05). LPD is safe and feasible. Compared to OPD, LPD has less surgical trauma, less intraoperative bleeding, and faster postoperative recovery.

Intraoperative pancreatoscopy in pancreaticoduodenectomy for intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms of the pancreas: Application to the laparoscopic approach

BACKGROUND

/Purpose: Owing to the characteristics of IPMNs, which have variable skipped lesions along the main pancreatic duct (MPD), determining the surgical margins is very difficult. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and potential oncologic impact of intraoperative pancreatoscopy (IOP) compared to frozen section biopsy (FSB) in pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) for pancreatic head IPMNs.

METHODS

Data of patients who underwent PD for IPMNs of the pancreas between October 2007 and May 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. IOP was performed in selected patients with IPMNs with inconclusive MPD involvement based on preoperative evaluations. Patients were divided into two groups, IOP group, FSB group. Clinicopathologic features and oncologic outcomes were compared between two groups.

RESULTS

60 patients underwent PD (laparoscopic or robotic, 42; open, 18) for pancreatic head IPMNs. IOP was safely performed in 28 patients, including minimally invasive approach used in 21 patients (35%). IOP group had a significantly larger MPD size (9.15 ± 4.79 mm vs 6.43 ± 4.11 mm, p = 0.021). Based on IOP, the initial surgical plan could be changed in 5 patients (17.8%) for complete resection. Recurrence occurred in 2 patients in FSB group and 3 patients in IOP group during the follow-up period (33.2 months, [range, 3.5-131.4 months]). Overall disease-free survival rate did not significantly differ between two groups (p = 0.529).

CONCLUSIONS

IOP can be safely performed in patients with pancreatic head IPMNs with MPD dilatation, even in the laparoscopic approach. Further studies evaluating the long-term oncologic effect of IOP for the management of IPMNs are required.

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.

Laparoscopic versus open Frey procedure: Comparative analysis of short and long-term outcomes

BACKGROUND

Frey procedure is one of the most common surgical treatment options for chronic pancreatitis. The data on safety and effectiveness of laparoscopic approach in Frey procedure are very limited. In the present study a comparative analysis of the short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus open Frey procedure was demonstrated.

METHODS

Seventy-nine consecutive patients with chronic pancreatitis submitted to either open (n - 29) (OFP) or laparoscopic (n - 50) (LFP) Frey procedure between September 2012 and January 2020, were evaluated.

RESULTS

The laparoscopic approach was performed fully on 45 (90%) patients. Conversion was needed in 4 (8%) cases, 1 patient (2%) was converted to laparoscopic Beger procedure. The median operative time was 420 (290-685) min after LFP and 310 (179-515) min after OFP. The blood loss was 100 (30-700) ml and 225 (50-1200) ml, respectively. The pain score on POD 3 was 2 (1-4) in LFP group and 4 (2-8) after OFP. The length of hospital stay was 6 (3-25) days after LFP and 9.5 (5-42) days after OFP. In the LFP and OFP groups the postoperative complications occurred in 11 (24.4%) and 8 (28.5%) patients, respectively. The follow-up period lasted for 36 (6-60) months after LFP and 60 (6-60) months after OFP. Poor pain control with the need for non-opioid analgesics intake was observed in 4 patients in the LFP group and in 3 patients after OFP.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic Frey procedure is an efficient and safe intervention, which provides all the advantages of the minimally invasive approach.

A comparative study of robotics and laparoscopic in minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy: A single-center experience

Objective

To retrospectively compare the short-term benefits of robotic surgery and laparoscopic in the perioperative period of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD).

Methods

This retrospective analysis evaluated patients who underwent laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) or robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) from March 2018 to January 2022 in the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University (Zhengzhou, China). Perioperative data, including operating time, complications, morbidity and mortality, estimated blood loss (EBL), and postoperative length of stay, were analysed.

Result

A total of 190 cases of MIPD were included, of which 114 were LPD and 76 were RPD. There was no significant difference between the two groups in gender, age, previous history of upper abdominal operation, jaundice (>150 µmol/L), or diabetes (P > 0.05). The conversion rate to laparotomy was similar in the LPD and RPD groups (5.3% vs. 6.6%, P = 0.969). A total of 179 cases of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy were successfully performed, including 108 cases of LPD and 71 cases of RPD. There were significant differences between the laparoscopic and robotic groups in operation time [mean, 5.97 h vs. 5.42 h, P < 0.05] and postoperative length of stay [mean, 15.3 vs. 14.6 day, P < 0.05]. No significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of EBL, intraoperative transfusion, complication rate, mortality rate, or reoperation rate (P > 0.05). There were no significant differences in pathological type, number of lymph nodes harvested, or positive lymph node rate (P > 0.05).

Conclusion

RPD had an advantage compared to LPD in reduced operation time and postoperative length of stay, technical feasibility, and safety.

Comparison of safety and effectiveness between laparoscopic and open pancreatoduodenectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Validity of the laparoscopic approach in pancreatic head lesion remains debatable. This study aims to compare the safety and effectiveness of laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) and open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) and investigate the source of heterogeneity from surgeons' and patients' perspectives.

METHOD

We searched PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Web of Science for studies published before February 1, 2021. Of 6578 articles, 81 were full-text reviewed. The primary outcome was mortality. Three independent reviewers screened and extracted the data and resolved disagreements by consensus. Studies were evaluated for quality using ROB2.0 and ROBINS-I. According to different study designs, sensitivity and meta-regression analyses were conducted to explore the heterogeneity source. This meta-analyses was also conducted to explore the learning curve's heterogeneity. This study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021234579.

RESULTS

We analyzed 34 studies involving 46,729 patients (4705 LPD and 42,024 OPD). LPD was associated with lower (P = 0.025) in unmatched studies (P = 0.017). No differences in mortality existed in randomized controlled trials (P = 0.854) and matched studies (P = 0.726). Sensitivity analysis found no significant difference in mortality in elderly patients, patients with pancreatic cancer, and in high- and low-volume hospitals (all P > 0.05). In studies at the early period of LPD (<40 cases), higher mortality (P < 0.001) was found (all P < 0.05).LPD showed non-inferiority in length of stay, complications, and survival outcomes in all analyses.

CONCLUSION

In high-volume centers with adequate surgical experience, LPD in selected patients appears to be a valid alternative to LPD with comparable mortality, LOS, complications, and survival outcomes.

Short-term and pathologic outcomes of robotic versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for periampullary and pancreatic head malignancy: an early experience

Open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) is associated with high perioperative morbidity. Adoption of robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy (RAPD) has been slow despite ergonomic advantages, improved visualization and dexterity. We aim to report our experience comparing operative and short-term outcomes following RAPD and OPD. We did retrospective analysis of prospectively maintained database, including all consecutive patients who underwent RAPD or OPD between January 2016 and August 2019. 48 patients were included, 21 in RAPD group and 27 in OPD group. RAPD was associated with longer mean operative time (440 vs. 414.1 min) but had significantly less mean intra-operative blood loss (256.9 vs. 404.5 ml), median length of ICU stay (1 vs. 3 days), overall length of stay (11 vs. 13 days) and lower rates of SSI (23.8% vs. 63%). Both groups showed equal incidence of POPF, comparable R0 resection rates (100% vs. 96.3%) and median number of lymph nodes harvested (14 vs. 18). Rate of open conversion was 28.6% (n = 6), most commonly for bleeding (66.6%) and mesenteric vessel involvement (33.3%). When compared to first ten RAPD cases, mean operative time (483.5 vs. 400.5 min) and rate of conversion (36.36% vs. 20%) was less in last eleven cases. RAPD is significantly better than OPD in terms of intra-operative blood loss, length of ICU stay, length of total stay and SSI. The longer operative time and conversion rate associated with RAPD progressively decreased as experience accumulated and the learning curve was crossed. Further randomized controlled trials are needed to investigate cost-effectiveness and long-term oncologic survival in RAPD patients.

Clinical validation of the risk scoring systems of postoperative pancreatic fistula after laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy in Chinese cohorts: A single-center retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Although several prediction models for the occurrence of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula after laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy exist, most were established using Western cohorts. The utility of these models using a Chinese cohort has not been validated widely. The aim of this study was to validate the original Fistula Risk Score, the alternative Fistula Risk Score, and the updated alternative Fistula Risk Score for patients undergoing laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy in a large-scale Chinese cohort externally.

METHODS

Three clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula risk models were selected for external validation with our database. Primary outcome was grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula (clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula). Performance was measured based on sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value, positive and negative likelihood ratio, and area under the curve. The original Fistula Risk Score was also compared with the alternative Fistula Risk Score and the updated alternative Fistula Risk Score.

RESULTS

Of the 400 patients who underwent laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy, 60 (15.00%) developed clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula. For the original Fistula Risk Score, the alternative Fistula Risk Score, and the updated alternative Fistula Risk Score, the sensitivity was 65.00%, 90.00%, and 90.00%; the specificity was 43.53%, 44.12%, and 37.65%; the positive predictive value was 16.88%, 22.13%, and 20.30%; the negative predictive value was 87.57%, 96.15%, and 95.52%; positive likelihood ratio was 1.151, 1.611, and 1.443; negative likelihood ratio was 0.804, 0.227, and 0.266, respectively. The area under the curve values were 0.608 (95% confidence interval 0.573-0.649), 0.733 (95% confidence interval 0.692-0.797), and 0.720 (95% confidence interval 0.688-0.763) on the original Fistula Risk Score, the alternative Fistula Risk Score, and the updated alternative Fistula Risk Score (P < .05).

CONCLUSION

The alternative Fistula Risk Score and the updated alternative Fistula Risk Score had similarly good predictive utility. The original Fistula Risk Score performed less well. We recommended to use the alternative Fistula Risk Score and the updated alternative Fistula Risk Score to predict occurrence of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula after laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy when applied to a Chinese cohort.

Pancreaticojejunostomy without pancreatic duct stent after laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy: preliminary outcomes from a prospective randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Outcomes of pancreaticojejunostomy without pancreatic duct during open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) are unknown and controversial, and corresponding reports in laparoscopic surgery are lacking.

METHODS

Patients were evaluated at West China Hospital, and standard laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) was planned. A prospective randomized trial was conducted, in which the patients were randomly assigned to the no-stent and internal-stent groups in a single-center trial. The primary outcomes were the incidence of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) and 90-day mortality. Preliminary results were reported.

RESULTS

From November 2019 to March 2021, we enrolled 90 patients (41 in the no-stent group and 49 in the internal-stent group) in the study. All baseline parameters of both groups, including age, sex ratio, pancreatic duct diameter, and intraoperative blood loss, were comparable between the two groups except for pathological diagnosis and the texture of remnants. Twenty-seven (65.9%) and 19 (38.8%) patients in the no-stent and internal-stent groups, respectively, had soft pancreatic remnants (P = 0.010). The total incidence of CR-POPF was 5.6% and included two patients (4.9%) in the no-stent group and three patients (6.1%) in the internal-stent group (P = 1.000). Only one patient in the internal-stent group died of heart failure within 90 days after the operation. No significant difference in other postoperative complications was observed between the groups except for biochemical fistula [no-stent group vs. internal-stent group = 31.7% vs. 12.2%, (P = 0.024)].

CONCLUSIONS

In a high-volume LPD center, duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy without pancreatic duct stent is safe and reliable. In addition, duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy without pancreatic duct stent was more challenge. We recommend using the stent during anastomosis and pulling it out after the procedure.

Review of minimally invasive pancreas surgery and opinion on its incorporation into low volume and resource poor centres

Pancreatic surgery has been one of the last areas for the application of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) because there are many factors that make laparoscopic pancreas resections difficult. The concept of service centralization has also limited expertise to a small cadre of high-volume centres in resource rich countries. However, this is not the environment that many surgeons in developing countries work in. These patients often do not have the opportunity to travel to high volume centres for care. Therefore, we sought to review the existing data on MIS for the pancreas and to discuss. In this paper, we review the evolution of MIS on the pancreas and discuss the incorporation of this service into low-volume and resource-poor countries, such as those in the Caribbean. This paper has two parts. First, we performed a literature review evaluating all studies published on laparoscopic and robotic surgery of the pancreas. The data in the Caribbean is examined and we discuss tips for incorporating this operation into resource poor hospital practice. Low pancreatic case volume in the Caribbean, and financial barriers to MIS in general, laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy, enucleation and cystogastrostomy are feasible operations to integrate in to a resource-limited healthcare environment. This is because they can be performed with minimal to no consumables and require an intermediate MIS skillset to complement an open pancreatic surgeon’s peri-operative experience.

Efficacy of laparoscopic-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy in Vietnamese patients with periampullary of Vater malignancies: A single-institution prospective study

Introduction

Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy is a technically complex technique, that is being used to treat periampullary malignancy. We provide our experience with laparoscopic-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (LAPD) with statistics on the outcomes of periampullary cancer patients.

Material and method

Thirty patients underwent surgery between June 1, 2016 and May 30, 2020, with 21 undergoing classical PD and 9 undergoing pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (PPPD). Prospectively gathered data on surgical outcomes and long-term oncological results are given.

Results

The median operative time was 277.5 min (range, 258.7–330 min), and the median intraoperative estimated blood loss was 319.5 mL (range, 241.2–425 mL). The rate of conversion to OPD, surgical reintervention, and mortality was 20%, 13.3%, and 10% respectively. Cumulative surgery-related morbidity was 33.4%, including bleeding (n = 4), severe POPF (n = 4), biliary fistula (n = 1), DGE (n = 2), and intestinal obstruction (n = 1). Pathologic diagnoses were AoV cancer (n = 23), distal CBD cancer (n = 4), PDAC (n = 2), and AoV NET (n = 1). The mean survival time of the LAPD group was 29.9 months. The long-term survival time of the N0 group was 36.8 months, which was significantly longer than that of the N1 group. The long-term survival times of stages I–B, II-A, and II-B were 36.9, 26.5, and 15.7 months, respectively (p = 0.016).

Conclusion

LAPD has a high rate of conversion to OPD, morbidity, and mortality. However, LPD is feasible technique for highly selected patients. Lymph node metastasis and stage of disease are the risk factors for long-term survival.

•

Most of tumours that develop in the periampullary of the Vater region are malignant.

•

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) remains the most challenging procedure in laparoscopic surgery with the rate of conversion to OPD, morbility, and mortality was 0–40%, 3.8%–50%, and 1.6%–8%, respectively.

•

In the first 30 cases, LAPD has a high rate of complications, conversion to OPD, and mortality. However, LAPD is feasible method and can provide acceptable oncological results with careful patient selection.

•

Experience, learning curve, and high-volume centre might have influenced the results.

Wrapping double-mattress anastomosis for pancreaticojejunostomy in minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy can significantly reduce postoperative pancreatic fistula rate compared with conventional pancreaticojejunostomy in open surgery: An analysis of a propensity score-matched sample

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD), including laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD), is technically demanding because of pancreaticojejunostomy (PJ). Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is the most serious complication of MIPD and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD). Contrary to expectations, conventional PJ in MIPD did not improve POPF rate and length of hospital stay. High POPF rates are attributed to technical issues encountered during MIPD, which include motion restriction and insufficient water tightness. Therefore, we developed wrapping double-mattress anastomosis, the Kiguchi method, which is a novel PJ technique that can improve MIPD. Herein, we describe the Kiguchi method for PJ in MIPD and compare the outcomes between this technique and conventional PJ in OPD.

METHODS

The current retrospective study included 83 patients in whom the complete obstruction of the main pancreatic duct by pancreatic tumors was absent on preoperative imaging. This research was performed from September 2016 to August 2020 at Fujita Health University Hospital. All patients were evaluated as having a soft pancreatic texture, which is the most important factor associated with POPF development. Briefly, 50 patients underwent OPD with conventional PJ (OPD group). Meanwhile, 33 patients, including 15 and 18 who had LPD and RPD, respectively, underwent MIPD using the Kiguchi method (MIPD group). After a 1:1 propensity score matching, 30 patients in the OPD group were matched to 30 patients in the MIPD group.

RESULTS

The patients' preoperative data did not differ. The grade B/C POPF rate was significantly lower in the MIPD group than in the OPD group (6.7% vs 40.0%, p = 0.002). The MIPD group had a significantly shorter median length of hospital stay than the OPD group (24 vs 30 days, p = 0.004).

CONCLUSION

The novel Kiguchi method in MIPD significantly reduced the POPF rate in patients without complete obstruction of the main pancreatic duct.

Short-term and long term morbidity in robotic pancreatic surgery: a systematic review

Background

Pancreatic cancer is one of the most aggressive and lethal tumours in Western society. Pancreatic surgery can be considered a challenge for open and laparoscopic surgeons, even if the accuracy of gland dissection, due to the close relationship between pancreas, the portal vein, and mesenteric vessels, besides the reconstructive phase (in pancreaticoduodenectomy), lead to significant difficulties for laparoscopic technique. Minimally invasive pancreatic surgery changed utterly with the development of robotic surgery. However, this review aims to make more clarity on the influence of robotic surgery on long-term morbidity.

Methods

A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Scopus to identify and analyze studies published from November 2011 to September 2020 concerning robotic pancreatic surgery. The following terms were used to perform the search: "long term morbidity robotic pancreatic surgery".

Results

Eighteen articles included in the study were published between November 2011 and September 2020. The review included 2041 patients who underwent robotic pancreatic surgery, mainly for a malignant tumour. The two most common robotic surgical procedures adopted were the robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) and the robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD). In two studies, patients were divided into groups; on the one hand, those who underwent a robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD), on the other hand, those who underwent robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP). The remaining items included surgical approach such as robotic middle pancreatectomy (RMP), robotic distal pancreatectomy and splenectomy, robotic-assisted laparoscopic pancreatic dissection (RALPD), robotic enucleation of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours.

Conclusions

Comparison between robotic surgery and open surgery lead to evidence of different advantages of the robotic approach. A multidisciplinary team and a surgical centre at high volume are essential for better postoperative morbidity and mortality.

Post-operative procalcitonin and C-reactive protein predict pancreatic fistula after laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

Clinically relevant pancreatic fistula (CRPF) is a serious complication following laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD). This study aimed to determine if C-reactive protein (CRP) and procalcitonin (PCT) serum levels could be used as early biomarkers to predict CRPF after LPD.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, we collected peri-operative data of patients who underwent LPD between January 2019 and November 2019. We compared serum levels of white blood cells (WBC), CRP, and PCT on post-operative days (POD) 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 between the CRPF and non-CRPF groups and analyzed the predictive risk factors for CRPF.

RESULTS

Among the 186 patients included in this study, 18 patients (9.7%) developed CRPF, including 15 and 3 patients with grade B and C fistulas, respectively. The mean WBC, CRP, and PCT levels were higher on most PODs in the CRPF group compared to the non-CRPF group. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis indicated that CRP levels on POD 2, 5, and 7 can predict CRPF development after LPD, with the area under the curve (AUC) value reaching the highest level on POD 2 (AUC 0.794). PCT levels on POD 2, 3, 5, and 7 were highly predictive of CRPF after LPD. The highest AUC value was achieved on POD 3 [PCT > 2.10 ng/ml (AUC 0.951; sensitivity 88.2%, specificity 92.9%, P < 0.001)].

CONCLUSIONS

Both CRP and PCT levels can be used to predict CRPF development after LPD, with PCT having a higher predictive value.

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.

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy provides better histopathological outcomes as compared to its open counterpart: a meta-analysis

The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate whether robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) may provide better clinical and pathologic outcomes compared to its open counterpart. The Pubmed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were systematically searched. Overall postoperative morbidity and resection margin involvement rate were the primary endpoints. Secondary endpoints included operating time, estimated blood loss (EBL), incisional surgical site infection (SSI) rate, length of hospital stay (LOS), and number of lymph nodes harvested. Twenty-four studies totaling 12,579 patients (2,175 robotic PD and 10,404 open PD were included. Overall postoperative mortality did not significantly differ [OR (95%CI) = 0.86 (0.74, 1.01); p = 0.06]. Resection margin involvement rate was significantly lower in robotic PD [15.6% vs. 19.9%; OR (95%CI) = 0.64 (0.41, 1.00); p = 0.05; NNT = 23]. Operating time was significantly longer in robotic PD [MD (95%CI) = 75.17 (48.05, 102.28); p < 0.00001]. EBL was significantly decreased in robotic PD [MD (95%CI) = - 191.35 (- 238.12, - 144.59); p < 0.00001]. Number of lymph nodes harvested was significantly higher in robotic PD [MD (95%CI) = 2.88 (1.12, 4.65); p = 0.001]. This meta-analysis found that robotic PD provides better histopathological outcomes as compared to open PD at the cost of longer operating time. Furthermore, robotic PD did not have any detrimental impact on clinical outcomes, with lower wound infection rates.

Risk of conversion to open surgery during robotic and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy and effect on outcomes: international propensity score-matched comparison study

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) is increasingly being performed because of perceived patient benefits. Whether conversion of MIPD to open pancreatoduodenectomy worsens outcome, and which risk factors are associated with conversion, is unclear.

METHODS

This was a post hoc analysis of a European multicentre retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing MIPD (2012-2017) in ten medium-volume (10-19 MIPDs annually) and four high-volume (at least 20 MIPDs annually) centres. Propensity score matching (1 : 1) was used to compare outcomes of converted and non-converted MIPD procedures. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify risk factors for conversion, with results presented as odds ratios (ORs) with 95 per cent confidence intervals (c.i).

RESULTS

Overall, 65 of 709 MIPDs were converted (9.2 per cent) and the overall 30-day mortality rate was 3.8 per cent. Risk factors for conversion were tumour size larger than 40 mm (OR 2.7, 95 per cent c.i.1.0 to 6.8; P = 0.041), pancreatobiliary tumours (OR 2.2, 1.0 to 4.8; P = 0.039), age at least 75 years (OR 2.0, 1.0 to 4.1; P = 0.043), and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (OR 5.2, 2.5 to 10.7; P < 0.001). Medium-volume centres had a higher risk of conversion than high-volume centres (15.2 versus 4.1 per cent, P < 0.001; OR 4.1, 2.3 to 7.4, P < 0.001). After propensity score matching (56 converted MIPDs and 56 completed MIPDs) including risk factors, rates of complications with a Clavien-Dindo grade of III or higher (32 versus 34 per cent; P = 0.841) and 30-day mortality (12 versus 6 per cent; P = 0.274) did not differ between converted and non-converted MIPDs.

CONCLUSION

Risk factors for conversion during MIPD include age, large tumour size, tumour location, laparoscopic approach, and surgery in medium-volume centres. Although conversion during MIPD itself was not associated with worse outcomes, the outcome in these patients was poor in general which should be taken into account during patient selection for MIPD.

Single-centre comparison of robotic and open pancreatoduodenectomy: a propensity score-matched study

BACKGROUND

Pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic head and periampullary cancers is still associated with high perioperative morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study was to compare the short-term outcomes of robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy (RAPD) and open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) performed in a high-volume centre.

METHODS

A single-centre, prospective database was used to retrospectively compare the early outcomes of RAPD procedures to standard OPD procedures completed between January 2014 and December 2018. Of the 121 included patients, 78 underwent RAPD and 43 underwent OPD. After propensity score matching (PSM), 35 RAPD patients were matched with 35 OPD patients with similar preoperative characteristics.

RESULTS

There were no statistically significant differences in most of the baseline demographics and perioperative outcomes in the two groups after PSM optimization with the exception of the operative time (530 min (RAPD) versus 335 min (OPD) post-match, p < 0.000). No differences were found between the two groups in terms of complications (including pancreatic leaks, 11.4% in both OPD and RAPD), perioperative mortality, reoperations or readmissions. Earlier refeeding was obtained in the RAPD group vs. the OPD group (3 vs. 4 days, p = 0.002). Although the differences in the length of the hospital stay and blood transfusions were not statistically significant, both parameters showed a positive trend in favour of RAPD. The number of harvested lymph nodes was similar and oncologically adequate.

CONCLUSIONS

RAPD is a safe and oncologically adequate technique to treat malignancies arising from the pancreatic head and periampullary region. Several perioperative parameters resulted in trends favouring RAPD over OPD, at the price of longer operating time. Data should be reinforced with a larger sample to guarantee statistical significance.

First experience with robotic pancreatoduodenectomy in Singapore

INTRODUCTION

Recent studies reported that laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) is associated with superior perioperative outcomes compared to the open approach. However, concerns have been raised about the safety of LPD, especially during the learning phase. Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) has been reported to be associated with a shorter learning curve compared to LPD. We herein present our initial experience with RPD.

METHODS

A retrospective review of a single-institution prospective robotic hepatopancreaticobiliary (HPB) surgery database of 70 patients identified seven consecutive RPDs performed by a single surgeon in 2016-2017. These were matched at a 1:2 ratio with 14 open pancreatoduodenectomies (OPDs) selected from 77 consecutive pancreatoduodenectomies performed by the same surgeon between 2011 and 2017.

RESULTS

Seven patients underwent RPD, of which five were hybrid procedures with open reconstruction. There were no open conversions. Median operative time was 710.0 (range 560.0-930.0) minutes. Two major morbidities (> Grade 2) occurred: one gastrojejunostomy bleed requiring endoscopic haemostasis and one delayed gastric emptying requiring feeding tube placement. There were no pancreatic fistulas, reoperations or 90-day/in-hospital mortalities in the RPD group. Comparison between RPD and OPD demonstrated that RPD was associated with a significantly longer operative time. Compared to open surgery, there was no significant difference in estimated blood loss, blood transfusion, postoperative stay, pancreatic fistula rates, morbidity and mortality rates, R0 resection rates, and lymph node harvest rates.

CONCLUSION

Our initial experience demonstrates that RPD is feasible and safe in selected patients. It can be safely adopted without any compromise in patient outcomes compared to the open approach.

Complete laparoscopic radical resection of hilar cholangiocarcinoma: technical aspects and long-term results from a single center

Introduction

The landscape of surgical treatments for hepatobiliary disease was significantly changed after the advent of laparoscopy. Many kinds of complex laparoscopic procedures can be routinely performed at present, but radical resection of hilar cholangiocarcinoma (HC) by laparoscopy is still highly contentious.

Aim

To describe our primary experience with laparoscopic radical resection for HC and determine the safety and feasibility of this procedure.

Material and methods

Between December 2015 and November 2019, 32 patients planned to undergo curative-intent laparoscopic resection of HC in our department. The perioperative and long-term outcomes of these patients were retrospectively analyzed.

Results

Laparoscopic surgery with radical resection was ultimately performed in 24 (75.0%) patients; 3 (9.3%) patients were found to be unresectable at the preliminary exploration stage, and 5 (15.7%) patients converted from laparoscopy to laparotomy. The operation time and blood loss were 476.95 ±133.89 min and 568.75 ±324.01 ml, respectively. A negative margin was achieved in 19 (79.1%) of the laparoscopy patients. Three (12.5%) patients were identified with microscopic positive margins, and 2 (8.4%) patients underwent macroscopic residual tumor resection (R2). The length of postoperative stay was 23.3 ±11.7 days. Severe morbidity occurred in 4 (16.6%) patients. The actuarial 3-year overall survival and disease-free survival for patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery were 49.1% and 47.0%, respectively.

Conclusions

Laparoscopic radical resection for HC is safe and feasible in experienced hands for highly selected patients but is still in its initial stages. When adequate oncologic resection is performed, the laparoscopic approach does not adversely influence the prognosis of the patient.

Evaluation of the learning curve for laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy by CUSUM analyses. Cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) remains an extremely demanding surgery. The purpose of this study was to describe the learning curve required for its safe implementation.

METHODS

Fifty consecutive patients undergoing LPD were retrospectively reviewed. The learning curve was clustered into 4 groups: A, B and C (initial phase, n = 10 each) and D (consolidation phase, n = 20). Cumulative Sum (CUSUM) analysis was applied to operative time, conversion rate and severe postoperative complications.

RESULTS

No significant differences were observed among groups and phases concerning specific and general postoperative complications, oncological outcomes or mortality. The conversion rate significantly reduced from 90% (9) in Group A to 40% (4) in Group C (p < 0.01). Operative time was longer in the consolidation phase (median of 506 vs 437 min, p < 0.01). Conversely, hospital stays were shorter during the consolidation phase (8 vs 15 days, p < 0.01). CUSUM analysis identified 20-25cases as being enough to complete the learning curve if operative time and severe complications are analysed, while 40 cases would be needed for considering the conversion rate.

CONCLUSIONS

The learning curve in LPD can be completed after 20-25 procedures. This information will help to design programmes for introducing new surgeons to this technique.

Robotic Whipple for pancreatic ductal and ampullary adenocarcinoma: 10 years experience of a US single-center

BACKGROUND

There is currently ample consensus about the safety and feasibility of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD). However, few studies are available on the long-term oncological outcomes of this procedure. We present a long-term survival analysis (up to 10 years) of our series of RPD carried out for ductal and ampullary adenocarcinoma.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected approved database was carried out including 39 patients who underwent RPD for pancreatic ductal and ampullary adenocarcinomas.

RESULTS

The 5-year overall survival for ductal and ampullary carcinoma was 41% with an estimated median and mean survival of 27 and 52 months. The ampullary group had significantly longer 5-year survival (68%) than the ductal group (30%).

CONCLUSION

Our data show, within the limitations of their retrospective nature, that robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy provides similar short- and long-term survival outcomes compared to open technique in the treatment of pancreatic ductal and ampullary adenocarcinoma.

Robotic-assisted versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for patients with benign and malignant periampullary disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of short-term outcomes

BACKGROUND

Although several non-randomized studies comparing robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) recently demonstrated that the two operative techniques could be equivalent in terms of safety outcomes and short-term oncologic efficacy, no definitive answer has arrived yet to the question as to whether robotic assistance can contribute to reducing the high rate of postoperative morbidity.

METHODS

Systematic literature search was performed using MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and EMBASE databases. Prospective and retrospective studies comparing RPD and OPD as surgical treatment for periampullary benign and malignant lesions were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis with no limits of language or year of publication.

RESULTS

18 non-randomized studies were included for quantitative synthesis with 13,639 patients allocated to RPD (n = 1593) or OPD (n = 12,046). RPD and OPD showed equivalent results in terms of mortality (3.3% vs 2.8%; P = 0.84), morbidity (64.4% vs 68.1%; P = 0.12), pancreatic fistula (17.9% vs 15.9%; P = 0.81), delayed gastric emptying (16.8% vs 16.1%; P = 0.98), hemorrhage (11% vs 14.6%; P = 0.43), and bile leak (5.1% vs 3.5%; P = 0.35). Estimated intra-operative blood loss was significantly lower in the RPD group (352.1 ± 174.1 vs 588.4 ± 219.4; P = 0.0003), whereas operative time was significantly longer for RPD compared to OPD (461.1 ± 84 vs 384.2 ± 73.8; P = 0.0004). RPD and OPD showed equivalent results in terms of retrieved lymph nodes (19.1 ± 9.9 vs 17.3 ± 9.9; P = 0.22) and positive margin status (13.3% vs 16.1%; P = 0.32).

CONCLUSIONS

RPD is safe and feasible as surgical treatment for malignant or benign disease of the pancreatic head and the periampullary region. Equivalency in terms of surgical radicality including R0 curative resection and number of harvested lymph nodes between the two groups confirmed the reliability of RPD from an oncologic point of view.

A single-center clinical study of hepatic artery variations in laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: A retrospective analysis of data from 218 cases

Hepatic artery variations increase the difficulty of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD). The safety and efficacy of LPD in the presence of aberrant hepatic arteries (AHA) must be further verified.Patients with normal and variant hepatic arteries who underwent LPD and preoperative arterial angiography were retrospectively analyzed. Variation type, intraoperative management, and clinical treatment outcomes were compared.There were 54 cases (24.8%) of AHA. The most common hepatic artery variation was accessory right hepatic artery (RHA) from the superior mesenteric artery (SMA, n = 12, 5.5%), followed by replaced RHA from the SMA (n = 10, 4.6%), accessory left hepatic artery from the SMA (n = 10, 4.6%), and replaced common hepatic artery from the SMA (n = 6, 2.8%). Each type of arterial variation was successfully preserved in all cases, and there were no significant effects on the evaluated surgical indices, conversion rate, incidence of postoperative complications, or follow-up results.Our findings indicated that preservation of AHAs during total LPD is feasible. There were no significant effects on surgical indices, incidence of postoperative complications, or follow-up outcomes.The influence of AHA on the safety and efficacy of LPD must be further verified. Patients with normal and variant hepatic arteries who underwent LPD and preoperative arterial angiography were retrospectively analyzed. There were 54 cases (24.8%) of AHA. There were no significant effects of AHAs on surgical indices, incidence of postoperative complications, or follow-up outcomes.

Intracorporeal hemi-hand-sewn technique for end-to-end anastomosis in laparoscopic left-side colectomy

BACKGROUND

Recently, complete laparoscopic procedures with intracorporeal reconstruction were performed in laparoscopic colectomies; however, they were scarcely reported in left-side colectomies because of the anatomical reasons. Since the descending colon is extensively fixed to the retroperitoneum, the dissection range required for resection cannot always be enough for a safe extracorporeal anastomosis. We devised an intracorporeal hemi-hand-sewn (IC-HHS) technique for end-to-end anastomosis in laparoscopic left-side colectomies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 11 patients underwent IC-HHS anastomosis for the treatment of colon cancer around the sigmoid-descending (SD) junction. The posterior wall of the anastomosis was constructed with a linear stapler and subsequently, the anterior wall was sutured with an intracorporeal hand-sewn technique. Perioperative outcomes were evaluated.

RESULTS

IC-HHS reconstruction between the descending colon and sigmoid colon was performed in 11 cases. There were six males and five females with an average age of 66.5 years. The average body mass index was 26.1 kg/m². The averages of the operation time and intraoperative blood loss were 181.2 min (range, 154 to 210 min) and 13.9 ml (range 5-30 ml), respectively. There were no perioperative complications except for one patient with a superficial surgical site infection.

CONCLUSIONS

IC-HHS anastomosis was successfully performed for colon cancer around the SD junction with acceptable perioperative outcomes and there were no procedure-related complications, indicating its feasibility. IC-HHS anastomosis could eliminate unnecessary splenic flexure mobilization in left-side colectomies. IC-HHS anastomosis can be an optional reconstruction for totally laparoscopic colectomies.

Laparoscopic surgery and robotic surgery for hilar cholangiocarcinoma: an updated systematic review

BACKGROUND

The role of laparoscopic surgery (Lap) and robotic surgery (Rob) for radical resection of hilar cholangiocarcinoma (HC) is not clear. We summarized the safety and feasibility of Lap and Rob for HC.

METHODS

A search of all HC studies in English published on PubMed up to April 2020 was conducted. References from retrieved articles were reviewed to broaden the search.

RESULTS

In total, 23 reports were enrolled: 15 involving Lap, seven using Rob and one study reporting a minimally invasive approach (Lap or Rob, not specified). A total of 205 cases of HC were documented (Lap/Rob/not specified, 99/101/5): 37 cases of Bismuth type-I (Lap/Rob, 17/20), 22 cases of Bismuth type-II (Lap/Rob, 15/7), 68 cases of type-III (Lap/Rob, 39/29) and 13 cases of type-IV (Lap/Rob, 9/4). The pooled prevalence of R0 resection was 80.1% (Lap/Rob, 85.9%/71.0%). The weighted mean for operative time, blood loss and post-operative hospital stay was 458.4 min (Lap/Rob, 423.3/660.8 min), 615.3 mL (Lap/Rob, 521.0/1188.5 mL) and 14.0 days (Lap/Rob, 14.0/13.7 days), respectively. The pooled prevalence of conversion to open surgery, post-operative complications, and perioperative mortality was 9.1% (Lap/Rob, 12.2%/3.8%), 47.2% (Lap/Rob, 38.4%/61.3%) and 3.0% (Lap/Rob, 4.0%/2.0%), respectively.

CONCLUSION

With innovations in technology and gradual accumulation of surgical experience, the feasibility and safety of performing Lap and Rob for HC will improve.

Safe implementation of minimally invasive pancreas resection: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive pancreas resection (MIPR) has been expanding in the past decade. Excellent outcomes have been reported, however, safety concerns exist. The aim of this study was to define prerequisites for performing MIPR with the objective to guide safe implementation of MIPR into clinical practice.

METHODS

This systematic review was conducted as part of the 2019 Miami International Evidence-Based Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreas Resection (IG-MIPR). PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched for literature concerning the implementation of MIPR between 1946 and November 2018. Quality assessment was according to The Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN).

RESULTS

Overall, 1150 studies were screened, of which 32 studies with 8519 patients were included in this systematic review. Training programs for minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy, laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy and robotic pancreatoduodenectomy have been described with acceptable outcomes during the learning curve and improved outcomes after training. Learning curve studies have revealed an association between growing experience and improving perioperative outcomes. In addition, the association between higher center volume and lower mortality and morbidity has been reported by several studies.

CONCLUSION

When embarking on MIPR, it is recommended to participate in a dedicated training program, to assure a sufficient volume, especially when implementing minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy, (20 procedures recommended annually), and prospectively collect and closely monitor outcomes for continuous quality assessment, this can be achieved through institutional databases and participation in national or international registries.

Comparison of Perioperative and Oncological Outcomes of Hybrid and Totally Laparoscopic Pancreatoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND Laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) is a complicated procedure accompanied with high morbidity. Hybrid LPD is usually used as an alternative/transitional approach. This study aimed to prove whether the hybrid procedure is a safe procedure during a surgeon's learning curve of LPD. MATERIAL AND METHODS There were 48 hybrid LPD patients and 62 TLPD patients selected from January 2016 to December 2018; their demographics, surgical outcomes, and oncological data were retrospectively collected. Patient follow-up for the study continued until February 2020. RESULTS Patient demographics and baseline parameters were well balanced between the 2 groups. Intraoperative conditions, overall operation time was shorter for TLPD compared to hybrid LPD (407.79 minutes versus 453.29 minutes, respectively; P=0.035) and blood loss was less in TLPD patients compared to hybrid LPD patients (100.00 mL versus 300.00 mL, respectively; P<0.001). There was no difference in transfusion rates between the 2 groups (hybrid LPD 16.7% versus TLPD 4.8%; P=0.084). Postoperative outcomes and intensive care unit (ICU) stay was longer in the hybrid LPD patient group (hybrid LPD 1-day versus TLPD 0-day, P=0.002) and postoperative hospital stay was similar between the 2 groups (P=0.503). Reoperation rates, in-hospital, 30-day mortality, and 90-day mortality rates were comparable between the 2 groups (P=0.276, 1.000, 1.000, 0.884, respectively). Surgical site infection, bile leak, Clavien-Dindo classification (CDC) ≥3, delayed gastric emptying, grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistulae, and grade B/C post pancreatectomy hemorrhage were not different between the 2 groups (P=0.526, 0.463, 0.220, 0.089, 0.165, 0.757, respectively). The tumor size, margin status, lymph nodes harvested, and metastasis were similar in the 2 groups (P=0.767, 0.438, 0.414, 0.424, respectively). In addition, the median overall survival rates were comparable between the 2 groups (hybrid LPD 29.0 months versus TLPD 30.0 months, P=0.996) as were the progression-free survival rates (hybrid LPD 11.0 months versus TLPD 12.0 months, P=0.373) CONCLUSIONS Hybrid LPD was comparable to TLPD. Hybrid LPD could be performed safely when some surgeons first started LPD (during the operative learning curve), while for skilled surgeons, TLPD could be applied initially.

First experience of pancreaticoduodenectomy using Revo-i in a patient with insulinoma

Robotic surgery systems have been developed to overcome the limitations of laparoscopic surgery. Recently, Meerecompany Inc. in Korea successfully manufactured a robotic surgical system called Revo-i. A 65-year old woman was referred for a pancreatic head tumor, detected as an incidental finding during a routine check-up. Contrast abdominopelvic CT revealed a pancreatic uncinate tumor measuring around 13 mm in diameter, with no other focal lesions. The patient underwent a robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (laparoscopic resection and robotic reconstruction) using Revo-i. The patient's recovery was uneventful and discharged on postoperative day 7. Our case showed the technical feasibility of the Korean robotic surgical system Revo-i. Further experiences are mandatory to validate this finding.