Robot-assisted laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: a prospective, matched, mid-term follow-up study

Comparing Operative Outcomes and Resection Quality in Robotic vs Open Pancreaticoduodenectomy: A Meta-analysis of 54,000 Patients

BACKGROUND

High morbidity and mortality make pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) one of the most complicated surgical procedures. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the outcomes of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD).

METHOD

A comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Cochrane Central, and Google Scholar was conducted from inception to November 2024. Studies comparing RPD and OPD in adults aged ≥ 18 years were included. Data for the outcomes of interest were extracted.

RESULTS

Forty-one studies with a total of 54,287 patients were pooled. RPD is significantly superior to OPD in terms of overall postoperative complications (RR = 0.91, 95% CI: [0.86-0.97]; p = 0.001), wound infections (RR = 0.63, 95% CI: [0.49-0.81], p = 0.0004), estimated blood loss (WMD = -171.99 ml, 95% CI: [ -217.76 to -126.22], p < 0.01) and hospitalization duration (WMD = -1.33 days, 95% CI: [ -1.84 to -0.82], p < 0.01) with a longer operating time (WMD = 73.22 min, 95% CI: [56.20 to 90.23], p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, RPD shows a lower risk of wound infections and overall postoperative morbidity compared to OPD. It has lower estimated blood loss, shorter hospitalization duration, and a longer operating time. The two approaches were comparable in terms of resection quality. More high-quality RCTs are required to draw definite conclusions.

Learning curve stratified outcomes after robotic pancreatoduodenectomy: International multicenter experience

BACKGROUND

Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy is increasingly being implemented worldwide, with good results reported from individual expert centers. However, it is unclear to what extent outcomes will continue to improve during the learning curve, as large international studies are lacking.

METHODS

An international retrospective multicenter case series, including consecutive patients after robotic pancreatoduodenectomy from 18 centers in 8 countries in Europe, Asia, and South America until December 31, 2019, was conducted. A cumulative sum analysis was performed to determine the inflection points for the feasibility (operative time and blood loss) and proficiency (postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C and major morbidity) learning curves. Outcomes were compared in 3 groups on the basis of the learning curve inflection points.

RESULTS

Overall, 2,186 patients after robotic pancreatoduodenectomy were included. The feasibility learning curve was reached after 30-45 robotic pancreatoduodenectomy procedures and the proficiency learning curve after 90 robotic pancreatoduodenectomy procedures. These inflection points created 3 phases, which were associated with major morbidity (24.7%, 23.4%, and 12.3%, P < .001) but not 30-day mortality (2.1%, 2.0%, and 1.5%, P = .670). Other outcomes mostly continued to improve, including median operative time 432, 390, and 300 minutes (P < .0001), conversion 6.0%, 4.7%, and 2.7% (P = .002), bile leakage 7.2%, 4.1%, and 2.4% (P < .001), postpancreatectomy hemorrhage 6.5%, 6.1%, and 1.8% (n = 21) but not R0 resection (pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma only) 78.5%, 73.9%, and 82.8% (P = .35), and 90-day mortality rate 3.1%, 3.5%, and 2.1% (P = .191). Centers performing >20 robotic pancreatoduodenectomies annually had lower rates of conversion, reoperation, and shorter median operative time as compared with centers performing 10-20 robotic pancreatoduodenectomies annually.

CONCLUSION

This international multicenter study demonstrates that most outcomes of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy continued to improve during 3 learning curve phases without a negative effect on 90-day mortality. Randomized studies are needed in high-volume centers that have surpassed the first learning curves, to compare these outcomes with the open approach.

Network Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials Comparing Robotic, Laparoscopic, and Open Pancreatoduodenectomy

Background

The use of minimally invasive (laparoscopic and robotic) pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) is being increasingly adopted despite the lack of hard evidence to support its utilisation. With recent randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) with robotic or laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD or LPD), we undertook a network meta-analysis (NMA) comparing all 3 approaches to evaluate comparative outcomes.

Methods

A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL was conducted up to May 2024 and relevant RCTs were identified. A random-effects meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA) were conducted for primary outcomes, followed by a Bayesian NMA of length of stay (LOS), duration of surgery, intraoperative blood loss, and pancreas resection-related outcomes.

Results

Seven RCTs involving 1336 patients were included, 5 investigating LPD compared with OPD and 2 RPD to OPD. Pairwise meta-analysis indicated that LPD was associated with shorter hospital stay (mean difference [MD], -1.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.33 to -0.45) and lower intraoperative blood loss compared with OPD (MD, -131; 95% CI, -146 to -117). However, LPD was associated with significantly longer operative duration (MD, 39.5; 95% CI, 34-45). TSA confirmed the robustness of the positive and negative findings on pairwise meta-analysis. In comparison, there were no significant differences between RPD and OPD in pairwise meta-analysis, which could not be confirmed by TSA. Network meta-analysis tended to favour LPD in most outcome parameters including LOS, duration of surgery, and pancreas resection-related outcomes.

Conclusions

The current RCT evidence suggests potential better outcomes in LPD in comparison with RPD and OPD. However, few studies demonstrated robust statistical significance in outcome measures, suggesting an underpowered evidence base and possible selection bias. Hence, with current equivocal data, there is a need for ongoing RCTs to validate the role of minimally invasive approaches in PD.

Open vs robotic-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy, cost-effectiveness and long-term oncologic outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Whipple pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is a complex gastrointestinal surgery that is performed increasingly via minimally invasive approach through robotic platforms. We sought to provide a comparative review of available data regarding robot-assisted vs open PD in terms of cost-effectiveness, overall survival, and other perioperative and long-term oncologic outcomes.

METHODS

Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses criteria, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched from 1980 to April 2024 using designated keywords. English-language studies comparing costs and oncologic outcomes of robotic vs open PDs were considered for inclusion. Reviews, abstracts, case reports, letters to the editor, and non-English articles were excluded.

RESULTS

A total of 1733 studies were initially identified throughout the literature search. After the removal of duplicates, title and abstract screening identified 16 studies that were included in the review. No statistically significant differences were detected in terms of short-term complications (95% CI, 0.805-1.096; P = .42), mortality (95% CI, 0.599-1.123; P = .21), and readmission (95% CI, 0.959-1.211; P = .20) among patients undergoing open vs robotic PD. Robotic PDs was associated with a slightly better overall survival (95% CI, 1.020-1.233) and higher costs (95% CI, 0.134-1.139; P = .013). Mean length of stay (LOS) was higher in the open PD group (95% CI, -0.353 to 0.189; P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Robotic-assisted PD had a slightly shorter LOS and improved overall survival. There were no differences in short-term complications, mortality, or readmission. The use of cohort studies and residual potential selection bias necessitate randomized controlled trials to define the benefit of robotic PD.

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma: A propensity-matched national analysis on surgical outcomes and healthcare disparities

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic adenocarcinoma of distal pancreas is hard to treat due to late presentation. While open distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy has had favourable outcomes, it has also had many complications which were low among Minimally invasive procedures. This retrospective cohort analysis compares minimally invasive and open distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) outcomes using a national inpatient database.

METHODS

The study used 2016-2020 NIS data. The study included 1577 distal pancreatic malignant tumor surgery patients. There were 530 Minimally Invasive and 1047 Open groups. Propensity matched analysis was performed on surgical groups to reduce confounding variables.

RESULTS

In comparison to open procedures, minimally invasive techniques reduced hospital stays by 10 ​% (OR ​= ​0.90, 95 ​% CI 0.86-0.93). While not statistically significant, the unmatched analysis linked MIDP to lower in-hospital mortality. African Americans were 37 ​% less likely to undergo MIDP than Caucasians (OR ​= ​0.63, 95 ​% CI ​= ​0.40-0.96).

CONCLUSION

Nationwide analysis suggests MIDP may be a safe and effective surgical treatment for distal pancreatic adenocarcinoma. It may reduce hospital stays and mortality over open surgery. The study also suggests race may affect minimally invasive procedure rates.

Short-term results of robot-assisted pancreatoduodeodenectomy: a retrospective cohort study of 146 patients operated in a high-volume center

BACKGROUND

Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is a challenging operation because of complex anatomy and difficult and multiple reconstructions. Robot-assisted PD (RPD) is a novel minimally invasive technique, providing equivalent oncological outcomes to open surgery. The aim of this study is to evaluate the results of a single high-volume center series.

METHODS

Patients who underwent RPD from 2014 to 2021 in a high-volume center were included. Patient and disease-specific data, operative details, postoperative complications including postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), length of stay (LOS) and long-term survival were recorded. Two groups were compared: Group 1: patients operated between 2014-2019 and Group 2 between 2020-2021.

RESULTS

One hundred and forty-six patients had RPD on the study period (99 in Group 1 and 47 in Group 2). Operative time was 320 min (285-360), major complications were observed in 28% and clinically significant POPF in 20% of the cases. Conversion rate was 2.1%. LOS was 14 days (9-22). Postoperative mortality was 4.1%. Clinically significant POPF decreased from 24% in Group 1 to 11% in Group 2 (p = 0.05). LOS decreased from 16(11-26) days in Group 1 to 11(8-14) in Group 2 (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

RPD is safe and feasible. Technique standardization led to better post-operative outcomes, encouraging the dissemination and implementation of the procedure.

Effects of Minimally Invasive Versus Open Pancreatoduodenectomy on Short-Term Surgical Outcomes and Postoperative Nutritional and Immunological Statuses: A Single-Institution Propensity Score-Matched Study

Objective

To evaluate the feasibility and clinical impact of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) versus open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) on postoperative nutritional and immunological indices.

Background

The surgical advantages of MIPD over OPD are controversial, and the postoperative nutritional and immunological statuses are unknown.

Methods

In total, 306 patients who underwent MIPD (n = 120) or OPD (n = 186) for periampullary tumors from April 2016 to February 2024 were analyzed. Surgical outcomes and postoperative nutritional and immunological indices (albumin, prognostic nutritional index [PNI], neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio [NLR], and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio [PLR]) were examined by 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) with well-matched background characteristics.

Results

PSM resulted in 2 balanced groups of 99 patients each. Compared with OPD, MIPD was significantly associated with less estimated blood loss (P < 0.0001), fewer intraoperative blood transfusions (P = 0.001), longer operative time, shorter postoperative hospital stay (P < 0.0001), fewer postoperative complications (P = 0.001) (especially clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula [P = 0.018]), and a higher rate of textbook outcome achievement (70.7% vs 48.5%, P = 0.001). The number of dissected lymph nodes and the R0 resection rate did not differ between the 2 groups. In elective cases with textbook outcome achievement, the change rates of albumin, PNI, NLR, and PLR from before to after surgery were equivalent in both groups.

Conclusions

MIPD has several surgical advantages (excluding a prolonged operative time), and it enhances the achievement of textbook outcomes over OPD. However, the postoperative nutritional and immunological statuses are equivalent for both procedures.

Robotic versus open partial pancreatoduodenectomy (EUROPA): a randomised controlled stage 2b trial

Background

Open partial pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) represents the current gold standard of surgical treatment of a wide range of diseases of the pancreatic head but is associated with morbidity in around 40% of cases. Robotic partial pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) is being used increasingly, yet, no randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of RPD versus OPD have been published, leaving a low level of evidence to support this practice.

Methods

This investigator-initiated, exploratory RCT with two parallel study arms was conducted at a high-volume pancreatic centre in line with IDEAL recommendations (stage 2b). Patients scheduled for elective partial pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) for any indication were randomised (1:1) to RPD or OPD with a centralised web-based tool. The primary endpoint was postoperative cumulative morbidity within 90 days, assessed via the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI). Biometricians were blinded to the intervention, but patients and surgeons were not. The trial was registered prospectively (DRKS00020407).

Findings

Between June 3, 2020 and February 14, 2022, 81 patients were randomly assigned to RPD (n = 41) or OPD (n = 40), of whom 62 patients (RPD: n = 29, OPD: n = 33) were analysed in the modified intention to treat analysis. Four patients in the OPD group were randomised, but did not undergo surgery in our department and one patient was excluded in the RPD group due to other reason. Nine patients in the RPD group and 3 patients in the OPD were excluded from the primary analysis because they did not undergo PD, but rather underwent other types of surgery. The CCI after 90 days was comparable between groups (RPD: 34.02 ± 23.48 versus OPD: 36.45 ± 27.65, difference in means [95% CI]: -2.42 [-15.55; 10.71], p = 0.713). The RPD group had a higher incidence of grade B/C pancreas-specific complications compared to the OPD group (17 (58.6%) versus 11 (33.3%); difference in rates [95% CI]: 25.3% [1.2%; 49.4%], p = 0.046). The only complication that occurred significantly more often in the RPD than in the OPD group was clinically relevant delayed gastric emptying. Procedure-related and overall hospital costs were significantly higher and duration of surgery was longer in the RPD group. Blood loss did not differ significantly between groups. The intraoperative conversion rate of RPD was 23%. Overall 90-day mortality was 4.8% without significant differences between RPD and OPD.

Interpretation

In the setting of a very high-volume centre, both RPD and OPD can be considered safe techniques. Further confirmatory multicentre RCTs are warranted to uncover potential advantages of RPD in terms of perioperative and long-term outcomes.

Funding

Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF: 01KG2010).

Levels of Robotic Mesopancreas Dissection According to Malignancy and Vascular Anatomy: What Surgeons Need to Know

INTRODUCTION

The robotic approach is attracting increasing interest among the surgical community, and more and more series describing robotic pancreatoduodenectomy have been reported. Thus, surgeons performing robotic pancreatoduodenectomy should be confident with this critical step's potential scenarios.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

According to Yosuke et al., there are three different levels of mesopancreas dissection. We describe the main steps for a safe mesopancreas dissection by robotic approach.

RESULTS

This multimedia article provides, for the first time in literature, a comprehensive step-by-step overview of the mesopancreas dissection during robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) and its three different levels according to tumor type.

CONCLUSIONS

Through the tips and indications presented in this multimedia article, we aim to familiarize surgeons with the mesopancreas dissections levels according to type of malignancy and vascular anatomy.

Safety and learning curve analysis of robotic-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy: experience of a single surgeon

Although prior studies have discussed learning curves (LC) of robotic-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD), a recognized definition is lacking. This study analyzed the clinical outcomes of 85 consecutive RPD cases performed by a single surgeon to evaluate the safety and learning curve of RPD using the da Vinci Xi robotic system. There were 51 male and 34 female patients, with a median age of 64 (20-87) years. The average preoperative body weight and BMI were 64.15 ± 11.43 kg and 23.36 ± 3.33 kg/m2, respectively. The clinical outcomes of each patient were analyzed using the textbook outcome(TO), and the learning curve of the RPD was evaluated by calculating the TO rate of patients using the cumulative sum analysis method (CUSUM).The operation time (OT) was 288.92 ± 44.41 min, and the postoperative hospital stay was 10 (1-134) days. In total, 23.52% (20/85), 5.88% (5/85), 2.35% (2/85), and 5.9% (5/85) experienced grade IIIa, IIIb, IV, and V complications. A total of 46 patients achieved TO outcomes (TO group), while 39 did not (non-TO group). The smoking rate in the TO group was lower (P < 0.05) and the albumin level was higher (P < 0.05) than that in the non-TO group. The TO rate became positive after the 56th case, all patients were divided into a learning improvement group (56 cases) and a proficient group (29 cases). The total bilirubin level in the learning improvement group was lower (P < 0.05) and the bleeding volume was higher (P < 0.05).RPD is safe and effective for carefully selected patients. The learning curve was completed after 56 patients.

The Feasibility, Proficiency, and Mastery Learning Curves in 635 Robotic Pancreatoduodenectomies Following a Multicenter Training Program: "Standing on the Shoulders of Giants"

OBJECTIVE

To assess the feasibility, proficiency, and mastery learning curves for robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) in "second-generation" RPD centers following a multicenter training program adhering to the IDEAL framework.

BACKGROUND

The long learning curves for RPD reported from "pioneering" expert centers may discourage centers interested in starting an RPD program. However, the feasibility, proficiency, and mastery learning curves may be shorter in "second-generation" centers that participated in dedicated RPD training programs, although data are lacking. We report on the learning curves for RPD in "second-generation" centers trained in a dedicated nationwide program.

METHODS

Post hoc analysis of all consecutive patients undergoing RPD in 7 centers that participated in the LAELAPS-3 training program, each with a minimum annual volume of 50 pancreatoduodenectomies, using the mandatory Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit (March 2016-December 2021). Cumulative sum analysis determined cutoffs for the 3 learning curves: operative time for the feasibility (1) risk-adjusted major complication (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III) for the proficiency, (2) and textbook outcome for the mastery, (3) learning curve. Outcomes before and after the cutoffs were compared for the proficiency and mastery learning curves. A survey was used to assess changes in practice and the most valued "lessons learned."

RESULTS

Overall, 635 RPD were performed by 17 trained surgeons, with a conversion rate of 6.6% (n=42). The median annual volume of RPD per center was 22.5±6.8. From 2016 to 2021, the nationwide annual use of RPD increased from 0% to 23% whereas the use of laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy decreased from 15% to 0%. The rate of major complications was 36.9% (n=234), surgical site infection 6.3% (n=40), postoperative pancreatic fistula (grade B/C) 26.9% (n=171), and 30-day/in-hospital mortality 3.5% (n=22). Cutoffs for the feasibility, proficiency, and mastery learning curves were reached at 15, 62, and 84 RPD. Major morbidity and 30-day/in-hospital mortality did not differ significantly before and after the cutoffs for the proficiency and mastery learning curves. Previous experience in laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy shortened the feasibility (-12 RPDs, -44%), proficiency (-32 RPDs, -34%), and mastery phase learning curve (-34 RPDs, -23%), but did not improve clinical outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

The feasibility, proficiency, and mastery learning curves for RPD at 15, 62, and 84 procedures in "second-generation" centers after a multicenter training program were considerably shorter than previously reported from "pioneering" expert centers. The learning curve cutoffs and prior laparoscopic experience did not impact major morbidity and mortality. These findings demonstrate the safety and value of a nationwide training program for RPD in centers with sufficient volume.

The future of robotic pancreaticoduodenal surgery: a bibliometric analysis

OBJECTIVES

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) has garnered significant research attention in the last decade. However, no bibliometric studies have been conducted on this field yet. Therefore, the aim of this study is to provide an up-to-date analysis of the current state of research, as well as future trends and hotspots in RPD, through a bibliometric analysis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a thorough search of all literature related to RPD in the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC). We then analyzed this literature for a variety of factors, including authorship, country of origin, institutional affiliations, and keywords. To visualize our findings, we utilized Citespace 6.1.R3, which enabled us to create network visualization maps, perform cluster analysis, and extract burst words.

RESULTS

A total of 264 articles were retrieved. Zureikat is the author with the largest contribution in this field, and Surgical Endoscopy and Other International Techniques is the journal with the largest number of papers in this field. The United States is the core research country in this field. The University of Pittsburgh is the most productive institution. According to the data, outcome, pancreas fistula, definition, risk factor, stay, survival, learning curve and experience are recognized as research hotspots in this field.

CONCLUSIONS

This study is the first bibliometric study in the field of RPD. Our data will help us better understand the development trend of the field, and determine research hotspots and research directions. The research results provide practical information for other scholars to understand key directions and cutting-edge information.

Innovative suture technique for robotic hepaticojejunostomy: double-layer interrupted sutures

PURPOSE

Biliary reconstruction remains a technically demanding and complicated procedure in minimally invasive hepatopancreatobiliary surgeries. No optimal hepaticojejunostomy (HJ) technique has been demonstrated to be superior for preventing biliary complications. This study aimed to investigate the feasibility of our unique technique of posterior double-layer interrupted sutures in robotic HJ.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database. Forty-two patients who underwent robotic pancreatoduodenectomy using this technique between September 2020 and November 2022 at our center were reviewed. In the posterior double-layer interrupted technique, sutures were placed to bite the bile duct, posterior seromuscular layer of the jejunum, and full thickness of the jejunum.

RESULTS

The median operative time was 410 (interquartile range [IQR], 388-478) min, and the median HJ time was 30 (IQR, 28-39) min. The median bile duct diameter was 7 (IQR, 6-10) mm. Of the 42 patients, one patient (2.4%) had grade B bile leakage. During the median follow-up of 12.6 months, one patient (2.4%) with bile leakage developed anastomotic stenosis. Perioperative mortality was not observed. A surgical video showing the posterior double-layer interrupted sutures in the robotic HJ is included.

CONCLUSIONS

Posterior double-layer interrupted sutures in robotic HJ provided a simple and feasible method for biliary reconstruction with a low risk of biliary complications.

Initial 50 consecutive full-robotic pancreatoduodenectomies without conversion by a single surgeon: a learning curve analysis from a tertiary referral high-volume center

BACKGROUND

Several studies report on a learning curve for robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (R-PD) ranging between 20 and 80 operations, with conversion rates varying between 1.1 and 35%. However, as these publications mostly refer to initial robotic experiences and do not take into account the previous surgical background in pancreatic surgery (PS) and in robotic-assisted surgery (RAS), the center's volume, as well as the platform used, we aimed to perform a surgical outcomes analysis with a particular view to these aspects.

METHODS

Intraoperative and perioperative outcomes of the first 50 consecutive R-PD performed with the da Vinci Xi by the same surgeon, within a tertiary referral high-volume center, between January 2018 and March 2022, were analyzed. The surgeon was previously experienced in both PS and RAS. Shewhart control chart and cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis were used to evaluate the learning curve of R-PD.

RESULTS

All the operations were performed with a full-robotic technique, without any conversion to open surgery. Twenty of 50 patients (40%) had a BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2, while 24/50 (48%) had undergone previous abdominal surgery. Mean console time was 276.30 ± 31.16 min. The median post-operative length of hospital stay was 10 days, while 20/50 (40%) patients were discharged within post-operative day 8. Six patients (12%) had major complications (Clavien-Dindo grade 3 or above). There was no 30-day mortality. Shewhart control chart and CUSUM analysis did not show a significant learning curve during the study period.

CONCLUSIONS

An extensive prior experience in both PS and RAS, within a tertiary referral high-volume center with availability of the da Vinci Xi platform, can significantly flatten the learning curve and, therefore, enable safe performance of challenging operations, i.e., pancreatoduodenectomies with a minimally invasive approach, with very low risk of conversion to open surgery, even in the first 50 operations.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: Analysis of surgical outcomes and long-term prognosis in a high-volume center

BACKGROUND

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) has been reported to be safe and feasible for patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) of the pancreatic head. This study aimed to analyze the surgical outcomes and risk factors for poor long-term prognosis of these patients.

METHODS

Data from patients who underwent RPD for PDAC of pancreatic head were retrospectively analyzed. Multivariate Cox regression analysis was used to seek the independent prognostic factors for overall survival (OS), and an online nomogram calculator was developed based on the independent prognostic factors.

RESULTS

Of the 273 patients who met the inclusion criteria, the median operative time was 280.0 minutes, the estimated blood loss was 100.0 mL, the median OS was 23.6 months, and the median recurrence-free survival (RFS) was 14.4 months. Multivariate analysis showed that preoperative carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9) [hazard ratio (HR) = 2.607, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.560-4.354, P < 0.001], lymph node metastasis (HR = 1.429, 95% CI: 1.005-2.034, P = 0.047), tumor moderately (HR = 3.190, 95% CI: 1.813-5.614, P < 0.001) or poorly differentiated (HR = 5.114, 95% CI: 2.839-9.212, P < 0.001), and Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ III (HR = 1.657, 95% CI: 1.079-2.546, P = 0.021) were independent prognostic factors for OS. The concordance index (C-index) of the nomogram constructed based on the above four independent prognostic factors was 0.685 (95% CI: 0.640-0.729), which was significantly higher than that of the AJCC staging (8th edition): 0.541 (95% CI: 0.493-0.589) (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This large-scale study indicated that RPD was feasible for PDAC of pancreatic head. Preoperative CA19-9, lymph node metastasis, tumor poorly differentiated, and Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ III were independent prognostic factors for OS. The online nomogram calculator could predict the OS of these patients in a simple and convenient manner.

Surgical methods influence on the risk of anastomotic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Pancreaticoduodenectomy is the first choice surgical intervention for the radical treatment of pancreatic tumors. However, an anastomotic fistula is a common complication after pancreaticoduodenectomy with a high mortality rate. With the development of minimally invasive surgery, open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD), laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD), and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) are gaining interest. But the impact of these surgical methods on the risk of anastomosis has not been confirmed. Therefore, we aimed to integrate relevant clinical studies and explore the effects of these three surgical methods on the occurrence of anastomotic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted for studies reporting the RPD, LPD, and OPD. Network meta-analysis of postoperative anastomotic fistula (Pancreatic fistula, biliary leakage, gastrointestinal fistula) was performed.

RESULTS

Sixty-five studies including 10,026 patients were included in the network meta-analysis. The rank of risk probability of pancreatic fistula for RPD (0.00) was better than LPD (0.37) and OPD (0.62). Thus, the analysis suggests the rank of risk of the postoperative pancreatic fistula for RPD, LPD, and OPD. The rank of risk probability for biliary leakage was similar for RPD (0.15) and LPD (0.15), and both were better than OPD (0.68).

CONCLUSIONS

This network meta-analysis provided ranking for three different types of pancreaticoduodenectomy. The RPD and LPD can effectively improve the quality of surgery and are safe as well as feasible for OPD.

Usefulness of the new articulating laparoscopic instrument in laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy

Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy has been developed in two tracts of robotic and laparoscopic surgeries. Laparoscopic approach remains a frequently performed surgical method that accounts for a significant portion of minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy. However, biliary and pancreatic reconstruction stages are still demanding procedures because of the inherent limitations of conventional laparoscopic instruments. Therefore, recently developed articulating laparoscopic instruments have greater dexterity similar to robotic instruments seem to be able to compensate for the weak points of conventional laparoscopic instruments. In this article, we demonstrate the hepaticojejunostomy and duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy technique using the new articulating laparoscopic instrument.

Complications of modern pancreaticoduodenectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

In the past decades, the perioperative management of patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) has undergone major changes worldwide. This review aimed to systematically determine the burden of complications of PD performed in the last 10 years.

DATA SOURCES

A systematic review was conducted in PubMed for randomized controlled trials and observational studies reporting postoperative complications in at least 100 PDs from January 2010 to April 2020. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB2 tool for randomized studies and the methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS). Pooled complication rates were estimated using random-effects meta-analysis. Heterogeneity was investigated by subgroup analysis and meta-regression.

RESULTS

A total of 20 randomized and 49 observational studies reporting 63 229 PDs were reviewed. Mean MINORS score showed a high risk of bias in non-randomized studies, while one quarter of the randomized studies were assessed to have high risk of bias. Pooled incidences of 30-day mortality, overall complications and serious complications were 1.7% (95% CI: 0.9%-2.9%; I2 = 95.4%), 54.7% (95% CI: 46.4%-62.8%; I2 = 99.4%) and 25.5% (95% CI: 21.8%-29.4%; I2= 92.9%), respectively. Clinically-relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula risk was 14.3% (95% CI: 12.4%-16.3%; I2 = 92.0%) and mean length of stay was 14.8 days (95% CI: 13.6-16.1; I2 = 99.3%). Meta-regression partially attributed the observed heterogeneity to the country of origin of the study, the study design and the American Society of Anesthesiologists class.

CONCLUSIONS

Pooled complication rates estimated in this study may be used to counsel patients scheduled to undergo a PD and to set benchmarks against which centers can audit their practice. However, cautious interpretation is necessary due to substantial heterogeneity.

Outcomes of a Multicenter Training Program in Robotic Pancreatoduodenectomy (LAELAPS-3)

OBJECTIVE

To assess feasibility and safety of a multicenter training program in robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) adhering to the IDEAL framework for implementation of surgical innovation.

BACKGROUND

Good results for RPD have been reported from single center studies. However, data on feasibility and safety of implementation through a multicenter training program in RPD are lacking.

METHODS

A multicenter training program in RPD was designed together with the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, including an online video bank, robot simulation exercises, biotissue drills, and on-site proctoring. Benchmark patients were based on the criteria of Clavien. Outcomes were collected prospectively (March 2016-October 2019). Cumulative sum analysis of operative time was performed to distinguish the first and second phase of the learning curve. Outcomes were compared between both phases of the learning curve. Trends in nationwide use of robotic and laparoscopic PD were assessed in the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit.

RESULTS

Overall, 275 RPD procedures were performed in seven centers by 15 trained surgeons. The recent benchmark criteria for low-risk PD were met by 125 (45.5%) patients. The conversion rate was 6.5% (n = 18) and median blood loss 250ml [interquartile range (IQR) 150-500]. The rate of Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III complications was 44.4% (n = 122), postoperative pancreatic fistula (grade B/C) rate 23.6% (n = 65), 90-day complication-related mortality 2.5% (n = 7) and 90-day cancer-related mortality 2.2.% (n = 6). Median postoperative hospital stay was 12 days (IQR 8-20). In the subgroup of patients with pancreatic cancer (n = 80), the major complication rate was 31.3% and POPF rate was 10%. Cumulative sum analysis for operative time found a learning curve inflection point at 22 RPDs (IQR 10-35) with similar rates of Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III complications in the first and second phase (43.4% vs 43.8%, P = 0.956, respectively). During the study period the nationwide use of laparoscopic PD reduced from 15% to 1%, whereas the use of RPD increased from 0% to 25%.

CONCLUSIONS

This multicenter RPD training program in centers with sufficient surgical volume was found to be feasible without a negative impact of the learning curve on clinical outcomes.

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.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Minimally Invasive Pancreatoduodenectomy: Contemporary Practice, Evidence, and Knowledge Gaps

Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy has gained popularity throughout the last decade. For laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy, some high-level evidence exists, but with conflicting results. There are currently no published randomized controlled trials comparing robotic and open pancreatoduodenectomy. Comparative long-term data for patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is lacking to date. Based on the existing evidence, current observed benefits of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy over open pancreatoduodenectomy seem scarce, but retrospective data indicate the safety of these procedures in selected patients. As familiarity with the robotic platform increases, studies have shown an expansion in indications, also including patients with vascular involvement and even indicating favorable results in patients with obesity and high-risk morphometric features. Several ongoing randomized controlled trials aim to investigate potential differences in short- and long-term outcomes between minimally invasive and open pancreatoduodenectomy. Their results are much awaited.

Robotic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy with vascular resection for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: surgical and oncological outcomes from pilot experience

PURPOSE

Venous resection and reconstruction (VR) is a feasible surgical technique to achieve optimal outcomes in selected patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) who undergo open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD). However, data regarding patient outcomes in patients who undergo VR in robotic-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) are scarce.

METHODS

All patients with a diagnosis of PDAC who underwent upfront open or robotic pancreatoduodenectomy with VR in a high-volume institution for pancreatic surgery between 2011 and 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. Perioperative and long-term outcomes were compared between the RPD and OPD cohorts.

RESULTS

A total of 84 patients were included in the final analysis, 14 patients underwent RPD with VR and 70 who had OPD with VR. Reconstructed venous patency, postoperative 30-day morbidity, and 90-day mortality were comparable; however, lymph node resection rates were lower in the RPC cohort (p = 0.029). No difference was identified in 3-year survival rates between the two groups (34.0% versus 25.7% respectively, p = 0.667).

CONCLUSION

RPD with VR is a feasible approach for patients with PDAC and venous invasion. Further studies are needed to assess long-term outcomes compared to the open approach.

Establishment and Application of a Novel Difficulty Scoring System for da Vinci Robotic Pancreatoduodenectomy

Background

Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) technology is developing rapidly, but there is still a lack of a specific and objective difficulty evaluation system in the field of application and training of RPD surgery.

Methods

The clinical data of patients who underwent RPD in our hospital from November 2014 to October 2020 were analyzed retrospectively. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to determine the predictors of operation difficulty and convert into a scoring system.

Results

A total of 72 patients were enrolled in the group. According to the operation time (25%), intraoperative blood loss (25%), conversion to laparotomy, and major complications, the difficulty of operation was divided into low difficulty (0–2 points) and high difficulty (3–4 points). The multivariate logistic regression model included the thickness of mesenteric tissue (P1) (P = 0.035), the thickness of the abdominal wall (B1) (P = 0.017), and the preoperative albumin (P = 0.032), and the nomogram was established. AUC = 0.773 (0.645–0.901).

Conclusions

The RPD difficulty evaluation system based on the specific anatomical relationship between da Vinci’s laparoscopic robotic arm and tissues/organs in the operation area can be used as a predictive tool to evaluate the surgical difficulty of patients before operation and guide clinical practice.

Robotic-assisted Versus Open Technique for Living Donor Kidney Transplantation: A Comparison Using Propensity Score Matching for Intention to Treat

Living donor robotic-assisted kidney transplantation (RAKT) is an alternative to open kidney transplantation (OKT), but experience with this technique is limited in the United States.

Robotische Pankreaschirurgie – Lernkurve und Etablierung

Minimalinvasive Resektionstechniken zur Behandlung verschiedener Pathologien des Pankreas sind potenziell vorteilhaft für die behandelten Patienten in Bezug auf Rekonvaleszenzzeit und postoperative Morbidität, stellen jedoch eine besondere technische Herausforderung für den behandelnden Chirurgen dar. Der Einzug der robotischen Technik in die Viszeralchirurgie bietet eine prinzipielle Möglichkeit zur weitreichenden Verbreitung minimalinvasiver Verfahren in der Pankreaschirurgie.

Ziel dieser Arbeit war es, die Entwicklungsmöglichkeiten der robotischen Pankreaschirurgie in Deutschland zu überprüfen. Datengrundlage sind die Qualitätsberichte der Krankenhäuser der Jahre 2015–2019 kombiniert mit einer selektiven Literaturrecherche.

Die Anzahl der vorliegenden Qualitätsberichte reduzierte sich von 2015 bis 2019 von 1635 auf 1594. Im Median führten 96 Kliniken 11–20, 56 Kliniken 21–50 und 15 Kliniken mehr als 50 Pankreaskopfresektionen jährlich durch. Bei den Linksresektionen waren es 35 Kliniken mit 11–20, 14 Kliniken mit 21–50 und 2 Kliniken mit mehr als 50 Eingriffen. Unter Berücksichtigung aller Kliniken, die 5 oder mehr Linksresektionen pro Jahr durchführen, wurden an nur 29 Kliniken minimalinvasive Verfahren eingesetzt. Der Anteil an laparoskopischen Linksresektionen über 50% wurde an nur 7 Kliniken beschrieben.

Nach Datenlage in der Literatur divergieren die Lernkurven für die robotische Pankreaslinks- und Pankreaskopfresektion. Während die Lernkurve für die robotische Pankreaslinksresektion nach etwa 20 Eingriffen durchlaufen ist, hat die Lernkurve für die robotische Pankreaskopfresektion mehrere Plateaus, die etwa nach 30, 100 und 250 Eingriffen erreicht werden.

Aufgrund der dezentralen Struktur der Pankreaschirurgie in Deutschland scheint ein flächendeckendes Angebot robotischer Verfahren aktuell in weiter Ferne. Insbesondere die Etablierung der robotischen Pankreaskopfresektion wird zunächst Zentren mit entsprechend hoher Fallzahl vorbehalten bleiben.

Learning curves in minimally invasive pancreatic surgery: a systematic review

Background

The learning curve of new surgical procedures has implications for the education, evaluation and subsequent adoption. There is currently no standardised surgical training for those willing to make their first attempts at minimally invasive pancreatic surgery. This study aims to ascertain the learning curve in minimally invasive pancreatic surgery.

Methods

A systematic search of PubMed, Embase and Web of Science was performed up to March 2021. Studies investigating the number of cases needed to achieve author-declared competency in minimally invasive pancreatic surgery were included.

Results

In total, 31 original studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria with 2682 patient outcomes being analysed. From these studies, the median learning curve for distal pancreatectomy was reported to have been achieved in 17 cases (10–30) and 23.5 cases (7–40) for laparoscopic and robotic approach respectively. The median learning curve for pancreaticoduodenectomy was reported to have been achieved at 30 cases (4–60) and 36.5 cases (20–80) for a laparoscopic and robotic approach respectively. Mean operative times and estimated blood loss improved in all four surgical procedural groups. Heterogeneity was demonstrated when factoring in the level of surgeon’s experience and patient’s demographic.

Conclusions

There is currently no gold standard in the evaluation of a learning curve. As a result, derivations are difficult to utilise clinically. Existing literature can serve as a guide for current trainees. More work needs to be done to standardise learning curve assessment in a patient-centred manner.

Multicenter comparison of totally laparoscopic and totally robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy: Propensity score and learning curve-matching analyses

BACKGROUND

Few studies have compared laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) despite emerging use of minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD). The present study therefore compares perioperative outcomes of LPD and RPD patients, and evaluates safety and feasibility of MIPD.

METHODS

This retrospective multicenter analysis evaluated MIPD patients through June 2020 performed by three experienced pancreatic surgeons at three different institutions. Perioperative outcomes were compared before and after propensity score-matching analyses, and learning curves based on operation time were used for additional matching analysis.

RESULTS

Of 362 patients, 282 underwent LPD and 80 underwent RPD. Open conversion rate was significantly higher in LPD (P = .001). There were no significant differences in rates of major complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥III) and clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF). After matching, operation time (P = .001) and hospital stay (P = .027) were significantly shorter in RPD, but there were no differences in major complications and CR-POPF. Propensity score-matched comparison after learning curve attainment showed shorter operation time (P = .037) and hospital stay (P = .014) in RPD, and no differences in major complications and CR-POPF.

CONCLUSION

RPD had several advantages compared with LPD, including shorter operative time and hospital stay, and lower open conversion rate. Postoperative complications including CR-POPF showed comparable results in two groups. Both LPD and RPD seemed to be feasible and safe approaches in experienced hands.

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.

ROBOT-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy in 300 consecutive cases: Annual trend analysis and propensity score-matched comparison of perioperative and long-term oncologic outcomes with the open method

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

We previously reported perioperative and oncologic outcomes of robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy (RAPD); however, the follow-up period in RAPD was relatively short, and disease-matched survival analyses were lacking. Therefore, this study investigated time trends of perioperative and long-term disease-matched outcomes of RAPD.

METHODS

Annual clinicopathologic outcomes of 328 patients with RAPD between 2015 and 2020 were analyzed and compared with 929 patients with open PD using the propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis based on postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) risk and oncologic variables in malignant patients.

RESULTS

Robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy cases increased from 10 (6.3%) in 2015 to 116 (50.2% of total PD) in 2020, with malignancy proportion increasing from 50.0% to 80.2%. POPF risk-based PSM analysis showed that compared with open PD, RAPD had younger patients (63.7 vs 65.6 years, P = .018), longer operation time (339.1 vs 290.0 min, P < .001); however, estimated blood loss (P = .275), complications (17.1% vs 18.3%, P = .702), and clinically relevant POPF (9.8% vs 11.1%, P = .584) were similar with shorter postoperative hospital stay (10.8 vs 15.6 days, P < .001). In disease and stage-matched malignant patients, R0 resection (93.9% vs 91.2%, P = .376), total retrieved lymph node (18.2 vs 19.9, P = .058), and 5-year survival rate (57.3% vs 60.6%, P = .406) were similar between RAPD and open PD, also in pancreatic cancer patients (31.6% vs 26.3%, P = .068).

CONCLUSIONS

Robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy demonstrated similar perioperative outcomes with earlier recovery and equivalent long-term survival with open PD. RAPD is safe and feasible for periampullary lesions, including pancreatic cancers, and its role will expand in the era of minimally invasive surgery.

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy: Where do we stand?

Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is a complex operation accompanied by significant morbidity rates. Due to this complexity, the transition to minimally invasive PD has lagged behind other abdominal surgical operations. The safety, feasibility, favorable post-operative outcomes of robotic PD have been suggested by multiple studies. Compared to open surgery and other minimally invasive techniques such as laparoscopy, robotic PD offers satisfactory outcomes, with a non-inferior risk of adverse events. Trends of robotic PD have been on rise with centers substantially increasing the number the operation performed. Although promising, findings on robotic PD need to be corroborated in prospective trials.

Long- and short-term survival following laparoscopic and open pancreaticoduodenectomy for patients with periampullary tumors in Vietnam

Background

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) is a less invasive alternative to the traditional open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) approach used to treat periampullary tumors. However, previous studies examining the advantages of this surgery over OPD have produced mixed results. Here, a retrospective observational approach was used to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of patients with periampullary tumors who underwent LPD or OPD at a single institution in Vietnam.

Materials and methods

Data were obtained from hospital medical records collected over five years from patients that underwent OPD or LPD. Information on demographics, medical status, tumor characteristics, operative variables, complications, and mortality was examined. Survival curves were constructed and the stepwise multivariate Cox proportional hazard model was used to identify the factors associated with the risk of death following surgery.

Results

Eighty-four patients aged 26–80 years were included. Twenty-two patients underwent LPD and 62 received OPD. The operative time for the LPD group was significantly longer than that for the OPD group, and the LPD group was less likely to require a blood transfusion during surgery. While the short- and long-term survival rates did not differ for the procedures, the factors associated with the risk of death following surgery were tumors at the N1 stage and an age >65 years.

Conclusion

Both LPD and OPD procedures for treating periampullary tumors exhibited comparable safety profiles, with similar short-term outcomes and long-term survival rates observed. Future studies with a larger sample size should be conducted to further examine the treatment outcomes following these surgical approaches.

•

The OPD group was significantly more likely to require blood transfusion as compared to the LPD group (p=0.04).

•

The operative time for the LPD group was significantly longer than that for the OPD group (p < 0.01).

•

Factors associated with the risk of death following surgery were tumors at the N1 stage and age group > 65 years.

Assessing the perioperative complications and outcomes of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy using the National Cancer Database: is it ready for prime time?

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy has generated significant interest in recent years. Our study aimed to evaluate the difference in surgical, oncological, and survival outcomes after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) by either a robotic (RPD) or open approach (OPD). Using the National Cancer Database, we identified patients from 2010 and 2017 diagnosed with pancreatic adenocarcinoma and underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy by either robotic PD or open approach. Patients who underwent robotic PD during 2010 were compared to patients receiving the same procedure in 2017. In addition, a secondary analysis was performed to assess outcomes of robotic PD to open PD for the 2017 patient cohorts. Our primary outcomes included 30-day and 90-day mortality, length of stay, as well as 30-day readmission. Secondary outcome measures were surgical margins, lymph node yield, and adjuvant chemotherapy initiation within 12 weeks of surgery. When we compared the 2017 data to 2010 data, we found that robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy had lower 30- and 90-day mortality rates in 2017 compared to 2010. Additionally, we found that the lymph node yield in robotic PD increased during the study period. When we compared robotic PD to open PD for 2017, we found no statistically significant differences in readmission rates (10.1% vs. 9.7%: p-0.4), lymph node yield, or negative margin between the groups. Outcomes of robotic PD have improved over the years. In 2017, outcomes of robotic PD were similar to open PD.

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

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

Technical progress in robotic pancreatoduodenectomy: TRIANGLE and periadventitial dissection for retropancreatic nerve plexus resection

PURPOSE

The resection of retropancreatic nerve plexuses for pancreatic head cancer became standard of care during open pancreatoduodenectomy to minimize local recurrences. Since more surgical centers are progressing on the learning curve, robotically-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy is now increasingly performed with decreasing anatomic exclusion criteria. To achieve comparable and favorable oncologic outcomes, advanced surgical techniques should be transferred and implemented when performing robotic resections.

METHODS

The nomenclature and anatomic principles of retropancreatic nerve plexuses and three different levels of dissections are utilized based on established definitions.

RESULTS

The en bloc dissection in the "TRIANGLE" area (triangular-shaped retropancreatic space enclosed by the common hepatic artery, superior mesenteric artery, and superior mesenteric vein/portal vein) and the periadventitial dissection of arteries for non-tunica media-invading tumors were executed robotically. Both can be utilized to achieve a radical dorsal and medial margin. Video recordings are provided to illustrate varying TRIANGLE dissections.

CONCLUSION

To accomplish oncologic non-inferiority, established principles from open pancreatic resections can be incorporated precisely and safely, overcoming the lack of haptic feedback while exploiting the technological advantages of the robotically-assisted platform.

Learning curve of laparoscopic and robotic pancreas resections: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive pancreatic resection has been shown recently in some randomized trials to be superior in selected perioperative outcomes compared with open resection when performed by experienced surgeons. However, minimally invasive pancreatic resection is associated with a long learning curve. This study aims to summarize the current evidence on the learning curve of minimally invasive pancreatic resection and define the number of cases required to surmount the learning curve.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed on PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane database using a detailed search strategy. Studies that did not describe the learning curve were excluded from the study. Data on the method of learning curve analysis, single surgeon versus institutional learning curve, and outcome measures were extracted and analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 32 studies were included in the pooled analysis: 12 on laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy, 9 on robotic pancreatoduodenectomy, 12 on laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy, and 3 on robotic distal pancreatectomy. Sample population was comparable between laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy and robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (median 63 vs 65). Six of 12 studies and 7 of 9 studies used nonarbitrary methods of analysis in laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy and robotic pancreatoduodenectomy, respectively. Operating time was used as the single outcome measure in 4 of 12 studies in laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy and 5 of 9 studies in robotic pancreatoduodenectomy. Overall, there was no significant difference between the number of cases required to surmount the learning curve for laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy versus robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy 34.1 [95% confidence interval 30.7-37.7] versus robotic pancreatoduodenectomy 36.7 [95% confidence interval 32.9-41.0]; P = .8241) and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy versus robotic distal pancreatectomy (laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy 25.3 [95% confidence interval 22.5-28.3] versus robotic distal pancreatectomy 20.7 [95% confidence interval 15.8-26.5]; P = .5997.) CONCLUSION: This study provides a detailed summary of existing evidence around the learning curve in minimally invasive pancreatic resection. There was no significant difference between the learning curve for robotic pancreatoduodenectomy versus laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy and robotic distal pancreatectomy versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. These findings were limited by the retrospective nature and heterogeneity of the studies published to date.

Safety and efficacy of robot-assisted versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: a meta-analysis of multiple worldwide centers

The objective of the study is to compare the safety and efficacy of robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) with open PD. The PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases were searched for the literature available from their respective inception dates up to May 2020 to find studies comparing robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) with open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD). The RevMan 5.3 statistical software was used for analysis to evaluate surgical outcome and oncology safety. The combination ratio (RR) and weighted mean difference (WMD) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using fixed-effect or random effect models. 18 cohort studies from 16 medical centers were eligible with a total of 5795 patients including 1420 RPD group patients and 4375 OPD group patients. The RPD group fared better than the OPD group in terms of estimated blood loss (EBL) (WMD = - 175.65, 95% CI (- 251.85, - 99.44), P < 0.00001), wound infection rate (RR = 0.60, 95% CI (0.44, 0.81), P = 0.001), reoperation rate (RR = 0.61, 95% CI (0.41, 0.91), P = 0.02), hospital day (WMD = - 2.95, 95% CI (- 5.33, - 0.56), P = 0.02), intraoperative blood transfusion (RR = 0.56, 95% CI (0.42, 0.76), P = 0.0001), overall complications (RR = 0.78, 95% CI (0.64, 0.95), P = 0.01), and clinical postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) (RR = 0.54, 95% CI (0.41, 0.70), P < 0.0001). In terms of lymph node clearance (WMD = 0.48, 95% CI (- 2.05, 3.02), P = 0.71), R0 rate (RR = 1.05, 95% CI (1.00, 1.11), P = 0.05), postoperative pancreatic fistula (RR = 1, 95% CI (0.85, 1.19), P = 0.97), bile leakage (RR = 0.99, 95% CI (0.54, 1.83), P = 0.98), delayed gastric emptying (DGE) (RR = 0.79, 95% CI (0.60, 1.03), P = 0.08), 90-day mortality (RR = 0.82, 95% CI (0.62, 1.10), P = 0.19), and severe complications (RR = 0.98, 95% CI (0.71, 1.36), P = 0.91), and there were no significant differences between the two groups. Robotic surgery was inferior to open surgery in terms of operational time (WMD = 80.85, 95% CI (16.09, 145.61), P = 0.01). RPD is not inferior to OPD, and it is even more advantageous for EBL, wound infection rate, reoperation rate, hospital stay, intraoperative transfusion, overall complications and clinical POPF. However, these findings need to be further verified by high-quality randomized controlled trials.

Robotic gastrointestinal surgery: learning curve, educational programs and outcomes

The use of the robotic platform for gastrointestinal surgery was introduced nearly 20 years ago. However, significant growth and advancement has occurred primarily in the last decade. This is due to several advantages over traditional laparoscopic surgery allowing for more complex dissections and reconstructions. Several randomized controlled trials and retrospective reviews have demonstrated equivalent oncologic outcomes compared to open surgery with improved short-term outcomes. Unfortunately, there are currently no universally accepted or implemented training programs for robotic surgery and robotic surgery experience varies greatly. Additionally, several limitations to the robotic platform exist resulting in a distinct learning curve associated with various procedures. Therefore, implementation of robotic surgery requires a multidisciplinary team approach with commitment and investment from clinical faculty, operating room staff and hospital administrators. Additionally, there is a need for wider distribution of educational modules to train more surgeons and reduce the associated learning curve. This article will focus on the implementation of the robotic platform for surgery of the pancreas, stomach, liver, colon and rectum with an emphasis on the associated learning curve, educational platforms to develop proficiency and perioperative outcomes.

State of the art of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy

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

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.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

PATIENTS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Short-term Outcomes After Robot-Assisted vs Open Pancreaticoduodenectomy After the Learning Curve

Question

What are the actual advantages of robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) after the learning curve?

Findings

In this cohort study of 187 individuals, robot-assisted PD had advantages over open PD in operative time, estimated blood loss, and postoperative hospital stay after the learning curve.

Meaning

The true advantages of robot-assisted PD could be revealed after passing the learning curve.

Importance

Robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) has been reported to be safe and feasible. As a new technique, RPD has a learning curve similar to that of other types of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery such as laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy. To our knowledge, no reports exist on the outcomes of open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) and RPD after the learning curve.

Objective

To analyze and evaluate the actual advantages of RPD.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Between May 2010 and December 2018, 450 patients underwent RPD in the Shanghai Ruijin Hospital affiliated with Shanghai Jiaotong University in Shanghai, China, a high-volume pancreatic disease center. According to our previous study, an important flexion point in the learning curve is 250 cases. Data on the last 200 RPD cases were collected from January 2017 to December 2018. During that period, 634 patients underwent OPD. These patients were divided into 2 groups, and propensity score matching was used to minimize bias. The demographic data and operative outcomes were collected and analyzed. Analysis began May 2019.

Exposures

Robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy and OPD.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The short-term operative outcomes of RPD and OPD.

Results

After 1:1 matching, 187 cases of RPD and OPD were recorded. In the RPD group, 78 patients (41.7%) were women, and the mean (SD) age was 60.9 (11.4) years. In the OPD group, 80 patients (42.8%) were women, and the mean (SD) age was 60.1 (10.8) years. Robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy had advantages in operative time (mean [SD], 279.7 [76.3] minutes vs 298.2 [78.3] minutes; P = .02), estimated blood loss (mean [SD], 297.3 [246.8] mL vs 415.2 [497.9] mL; P = .002), and postoperative length of hospital stay (mean [SD], 22.4 [16.7] days vs 26.1 [16.3] days; P = .03). However, there was no significant difference in the R0 resection rate and incidence rate of postoperative complications, such as postoperative pancreatic fistula, bile leak, and delayed gastric emptying. The incidence rates of postoperative bleeding and reoperation in the RPD group were similar to those in the OPD group, with no statistically significant difference.

Conclusions and Relevance

After passing the learning curve, RPD had advantages in operative time and blood loss compared with OPD. There were no differences in postoperative complications such as postoperative pancreatic fistula, bile leak, and delayed gastric emptying. However, patients recovered more quickly after RPD than after OPD. A prospective randomized clinical trial is needed in the future to verify these results.

Robotic-assisted Pancreaticoduodenectomy: Technique Description and Performance Evaluation After 60 Cases

PURPOSE

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) remains one of the most challenging abdominal operations. During the implementation of new surgical technologies, safety and efficacy outcomes must be rigorously monitored and the learning curve clearly identified.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The authors investigated their experience during the adoption of RPD, analyzing the outcomes of our first 60 consecutive cases, divided into group A (1 to 30) and group B (31 to 60). The cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis was used to define the learning curve.

RESULTS

The authors observed a reduction in operative time (125 min) and estimated blood loss (185 mL) between the firsts 1 to 30 and the latest 30 cases. The overall rate of complications showed the tendency to decrease during the experience (46.7% vs. 23.3%, P=0.02), conversely, severe complications and the rate of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula did not show a significant reduction in the incidence (P=0.37 and P=0.67, respectively). The mean number of lymph nodes harvested improved significantly after 30 cases (P=0.004).

CONCLUSION

Surgical performance improved significantly after the first 30 cases.

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.

Association of Mentorship and a Formal Robotic Proficiency Skills Curriculum With Subsequent Generations' Learning Curve and Safety for Robotic Pancreaticoduodenectomy

Importance

Learning curves are unavoidable for practicing surgeons when adopting new technologies. However, patient outcomes are worse in the early stages of a learning curve vs after mastery. Therefore, it is critical to find a way to decrease these learning curves without compromising patient safety.

Objective

To evaluate the association of mentorship and a formal proficiency-based skills curriculum with the learning curves of 3 generations of surgeons and to determine the association with increased patient safety.

Design, Setting, and Participants

All consecutive robotic pancreaticoduodenectomies (RPDs) performed at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center between 2008 and 2017 were included in this study. Surgeons were split into generations based on their access to mentorship and a proficiency-based skills curriculum. The generations are (1) no mentorship or curriculum, (2) mentorship but no curriculum, and (3) mentorship and curriculum. Univariable and multivariable analyses were used to create risk-adjusted learning curves by surgical generation and to analyze factors associated with operating room time, complications, and fellows completing the full resection. The participants include surgical oncology attending surgeons and fellows who participated in an RPD at University of Pittsburgh Medical Center between 2008 and 2017.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was operating room time (ORT). Secondary outcomes were postoperative pancreatic fistula and Clavien-Dindo classification higher than grade 2.

Results

We identified 514 RPDs completed between 2008 and 2017, of which 258 (50.2%) were completed by first-generation surgeons, 151 (29.3%) were completed by the second generation, and 82 (15.9%) were completed by the third generation. There was no statistically significant difference between groups with respect to age (66.3-67.3 years; P = .52) or female sex (n = 34 [41.5%] vs n = 121 [46.9%]; P = .60). There was a significant decrease in ORT (P < .001), from 450.8 minutes for the first-generation surgeons to 348.6 minutes for the third generation. Additionally, across generations, Clavien-Dindo classification higher than grade 2 (n = 74 [28.7%] vs n = 30 [9.9%] vs n = 12 [14.6%]; P = .01), conversion rates (n = 18 [7.0%] vs n = 7 [4.6%] vs n = 0; P = .006), and estimated blood loss (426 mL vs 288.6 mL vs 254.7 mL; P < .001) decreased significantly with subsequent generations. There were no significant differences in postoperative pancreatic fistula.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this study, ORT, conversion rates, and estimated blood loss decreased across generations without a concomitant rise in adverse patient outcomes. These findings suggest that a proficiency-based curriculum coupled with mentorship allows for the safe introduction of less experienced surgeons to RPD without compromising patient safety.

Robotic Pancreatoduodenectomy: Patient Selection, Volume Criteria, and Training Programs

INTRODUCTION

There has been a rapid development in minimally invasive pancreas surgery in recent years. The most recent innovation is robotic pancreatoduodenectomy. Several studies have suggested benefits as compared to the open or laparoscopic approach. This review provides an overview of studies concerning patient selection, volume criteria, and training programs for robotic pancreatoduodenectomy and identified knowledge gaps regarding barriers for safe implementation of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A Pubmed search was conducted concerning patient selection, volume criteria, and training programs in robotic pancreatoduodenectomy.

RESULTS

A total of 20 studies were included. No contraindications were found in patient selection for robotic pancreatoduodenectomy. The consensus and the Miami guidelines advice is a minimum annual volume of 20 robotic pancreatoduodenectomy procedures per center, per year. One training program was identified which describes superior outcomes after the training program and shortening of the learning curve in robotic pancreatoduodenectomy.

CONCLUSION

Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy is safe and feasable for all indications when performed by specifically trained surgeons working in centers who can maintain a minimum volume of 20 robotic pancreatoduodenectomy procedures per year. Large proficiency-based training program for robotic pancreatoduodenectomy seem essential to facilitate a safe implementation and future research on robotic pancreatoduodenectomy.

Minimally Invasive Pancreaticoduodenectomy in Elderly Patients: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) for pancreatic head or periampullary lesions is being utilized with increasing frequency. However, few data are available for the elderly. The objective of this study is to assess the safety and feasibility of MIPD in elderly population, by making a comparison with conventional open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) and with non-elderly population.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search to identify all eligible studies in Cochrane Library, Ovid, and PubMed from their inception up to April 2020.

RESULTS

Seven retrospective studies involving 2727 patients were included. Of these, 3 compared MIPD and OPD in elderly patients, 2 compared MIPD in elderly and non-elderly patients, and 2 included both outcomes. Compared to those with OPD, elderly patients who underwent MIPD were associated with less 90-day mortality (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.32-0.97; P = 0.04) and fewer delayed gastric emptying (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.33-0.88; P = 0.01). On the other hand, no significant difference was observed in terms of 30-day mortality, major morbidity, postoperative pancreatic fistula (grade B/C), postoperative hemorrhage, reoperation, 30-day readmission, and operative time. For patients who have treated with MIPD, elderly did not reveal worse outcomes than non-elderly.

CONCLUSION

MIPD is a safe and feasible procedure for select elderly patients if performed by experienced surgeons from high-volume pancreatic surgery centers. However, further randomized studies are required to confirm this.

Evaluation of robotic versus open partial pancreatoduodenectomy-study protocol for a randomised controlled pilot trial (EUROPA, DRKS00020407)

Background

Partial pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) is the indicated surgical procedure for a wide range of benign and malignant diseases of the pancreatic head and distal bile duct and offers the only potential cure for pancreatic head cancer. The current gold standard, open PD (OPD) performed via laparotomy, is associated with morbidity in around 40% of cases, even at specialised centres. Robotic PD (RPD) might offer a viable alternative to OPD and has been shown to be feasible. Encouraging perioperative results have been reported for RPD in a number of small, non-randomised studies. However, since those studies showed a considerable risk of bias, a thorough comparison of RPD with OPD is warranted.

Methods

The EUROPA (EvalUation of RObotic partial PAncreatoduodenectomy) trial is designed as a randomised controlled unblinded exploratory surgical trial with two parallel study groups. A total of 80 patients scheduled for elective PD will be randomised after giving written informed consent. Patients with borderline or non-resectable carcinoma of the pancreatic head as defined by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, distant metastases or an American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) score > III will be excluded. The experimental intervention, RPD, will be compared with the control intervention, OPD. An intraoperative dropout of approximately eight patients per group is expected because they may receive another type of surgical procedure than planned. Overall, 64 patients need to be analysed. The primary endpoint of the trial is overall postoperative morbidity within 90 days after index operation, measured using the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI). The secondary endpoints include the feasibility of recruitment and assessment of clinical, oncological and safety parameters and quality of life and cost-effectiveness.

Discussion

The EUROPA trial is the first randomised controlled trial comparing RPD with OPD. Differences in postoperative morbidity will be evaluated to design a future multicentre confirmatory efficacy trial.

Trial registration

German Clinical Trial Register DRKS00020407. Registered on 9 March 2020

Systematic review and updated network meta-analysis comparing open, laparoscopic, and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy

The treatment of periampullary and pancreatic head neoplasms is evolving. While minimally invasive Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) has gained worldwide interest, there has been a debate on its related outcomes. The purpose of this paper was to provide an updated evidence comparing short-term surgical and oncologic outcomes within Open Pancreaticoduodenectomy (OpenPD), Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy (LapPD), and Robotic Pancreaticoduodenectomy (RobPD). MEDLINE, Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane Central Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were referred for systematic search. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was executed. Forty-one articles (56,440 patients) were included; 48,382 (85.7%) underwent OpenPD, 5570 (9.8%) LapPD, and 2488 (4.5%) RobPD. Compared to OpenPD, LapPD and RobPD had similar postoperative mortality [Risk Ratio (RR) = 1.26; 95%CrI 0.91–1.61 and RR = 0.78; 95%CrI 0.54–1.12)], clinically relevant (grade B/C) postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) (RR = 1.12; 95%CrI 0.82–1.43 and RR = 0.87; 95%CrI 0.64–1.14, respectively), and severe (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3) postoperative complications (RR = 1.03; 95%CrI 0.80–1.46 and RR = 0.93; 95%CrI 0.65–1.14, respectively). Compared to OpenPD, both LapPD and RobPD had significantly reduced hospital length-of-stay, estimated blood loss, infectious, pulmonary, overall complications, postoperative bleeding, and hospital readmission. No differences were found in the number of retrieved lymph nodes and R0. OpenPD, LapPD, and RobPD seem to be comparable across clinically relevant POPF, severe complications, postoperative mortality, retrieved lymphnodes, and R0. LapPD and RobPD appears to be safer in terms of infectious, pulmonary, and overall complications with reduced hospital readmission We advocate surgeons to choose their preferred surgical approach according to their expertise, however, the adoption of minimally invasive techniques may possibly improve patients’ outcomes.