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

Utility of ligamentum teres hepatis flap reinforcement to prevent postoperative pancreatic fistulas in robotic distal pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND

Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is a significant contributor to morbidity and mortality after robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP). Ligamentum teres hepatis (LTH) reinforcement of the pancreatic remnant may reduce the incidence of POPF.

METHODS

Patients ≥18 years old, who underwent RDP at the University of Massachusetts Memorial Medical Center from 01/01/2018-08/31/2022. Primary endpoint was POPF incidence. Secondary outcomes included peri- and postoperative variables.

RESULTS

Thirty-three patients underwent RDP, of which LTH reinforcement was used in 21 (64 ​%) cases. Six (18 ​%) patients developed a POPF. No association was identified between LTH flap reinforcement and POPF (OR 1.18, 95 ​% CI 0.18 to 7.85, p ​= ​0.87). There were no peri- or postoperative complications related to ligamentum teres flap creation.

CONCLUSIONS

LTH reinforcement of the pancreatic remnant can be safely performed during RDP. Further studies are needed to assess the utility of this intervention to mitigate the risk of pancreatic fistula formation following RDP.

Safety and effectiveness of minimally invasive central pancreatectomy versus open central pancreatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Central pancreatectomy is a surgical procedure for benign and low-grade malignant tumors which located in the neck and proximal body of the pancreas that facilitates the preservation of pancreatic endocrine and exocrine functions but has a high morbidity rate, especially postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF). The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness between minimally invasive central pancreatectomy (MICP) and open central pancreatectomy (OCP) basing on perioperative outcomes.

METHODS

An extensive literature search to compare MICP and OCP was conducted from October 2003 to October 2023 on PubMed, Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. Fixed-effect models or random effects were selected based on heterogeneity, and pooled odds ratios (ORs) or mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 10 studies with a total of 510 patients were included. There was no significant difference in POPF between MICP and OCP (OR = 0.95; 95% CI [0.64, 1.43]; P = 0.82), whereas intraoperative blood loss (MD = - 125.13; 95% CI [- 194.77, -55.49]; P < 0.001) and length of hospital stay (MD = - 2.86; 95% CI [- 5.00, - 0.72]; P = 0.009) were in favor of MICP compared to OCP, and there was a strong trend toward a lower intraoperative transfusion rate in MICP than in OCP (MD = 0.34; 95% CI [0.11, 1.00]; P = 0.05). There was no significant difference in other outcomes between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

MICP was as safe and effective as OCP and had less intraoperative blood loss and a shorter length of hospital stay. However, further studies are needed to confirm the results.

Postoperative outcomes and costs of laparoscopic versus robotic distal pancreatectomy: a propensity-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) has established advantages over the open approach. The costs associated with robotic DP (RDP) versus laparoscopic DP (LDP) make the robotic approach controversial. We sought to compare outcomes and cost of LDP and RDP using propensity matching analysis at our institution.

METHODS

Patients undergoing LDP or RDP between 2000 and 2021 were retrospectively identified. Patients were optimally matched using age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists status, body mass index, and tumor size. Between-group differences were analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test for continuous data, and the McNemar's test for categorical data. Outcomes included operative duration, conversion to open surgery, postoperative length of stay, pancreatic fistula rate, pseudocyst requiring intervention, and costs.

RESULTS

298 patients underwent MIDP, 180 (60%) were laparoscopic and 118 (40%) were robotic. All RDPs were matched 1:1 to a laparoscopic case with absolute standardized mean differences for all matching covariates below 0.10, except for tumor type (0.16). RDP had longer operative times (268 vs 178 min, p < 0.01), shorter length of stay (2 vs 4 days, p < 0.01), fewer biochemical pancreatic leaks (11.9% vs 34.7%, p < 0.01), and fewer interventional radiological drainage (0% vs 5.9%, p = 0.01). The number of pancreatic fistulas (11.9% vs 5.1%, p = 0.12), collections requiring antibiotics or intervention (11.9% vs 5.1%, p = 0.12), and conversion rates (3.4% vs 5.1%, p = 0.72) were comparable between the two groups. The total direct index admission costs for RDP were 1.01 times higher than for LDP for FY16-19 (p = 0.372), and 1.33 times higher for FY20-22 (p = 0.031).

CONCLUSIONS

Although RDP required longer operative times than LDP, postoperative stays were shorter. The procedure cost of RDP was modestly more expensive than LDP, though this was partially offset by reduced hospital stay and reintervention rate.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

A comparison of robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a single surgeon's robotic experience in a high-volume center

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery is the most recent advanced minimally invasive approach for distal pancreatectomy. However, its benefits over laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) remain undetermined. Previous studies were limited by their small sample size or variations in surgeon skills. This study aimed to compare robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) performed by a single surgeon with LDP performed by skilled laparoscopic surgeons in a high-volume center.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed consecutive RDP performed by a single surgeon between December 2020 and November 2021 with LDP performed by experienced surgeons during the same period in a high-volume center. Patient characteristics and perioperative variables were compared.

RESULTS

The analysis included 55 RDP and 146 LDP procedures. The operative time in the RDP group was significantly shorter than the LDP group (171 vs. 222 min, P < 0.001), both in spleen-preserved (154 vs. 212 min, P < 0.001) and spleen-removed (192 vs. 230 min, P = 0.005) procedures. The RDP group made more frequent use of the stapler technique for pancreas transection (87.3 vs. 68.5%, P = 0.007), and its estimated blood loss was lower (79 vs. 155 mL, P < 0.001) than the LDP group. The postoperative hospital stay in the RDP group was significantly shorter than the LDP group (8 vs. 12 days, P < 0.001). The groups were similar in their complication distributions.

CONCLUSION

RDP is as safe and feasible a minimally invasive approach as LDP. The advanced manipulation and visualization capabilities of the robotic approach in distal pancreatectomy could help reduce operative time and blood loss, and is related to shorter postoperative hospital stay.

Is robotic distal pancreatectomy better than laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy after the learning curve? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Aim

The aim of this study was to compare the safety and overall effect of robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) to laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) after the learning curve, especially in perioperative outcome and short-term oncological outcome.

Methods

A literature search was performed by two authors independently using PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science to identify any studies comparing the results of RDP versus LDP published until 5 January 2022. Only the studies where RDP was performed in more than 35 cases were included in this study. We performed a meta-analysis of operative time, blood loss, reoperation, readmission, hospital stay, overall complications, major complications, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), blood transfusion, conversion to open surgery, spleen preservation, tumor size, R0 resection, and lymph node dissection.

Results

Our search identified 15 eligible studies, totaling 4,062 patients (1,413 RDP). It seems that the RDP group had a higher rate of smaller tumor size than the LDP group (MD: −0.15; 95% CI: −0.20 to −0.09; p &lt; 0.00001). Furthermore, compared with LPD, RDP was associated with a higher spleen preservation rate (OR: 2.19; 95% CI: 1.36–3.54; p = 0.001) and lower rate of conversion to open surgery (OR: 0.43; 95% CI: 0.33–0.55; p &lt; 0.00001). Our study revealed that there were no significant differences in operative time, overall complications, major complications, blood loss, blood transfusion, reoperation, readmission, POPF, and lymph node dissection between RDP and LDP.

Conclusions

RDP is safe and feasible for distal pancreatectomy compared with LDP, and it can reduce the rate of conversion to open surgery and increase the rate of spleen preservation, which needs to be further confirmed by quality comparative studies with large samples.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#recordDetails.

Role and Efficacy of Robotic-assisted Radical Antegrade Modular Pancreatosplenectomy (RAMPS) in Left-sided Pancreatic Cancer

Distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy is the gold-standard surgery for the treatment of left-sided pancreatic cancer. Margin negative resection accompanied by effective lymphadenectomy are the deciding factors affecting the outcome of tail-body pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (RAMPS) is considered as a reasonable approach for margin-negative and systemic lymph node clearance. Herein, we aim to present all existing data regarding this novel approach including surgical technique and comparison with standardized procedures. RAMPS has shown oncological superiority comparing to distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy due to radical lymphadenectomy and improved dissection of the posterior pancreatic aspects. Robotic-assisted RAMPS has recently been described as a valuable alternative to open RAMPS. With this novel technique, anterior, posterior or modified approaches can be achieved; favorable clinical and oncological outcomes have been reported in the current literature, with reduced conversion rates compared to other minimally invasive approaches, as well as vastly improved maneuverability, accuracy and vision. Robotic-assisted RAMPS is not only technically feasible but also oncologically safe in cases of well-selected, left-sided pancreatic cancer.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

A comparison of minimally invasive vs open distal pancreatectomy for resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: Propensity score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

Owing to concerns regarding adequate oncological outcomes and perioperative complications, minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) has limited generalizability. The aim of this study was to assess the perioperative and oncologic outcomes of MIDP compared with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) for resectable PDAC after propensity score matching (PSM).

METHODS

The patients who underwent MIDP and ODP for PDAC between January 2010 and December 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. Demographics, perioperative outcomes, pathological outcomes, and overall and disease-free survival data were collected to compare MIDP and ODP. After PSM, perioperative and oncologic outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 156 MIDP patients were compared with 156 ODP patients for resectable PDAC after PSM. Tumor size, TNM stage, differentiation, harvested lymph nodes, and positive lymph nodes were not different except for R1 resection and lymphovascular invasion between the MIDP and ODP groups. Operation times, overall complications, POPF, and adjuvant treatment were also not different between the two groups. The MIDP group had shorter hospital stays (10.0 vs 13.4 days, P < 0.001) and shorter interval times from surgery to adjuvant treatment (37.6 days vs 46.0 days, P = 0.002) than the ODP group. The MIDP group had better overall survival (34.9 vs 24.5 months, P = 0.012) and disease-free survival (16.2 vs 10.3 months, P = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy has advantages with respect to postoperative hospital stay, interval between surgery, and adjuvant treatment. MIDP is associated with the possibility of improved survival rate for resectable PDAC.

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.

Robotic versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Spleen-Preserving Distal Pancreatectomies: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

When oncologically feasible, avoiding unnecessary splenectomies prevents patients who are undergoing distal pancreatectomy (DP) from facing significant thromboembolic and infective risks.

METHODS

A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, and Web Of Science identified 11 studies reporting outcomes of 323 patients undergoing intended spleen-preserving minimally invasive robotic DP (SP-RADP) and 362 laparoscopic DP (SP-LADP) in order to compare the spleen preservation rates of the two techniques. The risk of bias was evaluated according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

RESULTS

SP-RADP showed superior results over the laparoscopic approach, with an inferior spleen preservation failure risk difference (RD) of 0.24 (95% CI 0.15, 0.33), reduced open conversion rate (RD of -0.05 (95% CI -0.09, -0.01)), reduced blood loss (mean difference of -138 mL (95% CI -205, -71)), and mean difference in hospital length of stay of -1.5 days (95% CI -2.8, -0.2), with similar operative time, clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (ISGPS grade B/C), and Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3 postoperative complications.

CONCLUSION

Both SP-RADP and SP-LADP proved to be safe and effective procedures, with minimal perioperative mortality and low postoperative morbidity. The robotic approach proved to be superior to the laparoscopic approach in terms of spleen preservation rate, intraoperative blood loss, and hospital length of stay.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

A single institution experience with robotic and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies

BACKGROUNDS/AIMS

This study aims to describe our experience with minimally-invasive distal pancreatectomies, with emphasis on the comparison between robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP).

METHODS

Retrospective review of 102 consecutive RDP and LDP from 2006 to 2019 was performed.

RESULTS

There were 27 and 75 patients who underwent RDP and LDP, respectively. There were 12 (11.8%) open conversions and 16 (15.7%) patients had major (＞grade 2) morbidities. Patients who underwent RDP had significantly higher rates of splenic preservation (44.4% vs. 13.3%, p=0.002), higher rates of splenic-vessel preservation (40.7% vs. 9.3%, p=0.001), higher median difficulty score (5 vs. 3, p=0.002) but longer operation time (385 vs. 245 minutes, p＜0.001). The rate of open conversion tended to be lower with RDP (3.7% vs. 14.7%, p=0.175).

CONCLUSIONS

In our institution practice, both RDP and LDP were safe and effective. The use of RDP appeared to be complementary to LDP, allowing us to perform more difficult procedures with comparable postoperative outcomes.

Robotic-assisted versus open distal pancreatectomy for benign and low-grade malignant pancreatic tumors: a propensity score-matched study

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to compare the short-term outcomes of open and robotic-assisted distal pancreatectomy (ODP and RDP) for benign and low-grade malignant tumors.

METHODS

The patients who underwent RDP and ODP for benign or low-grade malignant pancreatic tumors at our center were included. After PSM at a 1:1 ratio, the perioperative variations in the two cohorts were compared.

RESULTS

After 1:1 PSM, 219 cases of RDP and ODP were recorded. The RDP cohort showed advantages in the operative duration [120 (90-150) min vs 175 (130-210) min, P < 0.001], estimated blood loss [50 (30-175) ml vs 200 (100-300) ml, P < 0.001], spleen preservation rate (63.5% vs 26.5%, P < 0.001), infection rate (4.6% vs 12.3%, P = 0.006), and gastrointestinal function recovery [3 (2-4) vs. 3 (3-5), P = 0.019]. There were no significant differences in postoperative pancreatic fistula, postoperative hemorrhage, and delayed gastric emptying. Multivariate analysis showed that RDP (HR 0.24; 95% CI 0.16-0.36, P < 0.001), age (HR 1.02; 95% CI 1.00-1.03, P = 0.033), tumor size (HR 1.28; 95% CI 1.17-1.40, P < 0.001), pathological inflammatory neoplasm type (HR 5.12; 95% CI 2.22-11.81, P < 0.001), and estimated blood loss (HR 1.003; 95% CI 1.001-1.004, P < 0.001) were independent predictors of spleen preservation; RDP (HR 0.27; 95% CI 0.17-0.43, P < 0.001), age (HR 1.02; 95% CI 1.00-1.03, P = 0.022), elevated CA 19-9 level (HR 2.55; 95% CI 1.02-6.39, P = 0.046), tumor size (HR 1.44; 95% CI 1.29-1.61, P < 0.001), pathological inflammatory neoplasm type (HR 4.48; 95% CI 1.69-11.85, P = 0.003), and estimated blood loss (HR 1.003; 95% CI 1.001-1.004, P < 0.001) were independent predictors of spleen preservation with the Kimura technique.

CONCLUSION

RDP has advantages in the operative time, blood loss, spleen preservation, infection rate, and gastrointestinal function recovery over ODP in treating benign and low-grade malignant pancreatic tumors. The robotic-assisted approach was an independent predictor of spleen preservation and use of the Kimura technique.

Trends of robotic-assisted surgery for thyroid, colorectal, stomach and hepatopancreaticobiliary cancer: 10 year Korea trend investigation

BACKGROUND

The current position of robotic surgery in the field of minimally invasive surgery remains ambiguous. We evaluated long-term trends of robotic general surgery and the future direction of its development.

METHODS

Data on robotic cancer surgeries between 2005 and 2014 were retrospectively collected by volunteer institutions in the Republic of Korea. Spearman's correlation and logistic regression analyses were used to compare robotic and laparoscopic surgery trends in general surgery.

RESULTS

The odds that robotic surgery was performed instead of laparoscopic surgery significantly decreased in the fields of colorectal, stomach, and hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery (odds ratio [OR]: 0.95, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.93-0.97; OR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.88-0.92; and OR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.65-0.78, respectively), except for thyroid surgery (OR: 1.28, 95% CI: 1.25-1.30). Of the total numbers of each procedure, proportions of robotic intersphincteric resections, abdominoperineal resections, and pylorus-preserving surgery performed significantly increased (r = 0.98, P < .001; r = 0.78, P = .01; and r = 0.86, P = .007, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of robotic surgery failed to preponderate that of laparoscopic surgery, except for thyroid surgery. Robotic surgery is increasingly preferred for limited fields or complex surgeries, but the use of robotics in simple surgeries has decreased.

The Miami International Evidence-based Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreas Resection

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to develop and externally validate the first evidence-based guidelines on minimally invasive pancreas resection (MIPR) before and during the International Evidence-based Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreas Resection (IG-MIPR) meeting in Miami (March 2019).

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

MIPR has seen rapid development in the past decade. Promising outcomes have been reported by early adopters from high-volume centers. Subsequently, multicenter series as well as randomized controlled trials were reported; however, guidelines for clinical practice were lacking.

METHODS

The Scottisch Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) methodology was used, incorporating these 4 items: systematic reviews using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases to answer clinical questions, whenever possible in PICO style, the GRADE approach for assessment of the quality of evidence, the Delphi method for establishing consensus on the developed recommendations, and the AGREE-II instrument for the assessment of guideline quality and external validation. The current guidelines are cosponsored by the International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the Americas Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the Asian-Pacific Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the European-African Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery, Pancreas Club, the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgery, the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

RESULTS

After screening 16,069 titles, 694 studies were reviewed, and 291 were included. The final 28 recommendations covered 6 topics; laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomy, central pancreatectomy, pancreatoduodenectomy, as well as patient selection, training, learning curve, and minimal annual center volume required to obtain optimal outcomes and patient safety.

CONCLUSION

The IG-MIPR using SIGN methodology give guidance to surgeons, hospital administrators, patients, and medical societies on the use and outcome of MIPR as well as the approach to be taken regarding this challenging type of surgery.

Meta-analysis of short-term outcomes comparing robot-assisted and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy

Aim: To evaluate and compare the short-term outcomes of robotic surgery and laparoscopic approach in distal pancreatectomy (DP). Materials & methods: EMBASE, PubMed, the Cochrane Library, CNKI and Wan Fang database were retrieved from the inception of electronic databases to June 2019. All analyses were performed using Stata/SE 15.1 version (StataCorp). Results: Twenty-two papers were included, four of which were prospective studies and the rest were retrospective studies. There was significant difference in spleen preservation rate (odds ratio: 2.020; 95% CI: 1.085-3.758; p = 0.027), operation time (mean difference [MD]: 27.372; 95% CI: 8.236-47.210; p = 0.000), the length of hospital stay (MD: -0.911; 95% CI: -1.287 to -0.535; p = 0.000), conversion rate (rate difference: -0.090; 95% CI: -1.287 to -0.535; p = 0.000), operation cost (MD: 2816.564; 95% CI: 1782.028-3851.064; p = 0.000). However, no significant difference was detected in estimated blood loss, total complication, severe complication, lymph nodules harvest, blood transfusion rate, total pancreatic fistula, severe pancreatic fistula, R0 resection rate and mortality. Conclusion: Both robotic and laparoscopic DP are safe and feasible. Although robotic DP increases the operation cost, the spleen-preserving rate is much higher. Robotic surgery may be an alternative approach to DP.

Robotic-assisted versus open left pancreatectomy for cystic tumours: A single-centre experience

BACKGROUND

Cystic pancreatic lesions (CPLs) are being identified increasingly, and some benefit from surgical treatment. With the increasing use of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) for neoplasms of the pancreas, the aim of the present comparative study is to establish whether the RAS offered any advantages over conventional open surgery (OS) in the management of CPLs.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Twenty-seven out of 37 robot-assisted left-sided pancreatectomy (LSP) performed between January 2010 and April 2017 were carried out for CPLs. The surgical outcome and histopathology were compared retrospectively with a control group of 27 patients who had undergone open LSP for CPLs, selected using a one-to-one case-matched methodology (OS-Group) from the prospectively collected institutional database.

RESULTS

The spleen was preserved in a significantly higher percentage of patients in the RAS-group (63% vs. 33.3%,P < 0.05). There was no difference in the post-operative course (pancreatic fistula and morbidity) between the two groups. The median post-operative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the RAS-group: 8 days (range 3-25) versus 12 days (range 7-26) in the OS-group (P < 0.01). No conversion to open approach was reported in the RAS-group.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotically assisted LSP is a safe and effective procedure. It is accompanied by a significantly higher spleen preservation rate compared to the open approach. In addition, because of the reduced trauma, RAS incurred a shorter post-operative hospital stay and faster return to full recovery, particularly important in patients undergoing surgery for relative indications. However, these benefits of RAS for LSP require confirmation by prospective randomised controlled studies.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Surgical techniques and postoperative management to prevent postoperative pancreatic fistula after pancreatic surgery

Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is one of the most severe complications after pancreatic surgeries. POPF develops as a consequence of pancreatic juice leakage from a surgically exfoliated surface and/or anastomotic stump, which sometimes cause intraperitoneal abscesses and subsequent lethal hemorrhage. In recent years, various surgical and perioperative attempts have been examined to reduce the incidence of POPF. We reviewed several well-designed studies addressing POPF-related factors, such as reconstruction methods, anastomotic techniques, stent usage, prophylactic intra-abdominal drainage, and somatostatin analogs, after pancreaticoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy, and we assessed the current status of POPF. In addition, we also discussed the current status of POPF in minimally invasive surgeries, laparoscopic surgeries, and robotic surgeries.

Robotic and laparoscopic surgery of the pancreas: an historical review

Surgery of the pancreas is a relatively new field, with operative series appearing only in the last 50 years. Surgery of the pancreas is technically challenging. The entire field of general surgery changed radically in 1987 with the introduction of the laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Minimally Invasive surgical techniques rapidly became utilized worldwide for gallbladder surgery and were then adapted to other abdominal operations. These techniques are used regularly for surgery of the pancreas including distal pancreatectomy and pancreatoduodenectomy. The progression from open surgery to laparoscopy to robotic surgery has occurred for many operations including adrenalectomy, thyroidectomy, colon resection, prostatectomy, gastrectomy and others. Data to show a benefit to the patient are scarce for robotic surgery, although both laparoscopic and robotic surgery of the pancreas have been shown not to be inferior with regard to major operative and oncologic outcomes. While there were serious concerns when laparoscopy was first used in patients with malignancies, robotic surgery has been used in many benign and malignant conditions with no obvious deterioration of outcomes. Robotic surgery for malignancies of the pancreas is well accepted and expanding to more centers. The importance of centers of excellence, surgeon experience supported by a codified mastery-based training program and international registries is widely accepted. Robotic pancreatic surgery is associated with slightly decreased blood loss and decreased length of stay compared to open surgery. Major oncologic outcomes appear to have been preserved, with some studies showing higher rates of R0 resection and tumor-free margins. Patients with lesions of the pancreas should find a surgeon they trust and do not need to be concerned with the operative approach used for their resection. The step-wise approach that has characterized the growth in robotic surgery of the pancreas, in contradistinction to the frenzy that accompanied the introduction of laparoscopic cholecystectomy, has allowed the identification of areas for improvement, many of which lie at the junction of engineering and medical practice. Refinements in robotic surgery depend on a partnership between engineers and clinicians.

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

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

Which method of distal pancreatectomy is cost-effective among open, laparoscopic, or robotic surgery?

Background

The aim of this study was to analyze the clinical and economic impact of robotic distal pancreatectomy, laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy, and open distal pancreatectomy.

Methods

All consecutive patients who underwent distal pancreatic resection for benign and malignant diseases between January 2012 and December 2015 were prospectively included. Cost analysis was performed; all charges from patient admission to discharge were considered.

Results

There were 21 robotic (RDP), 25 laparoscopic (LDP), and 43 open (ODP) procedures. Operative time was longer in the RDP group (RDP =345 minutes, LDP =306 min, ODP =251 min, P=0.01). Blood loss was higher in the ODP group (RDP =192 mL, LDP =356 mL, ODP =573 mL, P=0.0002). Spleen preservation was more frequent in the RDP group (RDP =66.6%, LDP =61.9%, ODP =9.3%, P=0.001). The rate of patients with Clavien-Dindo > grade III was higher in the ODP group (RDP =0%, LDP =12%, ODP =23%, P=0.01), especially for non-surgical complications, which were more frequent in the ODP group (RDP =9.5%, LDP =24%, ODP =41.8%, P=0.02). Length of hospital stay was increased in the ODP group (ODP =19 days, LDP =13 days, RDP =11 days, P=0.007). The total cost of the procedure, including the surgical procedure and postoperative course was higher in the ODP group (ODP =30,929 Euros, LDP =22,150 Euros, RDP =21,219 Euros, P=0.02).

Conclusions

Cost-effective results of RDP seem to be similar to LDP with some better short-term outcomes.

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

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

The First Case Report of Robotic Multivisceral Resection for Synchronous Liver Metastasis from Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumor: A Case Report and Literature Review

INTRODUCTION

Surgery for liver metastases in pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor (PNET) improves overall survival rate. We present the first case report for robotic multivisceral resection of distal pancreas, spleen, and left liver for metastatic PNET.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We present a case of 52-year-old female diagnosed with PNET in the pancreatic neck metastatic to the liver, responding to somatostatin and bland embolization, who underwent surgical debulking using da Vinci robotic platform. Intraoperative Doppler ultrasound was used to define the vascular distribution and tumor extension. The parenchymal liver transection was performed with vessel sealer. The distal pancreas and the spleen were approached medial to lateral and resected in an en-bloc fashion. The left liver inflow, outflow, and splenic artery and vein were transected with vascular stapler device.

RESULTS

Da Vinci robot-assisted multivisceral resection has been performed with good postoperative outcome. Operative time was 369 minutes and the estimated blood loss was 100 mL. The patient had a short hospital stay with quick recovery and good outcome at 5 months follow-up after the surgery.

DISCUSSION

Liver metastases in PNETs are considered an adverse factor. Aggressive surgical management is a mainstay. The laparoscopic approach to pancreatic or hepatic surgery is difficult in inexperienced hands with steep learning curve. The recent robotic system seems to overcome many limitations. This is the first case of robotic multivisceral resection for synchronous liver metastasis from PNET. Concurrent primary tumor resection with hepatectomy offers potential curative intention.