The surgical outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy versus laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary neoplasms: a comparative study of a single center

Outcomes evaluation of robotic versus laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a propensity score matching and learning curve analysis

BACKGROUND

Limited research has been conducted on the short-term outcomes comparing laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD), particularly in the post-learning curve stage. This study aims to investigate surgical efficacy and provide clinical practices for selecting suitable techniques between LPD and RPD.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted on consecutive patients who underwent RPD and LPD between April 2016 and December 2023. Baseline characteristics, pathological information, and perioperative data were analyzed. Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed to ensure the comparability of important factors between the groups.

RESULTS

A total of 277 patients were enrolled in the study, of which 145 underwent RPD. Following PSM, 116 patients were included in each group and baseline characteristics were well matched. The RPD group demonstrated a lower conversion rate to laparotomy (5.2% vs. 18.1%, p = 0.002), reduced blood loss (350 vs. 500 ml, p = 0.031), and a higher rate of R0 resection (91.4% vs. 80.7%, p < 0.05) compared to the laparoscopic group. The incidence of B2-Grade postoperative pancreatic fistula (B2-POPF) was also lower in the RPD group compared to the LPD group (4.3% vs. 11.2%, p = 0.037). Among patients in the post-learning curve stage, perioperative outcomes were similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

RPD offered several advantages over LPD, including lower rates of conversion to open and blood loss, higher rates of R0 resection, and improved POPF outcomes. Other perioperative outcomes were comparable between the two groups. Both techniques appeared feasible and safe in experienced surgeons, though RPD was preferred in complex cases.

Perioperative outcomes of robotic vs laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy: a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy has gained widespread acceptance among hepatopancreatobiliary surgeons due to its demonstrated advantages in perioperative outcomes compared to the conventional open approach. This meta-analysis, along with trial sequential analysis, aimed to compare the outcomes of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy based on the current available evidence.

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, and Web of Science was conducted from inception to July 2024. We assessed intraoperative and postoperative outcomes, including open conversion rates, readmission, reoperation, and mortality. Additional factors, such as blood loss and the number of lymph nodes resected, were also evaluated. Quality assessment was performed using Cochrane's risk of bias tools. Subgroup analysis was conducted based on propensity score matching status, and trial sequential analysis was applied to statistically significant results on first analysis.

RESULTS

We meta-analyzed seventeen studies, with a total of 5,483 patients. The meta-analysis reported lower rates of open conversion (OR 0.40; 95% CI 0.26-0.61; p = < 0.001) and a higher number of lymph nodes resected (MD 3.5; 95% CI 1.45-5.55; p = 0.0008) in the RPD group. These results remained consistent after subgroup analysis. Trial sequential analysis confirmed true positive results, indicating that further studies are unnecessary to detect a significant difference. However, other perioperative outcomes did not show statistical significance and failed to reach the required information size for definitive conclusions.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis of non-randomized cohorts found lower rates of open conversion and a higher number of lymph nodes resected in patients undergoing robotic pancreatoduodenectomy. However, the initial analysis did not reveal statistically significant differences in transfusion rates, multivisceral and vascular resections, hemorrhage, delayed gastric emptying, mortality, or readmission rates. Future studies should focus on randomized designs, target more specific populations, and include long-term outcomes for a more comprehensive analysis.

The safety and feasibility of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy: A multicenter retrospective assessment of 425 patients in Japan

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

The Japanese public health insurance system has recently covered robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD). This study aimed to review the results of RPD during the introductory period and elucidate its safety and feasibility in Japan.

METHODS

Consecutive data of 425 patients who underwent RPD were retrospectively collected from 10 high-volume centers in Japan between April 2020 and September 2022. The primary endpoints were the rates of conversion to open surgery and completion of minimally invasive surgery (MIS), defined as the use of a totally robotic operation or combined robotic and laparoscopic procedures. Secondary endpoints were operative time, blood loss, complication rate, and 30- and 90-day mortality rates.

RESULTS

Study comprised 222 males and 203 females, with a median age of 70 (p10-p90; 50-81) years. The conversion to open surgery and completion rates of MIS were 3.8% (16 patients) and 91.1% (387 patients), respectively. The median operative time was 617 min (p10-p90; 456-834 min), and the median volume of blood loss was 160 g (p10-p90; 30-558 g). The complication rate (Clavien-Dindo classification grade ≥ IIIa) was 20.5%. The 30- and 90-day mortality rates were 0.2% and 0.5%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicate that RPD can be introduced successfully and is a promising approach for pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Transatlantic differences in the use and outcome of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy: an international multi-registry analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) has emerged as an alternative to open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD). However, the extent of variation in the use and outcomes of MIPD in relation to OPD among countries is unclear as international studies using registry data are lacking. This study aimed to investigate the use, patient selection, and outcomes of MIPD and OPD in four transatlantic audits for pancreatic surgery.

METHODS

A post hoc comparative analysis including consecutive patients after MIPD and OPD from four nationwide and multicenter pancreatic surgery audits from North America, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden (2014-2020). Patient factors related to MIPD were identified using multivariable logistic regression. Outcome analyses excluded the Swedish audit because < 100 MIPD were performed during the studied period.

RESULTS

Overall, 44,076 patients who underwent pancreatoduodenectomy were included (29,107 North America, 7586 Germany, 4970 the Netherlands, and 2413 Sweden), including 3328 MIPD procedures (8%). The use of MIPD varied widely among countries (absolute largest difference [ALD] 17%, p < 0.001): 7% North America, 4% Germany, 17% the Netherlands, and 0.1% Sweden. Over time, the use of MIPD increased in North America and the Netherlands (p < 0.001), mostly driven by robotic MIPD, but not in Germany (p = 0.297). Patient factors predicting the use of MIPD included country, later year of operation, better performance status, high POPF-risk score, no vascular resection, and non-malignant indication. Conversion rates were higher in laparoscopic MIPD (range 28-45%), compared to robotic MIPD (range 9-37%). In-hospital/30-day mortality differed among North America, Germany, and the Netherlands; MIPD (2%, 7%, 4%; ALD 5%, p < 0.001) and OPD (2%, 5%, 3%; ALD 3%, p < 0.001), similar to major morbidity; MIPD (25%, 42%, 38%, ALD 17%, p < 0.001) and OPD (25%, 31%, 30%, ALD 6%, p < 0.001), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Considerable differences were found in the use and outcome, including conversion and mortality rates, of MIPD and OPD among four transatlantic audits for pancreatic surgery. Our findings highlight the need for international collaboration to optimize treatment standards and patient outcome.

Robotic versus laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic and periampullary tumors: a meta-analysis

Objective

The value of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) compared with laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) for pancreatic and periampullary tumors is controversial. This study aims to assess the available literature and compare the short outcomes of RPD and LPD.

Methods

The PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science databases were searched to identify available research published up to 24 July, 2024. Risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.

Results

Seventeen studies with a total of 9417 patients (RPD group: 3334 patients; LPD group: 6083 patients) were included in this meta-analysis. The RPD group had lower overall morbidity (RR, 0.79), conversion (RR, 0.29) and blood transfusion rates (RR, 0.61), shorter length of stay (MD, -0.72 days), and higher number of harvested lymph nodes (MD, 0.62) than the LPD group. There were no significant differences in 90-day mortality (RR, 0.89), major complications (RR, 0.87), operative time (MD, -3.74 mins), blood loss (MD, -24.14 mL), reoperation (RR, 0.94), bile leak (RR, 0.62), postoperative pancreatic hemorrhage (RR, 0.96), postoperative pancreatic fistula (RR, 0.74), delayed gastric emptying (RR, 1.24), and R0 resection (RR, 1.00) between the groups.

Conclusions

Compared with LPD, RPD for pancreatic and periampullary tumors could be safe and effective, and it has superior surgical outcomes. Further randomized controlled trials to verify the potential advantages of RPD over LPD are necessary.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=581133, identifier CRD42024581133.

The optimal choice for patients underwent minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis including patient subgroups

The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) in improving perioperative aspects and postoperative complications in patients.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library database systems for studies that compared RPD with laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD). Meta-analysis was performed for 24 relevant outcomes, including perioperative outcomes and postoperative complications. Subsequently, a subgroup analysis based on geographical regions was conducted to investigate the impact of regional differences on the perioperative outcomes of the RPD group and the LPD group.

RESULTS

This review found 19 studies with 12,731 individuals (3539 RPD and 9192 LPD). In comparison to LPD, RPD had lower rates of Conversion (OR = 0.58, P < 0.00001), Blood Transfusion (OR = 0.59, P = 0.02), Length of Stay (MD = - 0.54, P = 0.01), postoperative complications [Pneumonia (OR = 0.31, P < 0.0001), and Wound Disruption (OR = 0.26, P = 0.0007)], and more thorough lymph node harvesting (MD = 1.25, P = 0.001). Subgroup analysis showed that Blood Transfusion (I2 = 55%, P = 0.02), Conversion (I2 = 30%, P < 0.00001), Length of Stay (I2 = 71%, P = 0.01), and Lymph Node Harvested (I2 = 87%, P = 0.001) were statistically significant. Interestingly, compared to China, other countries had lower rates of Conversion and more lymph nodes harvested for RPD surgery.

CONCLUSION

The benefits of RPD surgery over LPD surgery in terms of therapy and an optimistic short-term prognosis are clearly supported by this study. Moreover, subgroup analysis based on regional differences revealed statistically significant results for Conversion, Length of Stay (days), Number of Lymph Nodes Harvested and the rate of Blood Transfusion, indicating significant variability across regions. This study provides a solid theoretical foundation and basis for the advancement of RPD in clinical practice.

Minimally Invasive Pancreas Surgery: Is There a Benefit?

Minimally invasive procedures minimize trauma to the human body while maintaining satisfactory therapeutic results. Minimally invasive pancreas surgery (MIPS) was introduced in 1994, but questions regarding its efficacy compared to an open approach were widespread. MIPS is associated with several perioperative advantages while maintaining oncological standards when performed by surgeons with a robust training regimen and frequent practice. Future research should focus on addressing learning curve discrepancies while identifying factors associated with shortening the time needed to attain technical proficiency.

Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for sporadic benign insulinoma: Short- and long-term outcomes

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery is the optimal treatment for insulinoma. The present study aimed to compare short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic surgery for sporadic benign insulinoma.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of patients who underwent laparoscopic or robotic surgery for insulinoma at our center between September 2007 and December 2019 was conducted. The demographic, perioperative and postoperative follow-up results were compared between the laparoscopic and robotic groups.

RESULTS

A total of 85 patients were enrolled, including 36 with laparoscopic approach and 49 with robotic approach. Enucleation was the preferred surgical procedure. Fifty-nine patients (69.4%) underwent enucleation; among them, 26 and 33 patients underwent laparoscopic and robotic surgery, respectively. Robotic enucleation had a lower conversion rate to laparotomy (0 vs. 19.2%, P = 0.013), shorter operative time (102.0 vs. 145.5 min, P = 0.008) and shorter postoperative hospital stay (6.0 vs. 8.5 d, P = 0.002) than laparoscopic enucleation. There were no differences between the groups in terms of intraoperative blood loss, the rates of postoperative pancreatic fistula and complications. After a median follow-up of 65 months, two patients in the laparoscopic group developed a functional recurrence and none of the patients in the robotic group had a recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic enucleation can reduce the conversion rate to laparotomy and shorten operative time, which might lead to a reduction in postoperative hospital stay.

Case Report: Robotic pylorus-preserving pancreatoduodenectomy for periampullary rhabdomyosarcoma in a 3-year-old patient

Periampullary neoplasm is rare in pediatric patients and has constituted a strict indication for pancreatoduodenectomy (PD), which is a procedure sporadically reported in the literature among children. Robotic PD has been routinely performed for periampullary neoplasm in periampullary neoplasm, but only a few cases in pediatric patients have been reported. Here, we report the case of a 3-year-old patient with periampullary rhabdomyosarcoma treated with robotic pylorus-preserving PD and share our experience with this procedure in pediatric patients. A 3-year-old patient presented with obstructive jaundice and a mass in the pancreatic head revealed by imaging. A laparoscopic biopsy was performed. Jaundice progressed with abdominal pain and elevated alpha-amylase leading to urgent robotic exploration in which a periampullary neoplasm was revealed and pathologically diagnosed as rhabdomyosarcoma by frozen section examination. After pylorus-preserving PD, we performed a conventional jejunal loop following a child reconstruction, including an end-to-end pancreaticojejunostomy, followed by end-to-side hepaticojejunostomy and duodenojejunostomy. Delayed gastric emptying (DGE) presented with increasing drain from the nasogastric tube (NGT) a week after the surgery and improved spontaneously within 10 days. In a 13-month follow-up until the present, our case patient recovered well without potentially fatal complications, such as pancreatic fistula. Robotic PD in pediatric patients was safe and effective without intra- or postoperative complications.

Minimally Invasive Pancreaticoduodenectomy in Elderly versus Younger Patients: A Meta-Analysis

(1) Background: With ageing, the number of pancreaticoduodenectomies (PD) for benign or malignant disease is expected to increase in elderly patients. However, whether minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) should be performed in the elderly is not clear yet and it is still debated. (2) Materials and Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted including seven published articles comparing the technical and post-operative outcomes of MIPD in elderly versus younger patients up to December 2022. (3) Results: In total, 1378 patients were included in the meta-analysis. In term of overall and Clavien-Dindo I/II complication rates, post-operative pancreatic fistula (POPF) grade > A rates and biliary leakage, abdominal collection, post-operative bleeding and delayed gastric emptying rates, no differences emerged between the two groups. However, this study showed slightly higher intraoperative blood loss [MD 43.41, (95%CI 14.45, 72.38) p = 0.003], Clavien-Dindo ≥ III complication rates [OR 1.87, (95%CI 1.13, 3.11) p = 0.02] and mortality rates [OR 2.61, (95%CI 1.20, 5.68) p = 0.02] in the elderly compared with the younger group. Interestingly, as a minor endpoint, no differences in terms of the mean number of harvested lymphnode and of R0 resection rates were found. (4) Conclusion: MIPD seems to be relatively safe; however, there are slightly higher major morbidity, lung complication and mortality rates in elderly patients, who potentially represent the individuals that may benefit the most from the minimally invasive approach.

Effect of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy on the incidence of surgical-site wound infection: A meta-analysis

A meta-analysis was conducted to assess the impact of robotic and laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomies on postoperative surgical site wound infections. A comprehensive computerised search of databases, such as PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, and Wanfang Data, was performed to identify studies comparing robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) with laparoscopicPD. Relevant studies were searched from the inception of the database construction until April 2023. The meta-analysis outcomes were analysed using odds ratios (OR) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). The RevMan 5.4 software was used for the meta-analysis. The findings of the meta-analysis showed that patients who underwent laparoscopic PD had a significantly lower incidence of surgical-site wound (16.52% vs. 18.92%, OR: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.68-0.90, P = .0005), superficial wound (3.65% vs. 7.57%, OR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.39-0.68, P < .001), and deep wound infections (1.09% vs. 2.23%, OR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.34-0.85, P = .008) than those who received robotic PD. However, because of variations in sample size between studies, some studies suffered from methodological quality deficiencies. Therefore, further validation of this result is needed in future studies with higher quality and larger sample sizes.

Learning curves of resection and reconstruction procedures in robotic-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy by a single surgeon: a retrospective cohort study of 160 consecutive cases

Background

Robotic-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) has been routinely performed in a few of centers worldwide. This study aimed to evaluate the perioperative outcomes and the learning curves of resection and reconstruction procedures in RPD by one single surgeon.

Methods

Consecutive patients undergoing RPD by a single surgeon at the First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University (Guangzhou, China) between July 2016 and October 2022 were included. The perioperative outcomes and learning curves were retrospectively analysed by using cumulative sum (CUSUM) analyses.

Results

One-hundred and sixty patients were included. According to the CUSUM curve, the times of resection and reconstruction procedures were shortened significantly after 30 cases (median, 284 vs 195 min; P < 0.001) and 45 cases (median, 138 vs 120 min; P < 0.001), respectively. The estimated intraoperative blood loss (median, 100 vs 50 mL; P < 0.001) and the incidence of clinically relevant post-operative pancreatic fistula (29.2% vs 12.5%; P = 0.035) decreased significantly after 20 and 120 cases, respectively. There were no significant differences in the total number of lymph nodes examined, post-operative major complications, or post-operative length-of-stay between the two groups.

Conclusions

Optimization of the resection procedure and the acquisition of visual feedback facilitated the performance of RPD. RPD was a safe and feasible procedure in the selected patients.

Short-term outcomes of robotic versus open hepatectomy among overweight patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: a propensity score-matched study

BACKGROUND

Robotic hepatectomy (RH) has gradually been accepted as it has overcome some of the limitations of open hepatectomy (OH). This study was to compare short-term outcomes in RH and OH for overweight (preoperative body mass index ≥ 25 kg/m²) patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

METHODS

Perioperative and postoperative data from these patients who underwent RH or OH between January 2010 and December 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed to determine the impact of RH versus OH on the prognosis of overweight HCC patients.

RESULTS

All 304 overweight HCC patients were included, 172 who were underwent RH, and 132 who were underwent OH. After the 1:1 PSM, there were 104 patients in both RH and OH groups. After PSM, the RH group of patients had a shorter operative time, less estimated blood loss (EBL), a longer total clamping time, a shorter postoperative length of stay (LOS), less chance of surgical site infection and less rates of blood transfusion (all P < 0.05) compared to the OH patients. The differences between operative time, EBL and LOS were more significant in obese patients. RH was found to be an independent protective factor of EBL ≥ 400ml relative to OH in overweight patients for the first time.

CONCLUSIONS

RH was safe and feasible in overweight HCC patients. Compared with OH, RH has advantages in terms of operative time, EBL, postoperative LOS, and surgical site infection. Carefully selected overweight patients should be considered for RH.

A duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy for small main pancreatic duct and soft pancreas in minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is often associated with significant morbidity and mortality after the Whipple operation. Patient-related factors associated with POPF include soft pancreatic texture and a small main pancreatic duct (MPD). The traditional duct-to-mucosa anastomosis was modified to be easily performed. The aim of the study was to evaluate the simplified pancreaticojejunostomy (PJ) method in the prevention of POPF after minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD).

METHODS

Ninety-eight patients who underwent laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) with a simplified PJ procedure containing only two duct-to-mucosa sutures and four penetrating-sutures to anastomose the pancreatic parenchyma and jejunal seromuscular layer in our center were retrospectively studied. Demographics and clinical short-term safety were assessed.

RESULTS

All LPD and RPD procedures were successfully performed. The median time of PJ was 17 min, and the median blood loss was 60 mL, with only one patient requiring transfusion. Four patients (4.1%) suffered from clinically relevant POPF (CR-POPF), including four grade B cases and no grade C cases. For patients with an MPD diameter of 3 mm or less, POPF was noted in two (4%) of the fifty patients, with all cases being grade B. Of the patients with a soft pancreas, only two (4.5%) patients suffered from grade B POPF. One patient (1.0%) experienced a 90-day mortality. Neither the main pancreatic diameter nor pancreatic texture had an impact on postoperative outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Our technique is a simple, safe and efficient alternative to prevent POPF after LPD and RPD. This method is suitable for almost all pancreatic conditions, including cases with a small main pancreatic duct and soft pancreas, and has the potential to become the preferred procedure in low-volume pancreatic surgery centers. Our modified duct-to-mucosa PJ, which contains only two duct-to-mucosa sutures and four penetrating-sutures to anastomose the pancreatic parenchyma and jejunal seromuscular layer, is ideal for small MPD and soft pancreas when performing minimally invasive PD and has a low rate of POPF. PJ pancreaticojejunostomy, MPD main pancreatic diameter, PD pancreaticoduodenectomy, POPF postoperative pancreatic fistula.

Feasibility of simultaneous development of laparoscopic and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy

Laparoscopic (LPD) and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) are both challenging procedures. The feasibility and safety of simultaneously developing LPD and RPD remain unreported. We retrospectively reviewed the data of patients undergoing LPD or RPD between 2014 and 2021. A total of 114 patients underwent minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD): 39 LPDs and 75 RPDs. The learning process of LPD and RPD were similar. The cutoff points of the learning curve were LPD, 13th patient (the 27th patient of MIPD), and RPD, 18th patient (the 31st patient of MIPD) according the cumulative sum analysis of operative time. A decrease in the operative time was associated with the case sequence (p < 0.001) but not with the surgical approach (p = 0.36). The overall surgical outcomes were comparable between both the LPD and RPD groups. When evaluating the learning curve impact on MIPD, LPD had higher major complication (≧ Clavien-Dindo grade III), bile leak and wound infection rates in the pre-learning curve phase than those in the after-learning curve phase, while RPD had similar surgical outcomes between two phases. Simultaneous development of LPD and RPD is feasible and safe for experienced surgeons, with similar learning process and comparable surgical outcomes.

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.

Standardized right artery first approach during laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary neoplasms: technical aspects and perioperative outcomes

BACKGROUND

The most debated aspects of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) concern the dissection of the pancreas from the surrounding vessels and the achievement of adequate resection margins, especially in patients with pancreatic cancer.

METHODS

Data of consecutive patients undergoing LPD with right artery first approach from September 2020 to September 2021 for periampullary neoplasms (pancreatic, ampullary, duodenal, distal common biliary duct) were prospectively collected and retrospectively analyzed. The overall cohort was divided into two groups: patients affected by pancreatic carcinoma (PC) and patients affected by other periampullary neoplasms (OP). Surgical and postoperative outcomes between PC and OP were compared.

RESULTS

Thirty-one patients (15 PC and 16 OP) were selected. No difference was found between PC and OP in terms of baseline characteristics. Median resection time and overall surgical time of the entire cohort were 275 min and 530 min, respectively, without difference between the groups (p = 0.599 and 0.052, respectively). Blood loss was similar between the groups, being 350 ml in PC and 325 ml in OP (p = 0.762). One patient (3.2%) was converted to laparotomy. No difference was found between the groups in terms of pathological outcomes. Median number of retrieved lymph nodes was 17. The majority of the patients (83.9%) received an R0 resection (73.3% and 93.7% in PC and OP, respectively; p = 0.172). Postoperative surgical outcomes did not differ between the groups, excepting for overall complication rate that was higher in the OP group (26.7% vs 68.7% in PC and OP, respectively; p = 0.032).

CONCLUSION

Standardized right artery first approach during LPD was feasible and did not show worse surgical and postoperative outcomes in patients with pancreatic cancer as compared to those affected by other periampullary neoplasms, except for a higher rate of minor complications.

Total laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: which one is better?

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) is a challenging procedure. Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) is feasible and safe. Since the development of robotic platforms, the number of reports on robot-assisted pancreatic surgery has increased. We compared the technical feasibility and safety between LPD and robot-assisted LPD (RALPD).

METHODS

From September 2012 to August 2020, 257 patients who underwent MIPD for periampullary tumors were enrolled. Of these, 207 underwent LPD and 50 underwent RALPD. We performed a 1:1 propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis and retrospectively analyzed the demographics and surgical outcomes.

RESULTS

After PSM analysis, no difference was noted in demographics. Operation times and estimated blood loss were similar, as was the incidence of complications (p > 0.05). In subgroup analysis in patients with soft pancreas with pancreatic duct ≤ 2 mm, no significant between-group difference was noted regarding short-term surgical outcomes, including clinically relevant POPF (CR-POPF) (p > 0.05). In multivariable analysis, the only soft pancreatic texture was a predictive factor (HR 3.887, 95% confidence interval 1.121-13.480, p = 0.032).

CONCLUSION

RALPD and LPD are safe and effective for MIPD and can compensate each other to achieve the goal of minimally invasive surgery.

Short- and long-term outcomes after robotic and open liver resection for elderly patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: a propensity score-matched study

BACKGROUND

Robotic liver resection (RLR) has increasingly been accepted as it has overcome some of the limitations of open liver resection (OLR), while the outcomes following RLR in elderly patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are still uncertain. This study aimed to evaluate the short and long-term outcomes of RLR vs. OLR in elderly HCC patients.

METHODS

Perioperative data of elderly patients (≥ 65 years) with HCC who underwent RLR or OLR between January 2010 and December 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. A 1:2 propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis was performed to minimize the differences between RLR and OLR groups. Univariable and multivariable Cox regression analyses were used to identify independent prognosis factors for overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) of these patients.

RESULTS

Of the 427 elderly HCC patients included in this study, 113 underwent RLR and 314 underwent OLR. After the 1:2 PSM, there were 100 and 178 patients in the RLR and the OLR groups, respectively. The RLR group had a less estimated blood loss (EBL), a shorter postoperative length of stay (LOS), and a lower complications rate (all P < 0.05), compared with the OLR group before and after PSM. Univariable and multivariable analyses showed that advanced age and surgical approaches were not independent risk factors for long-term prognosis. The two groups of elderly patients who were performed RLR or OLR had similar OS (median OS 52.8 vs. 57.6 months) and RFS (median RFS 20.4 vs. 24.6 months) rates after PSM.

CONCLUSIONS

RLR was comparable to OLR in feasibility and safety. For elderly patients with HCC, RLR resulted in similar oncologic and survival outcomes as OLR.

Robotic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for distal cholangiocarcinoma: a multicenter propensity score-matched study

BACKGROUND

Pancreatoduodenectomy is the only potentially curative treatment for distal cholangiocarcinoma (DCC). In this study, we sought to compare the perioperative and oncological outcomes of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) based on a multicenter propensity score-matched study.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with DCC who underwent RPD or OPD from five centers in China between January 2014 and June 2019 were included. A 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) was performed. Univariable and multivariable Cox regression analyses were used to identify independent prognosis factors for overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) of these patients.

RESULTS

A total of 217 patients and 228 patients underwent RPD and OPD, respectively. After PSM, 180 patients in each group were enrolled. There were no significant differences in operative time, lymph node harvest, intraoperative transfusion, vascular resection, R0 resection, postoperative major morbidity, reoperation, 90-day mortality, and long-term survival between the two groups before and after PSM. Whereas, compared with the OPD group, the RPD group had significantly lower estimated blood loss (150.0 ml vs. 250.0 ml; P < 0.001), and a shorter postoperative length of stay (LOS) (12.0 days vs. 15.0 days; P < 0.001). Multivariable analysis showed carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9), R0 resection, N stage, perineural invasion, and tumor differentiation significantly associated with OS and RFS of these patients.

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy: An Up-To-Date System Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Although minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy has gained worldwide interest, there are limited comparative studies between two minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy techniques. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of robotic and laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD), especially the difference in the perioperative and short-term oncological outcomes.

Methods

PubMed, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Data, Web of Science, and EMBASE were searched based on a defined search strategy to identify eligible studies before July 2021. Data on operative times, blood loss, overall morbidity, major complications, vascular resection, blood transfusion, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), delayed gastric emptying (DGE), conversion rate, reoperation, length of hospital stay (LOS), and lymph node dissection were subjected to meta-analysis.

Results

Overall, the final analysis included 9 retrospective studies comprising 3,732 patients; 1,149 (30.79%) underwent robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD), and 2,583 (69.21%) underwent LPD. The present meta-analysis revealed nonsignificant differences in operative times, overall morbidity, major complications, blood transfusion, POPF, DGE, reoperation, and LOS. Alternatively, compared with LPD, RPD was associated with less blood loss (p = 0.002), less conversion rate (p < 0.00001), less vascular resection (p = 0.0006), and more retrieved lymph nodes (p = 0.01).

Conclusion

RPD is at least equivalent to LPD with respect to the incidence of complication, incidence and severity of DGE, and reoperation and length of hospital stay. Compared with LPD, RPD seems to be associated with less blood loss, lower conversion rate, less vascular resection, and more retrieved lymph nodes.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#recordDetails, identifier CRD2021274057

The Role of Robotic Visceral Surgery in Patients with Adhesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Abdominal adhesions are a risk factor for conversion to open surgery. An advantage of robotic surgery is the lower rate of unplanned conversions. A systematic review was conducted using the terms "laparoscopic" and "robotic". Inclusion criteria were: comparative studies evaluating patients undergoing laparoscopic and robotic surgery; reporting data on conversion to open surgery for each group due to adhesions and studies including at least five patients in each group. The main outcomes were the conversion rates due to adhesions and surgeons' expertise (novice vs. expert). The meta-analysis included 70 studies from different surgical specialities with 14,329 procedures (6472 robotic and 7857 laparoscopic). The robotic approach was associated with a reduced risk of conversion (OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.12-2.10, p = 0.007). The analysis of the procedures performed by "expert surgeons" showed a statistically significant difference in favour of robotic surgery (OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.03-2.12, p = 0.03). A reduced conversion rate due to adhesions with the robotic approach was observed in patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery (OR 2.62, 95% CI 1.20-5.72, p = 0.02). The robotic approach could be a valid option in patients with abdominal adhesions, especially in the subgroup of those undergoing colorectal cancer resection performed by expert surgeons.

International Expert Consensus on Precision Anatomy for minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy: PAM-HBP Surgery Project

BACKGROUND

Surgical views with high resolution and magnification have enabled us to recognize the precise anatomical structures that can be used as landmarks during minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP). This study aimed to validate the usefulness of anatomy-based approaches for MIDP before and during the Expert Consensus Meeting: Precision Anatomy for Minimally Invasive HBP Surgery (February 24, 2021).

METHODS

Twenty-five international MIDP experts developed clinical questions regarding surgical anatomy and approaches for MIDP. Studies identified via a comprehensive literature search were classified using Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network methodology. Online Delphi voting was conducted after experts had drafted the recommendations, with the goal of obtaining >75% consensus. Experts discussed the revised recommendations in front of the validation committee and an international audience of 384 attendees. Finalized recommendations were made after a second round of online Delphi voting.

RESULTS

Four clinical questions were addressed, resulting in 10 recommendations. All recommendations reached at least a 75% consensus among experts.

CONCLUSIONS

The expert consensus on precision anatomy for MIDP has been presented as a set of recommendations based on available evidence and expert opinions. These recommendations should guide experts and trainees in performing safe MIDP and foster its appropriate dissemination worldwide.

Surgical approaches to the superior mesenteric artery during minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) has recently been safely performed by experts, and various methods for resection have been reported. This review summarizes the literature describing surgical approaches for MIPD.

METHODS

A systematic literature search of PubMed (MEDLINE) was conducted for studies reporting robotic and laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy; the reference lists of review articles were searched. Of 444 articles yielded, 23 manuscripts describing the surgical approach to dissect around the superior mesenteric artery (SMA), including hand-searched articles, were assessed.

RESULTS

Various approaches to dissect around the SMA have been reported. These approaches were categorized according to the direction toward the SMA when initiating dissection around the SMA: anterior approach (two articles), posterior approach (four articles), right approach (16 articles), and left approach (three articles). Thus, many reports used the right approach. Most articles provided a technical description. Some articles showed the advantage of their method in a comparison study. However, these were single-center retrospective studies with a small sample size.

CONCLUSIONS

Various approaches for MIPD have been reported; however, few authors have reported the advantage of their methods compared to other methods. Further discussion is needed to clarify the appropriate surgical approach to the SMA during MIPD.

International expert consensus on precision anatomy for minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy: PAM-HBP surgery project

BACKGROUND

The anatomical structure around the pancreatic head is very complex and it is important to understand its precise anatomy and corresponding anatomical approach to safely perform minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD). This consensus statement aimed to develop recommendations for elucidating the anatomy and surgical approaches to MIPD.

METHODS

Studies identified via a comprehensive literature search were classified using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network method. Delphi voting was conducted after experts had drafted recommendations, with a goal of obtaining >75% consensus. Experts discussed the revised recommendations with the validation committee and an international audience of 384 attendees. Finalized recommendations were made after a second round of online Delphi voting.

RESULTS

Three clinical questions were addressed, providing six recommendations. All recommendations reached at least a consensus of 75%. Preoperatively evaluating the presence of anatomical variations and superior mesenteric artery (SMA) and superior mesenteric vein (SMV) branching patterns was recommended. Moreover, it was recommended to fully understand the anatomical approach to SMA and intraoperatively confirm the SMA course based on each anatomical landmark before initiating dissection.

CONCLUSIONS

MIPD experts suggest that surgical trainees perform resection based on precise anatomical landmarks for safe and reliable MIPD.

Surgery for pancreatic cancer: current controversies and challenges

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

Updated Principles of Surgical Management of Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumours (pNETs): What Every Surgeon Needs to Know

Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (pNETs) represent 1 to 2% of all pancreatic neoplasm with an increasing incidence. They have a varied clinical, biological and radiological presentation, depending on whether they are sporadic or genetic in origin, whether they are functional or non-functional, and whether there is a single or multiple lesions. These pNETs are often diagnosed at an advanced stage with locoregional lymph nodes invasion or distant metastases. In most cases, the gold standard curative treatment is surgical resection of the pancreatic tumour, but the postoperative complications and functional consequences are not negligible. Thus, these patients should be managed in specialised high-volume centres with multidisciplinary discussion involving surgeons, oncologists, radiologists and pathologists. Innovative managements such as "watch and wait" strategies, parenchymal sparing surgery and minimally invasive approach are emerging. The correct use of all these therapeutic options requires a good selection of patients but also a constant update of knowledge. The aim of this work is to update the surgical management of pNETs and to highlight key elements in view of the recent literature.

Comparison of robotic and open pancreaticoduodenectomy for primary nonampullary duodenal adenocarcinoma: a retrospective cohort study

PURPOSE

Robotic surgery has been increasingly applied in pancreatic surgery and showed many advantages over conventional open surgery. The robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) is a surgical option for primary nonampullary duodenal adenocarcinoma (PNDA). However, whether RPD is superior to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) for PNDA has not been reported. The comparative study was designed to analyze the short- and long-term outcomes of RPD versus OPD on patients with PNDA.

METHODS

Demographics, perioperative, and survival outcomes among patients who underwent RPD (n = 49) versus OPD (n = 43) for PNDAs between January 2013 and March 2018 were collected and analyzed RESULTS: Demographic characteristics were comparable between the RPD group and the OPD group. The RPD group demonstrated a decreased estimated blood loss (100 vs. 200 ml, p < 0.001), time to oral intake (4.0 vs. 4.0 days, p = 0.04), and postoperative hospital stay (12.9 vs. 15.0 days, p = 0.01) compared with the OPD group. However, no differences were observed between the two groups in terms of operative time and the rates of major complications, grade B and C POPF, PPH, grade B and C DGE, biliary fistular, reoperation, and 90-day readmission. No patient died within 90 days. There were no significant differences in tumor size, differentiation, TNM stage, number of harvested lymph nodes, and the rates of nerve invasion, lymph node invasion, R0 resection, and the median overall survival between the two groups (p > 0.05) CONCLUSIONS: RPD is a safe, feasible, and effective treatment for PNDA compared with OPD and can be used as an alternative for surgeons in the treatment of PNDA. Further multicenter randomized controlled trials are needed to evaluate the effectiveness of RPD in patients with PNDA.

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic head cancer and periampullary lesions

Pancreaticoduodenectomy, so-called "Whipple operation," is a time-consuming and technically demanding complex operation. Traditionally, this procedure has been performed most usually by open approach, which results in a large and painful wound. With the introduction of laparoscopic and robotic surgery, minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has emerged as a worldwide trend to improve wound cosmesis and to minimize wound pain. Although MIS for pancreaticoduodenectomy has also been attempted at some centers, the role of MIS, either robotic or laparoscopic approach, has not been well-established for complex pancreaticoduodenectomy. Given that laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy has been limited by its technical complexity and the high level of advanced laparoscopic skills required for pancreatic reconstruction, a robotic surgical system is introduced to overcome several limitations related to the laparoscopic approach. Providing high-quality three-dimensional (3-D) vision, high optical magnification, articulation of robotic instruments, greater precision with suture targeting, and elimination of surgeon tremor, robotic surgical systems innovatively perform more delicate and complex procedures involving extensive dissection and suturing techniques such as pancreaticoduodenectomy. Although associated with longer operative time, robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) has been claimed to have the benefits of less delayed gastric emptying, less blood loss, shorter length of postoperative stay, and lower wound infection rate, as compared with the traditional open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD). Moreover, RPD seems to be not only technically feasible but also justified without compromising the survival outcomes for pancreatic head and ampullary adenocarcinomas. Therefore, RPD could be recommended not only to surgeons but also to patients in terms of surgical feasibility, surgical outcomes, and patient satisfaction.

The standardized technique and surgical video of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy at the Chinese PLA General Hospital

The technical complexity of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) and lack of technical surgical standardization have slowed its widespread application. RPD is only routinely performed in a few highly specialized centers. This study describes in detail the standard steps and core techniques of an experienced robotic center in China. We took advantage of our single experience to provide a step-by-step technique and surgical video of our RPD standardized procedure. We divided RPD into 18 key steps. Demographics and perioperative outcomes of consecutive 20 patients who underwent the RPD standardized procedure were analyzed. For the 20 consecutive patients, the mean operative time was 253.6 min, and the median estimated blood loss was 210.0 mL. One patient required conversion to laparotomy due to the need for PV reconstruction. One patient had grade 3 complication. The median postoperative hospital stay was 11.0 days. No 90-day mortality was observed. By simplifying and optimizing the surgical techniques, the RPD procedure can be standardized and modeled to improve feasibility and repeatability.

The current status and future directions of robotic pancreatectomy

Robotic surgery has emerged as an alternative to laparoscopic surgery and it has also been applied to pancreatectomy. With the increase in the number of robotic pancreatectomies, several studies comparing robotic pancreatectomy and conventional open or laparoscopic pancreatectomy have been published. However, the use of robotic pancreatectomy remains controversial. In this review, we aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of the current status of robotic pancreatectomy. Various aspects of robotic pancreatectomy and conventional open or laparoscopic pancreatectomy are compared, including the benefits, limitations, oncological efficacy, learning curves, and costs. Both robotic pancreatoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy have favorable or comparable outcomes to conventional procedures, and robotic pancreatectomy has the potential to be an alternative to open or laparoscopic procedures. However, there are still several disadvantages to robotic platforms, such as prolonged operative duration and the high cost of the procedure. These disadvantages will be improved by developing instruments, overcoming the learning curve, and increasing the number of robotic pancreatectomies. In addition, robotic pancreatectomy is still in the introductory period in most centers and should only be used in accordance with strict indications.

Minimally invasive versus open radical resection surgery for hilar cholangiocarcinoma: Comparable outcomes associated with advantages of minimal invasiveness

Background

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) provides a new approach for patients with hilar cholangiocarcinoma (HCCA). However, whether it can achieve similar outcomes to traditional open surgery (OS) remains controversial.

Methods

To assess the safety and feasibility of MIS for HCCA, a systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to compare the outcomes of MIS with OS. Seventeen outcomes were assessed.

Results

Nine studies involving 382 patients were included. MIS was comparable in blood transfusion rate, R0 resection rate, lymph nodes received, overall morbidity, severe morbidity (Clavien–Dindo classification > = 3), bile leakage rate, wound infection rate, intra-abdominal infection rate, days until oral feeding, 1-year overall survival, 2-year overall survival and postoperative mortality with OS. Although operation time was longer (mean difference (MD) = 93.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 64.10 to 122.91, P < 0.00001) and hospital cost (MD = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.03 to 1.33, P = 0.04) was higher in MIS, MIS was associated with advantages of minimal invasiveness, that was less blood loss (MD = -81.85, 95% CI = -92.09 to -71.62, P < 0.00001), less postoperative pain (MD = -1.21, 95% CI = -1.63 to -0.79, P < 0.00001), and shorter hospital stay (MD = -4.22, 95% CI = -5.65 to -2.80, P < 0.00001).

Conclusions

The safety and feasibility of MIS for HCCA is acceptable in selected patients. MIS is a remarkable alternative to OS for providing comparable outcomes associated with a benefit of minimal invasiveness and its application should be considered more.

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.

Robotic-assisted versus open total pancreatectomy: a propensity score-matched study

BACKGROUND

Total pancreatectomy (TP) is a complex surgical procedure with significant postoperative morbidity. Despite the narrowed range of indications for TP, the introduction of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and the increasing complexity of surgical resections performed in high-volume centers has increased the number of annually performed TPs, especially regarding malignant disease. The introduction of robotic-assisted pancreatic surgery has provided a novel and minimally invasive approach for TP, yet the feasibility of this technique is still unknown. This study assessed the safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted total pancreatectomy (RTP) compared to conventional open total pancreatectomy (OTP).

METHODS

All patients who underwent TP between March 2015 and July 2019 in a high-volume institution for pancreatic surgery were included in this retrospective study. Clinical data and perioperative outcomes were derived from the prospectively maintained institutional database. A 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) method was utilized to compare the RTP and OTP cohorts to minimize bias.

RESULTS

A standardized surgical protocol was utilized for RTP following a learning curve of RPD and RDP. The median operative time for patients who underwent RTP was significantly decreased compared to those who underwent OTP [300 (IQR, 250-360) vs. 360 min (IQR, 300-525), P=0.031]. Additionally, en bloc resection and spleen-preserving rates were also higher in the RTP cohort. Major 30-day morbidity (Clavien-Dindo > IIIa) and 90-day mortality were similar between the two cohorts. After a median follow-up time of 15 (IQR, 8-24) months, both the RTP and OTP cohorts had a comparable quality of life regarding exocrine and endocrine insufficiency.

CONCLUSIONS

RTP appears to be safe and feasible when utilized in high-volume centers for the indicated management of benign and highly selected malignant pancreatic disease. However, further prospective randomized studies are needed to assess the feasibility of this approach.

Does center or surgeon volume influence adoption of minimally invasive versus open pancreatoduodenectomy? A systematic review and meta-regression

BACKGROUND

There has been increasing uptake of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy during the past decade, but it remains a highly specialized procedure as benefits over open pancreatoduodenectomy remain contentious. This study aimed to evaluate current evidence on minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy versus open pancreatoduodenectomy in terms of impact of center volume on outcomes.

METHODS

A systematic review of articles on comparative cohort and registry studies on minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy versus open pancreatoduodenectomy published until 31st December 2019 were identified, and meta-analyses were performed. Primary endpoints were International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistula grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula and 30-day mortality.

RESULTS

After screening 7,390 studies, 43 comparative cohort studies (8,755 patients) with moderate methodological quality and 3 original registry studies (43,735 patients) were included. For the cohort studies, the median annual hospital minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy volume was 10. No significant differences were found in grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula (odds ratio: 0.98, 95% confidence interval: 0.78-1.23) or 30-day mortality (odds ratio: 1.14, 95% confidence interval: 0.65-2.01) between minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy when compared with open. No publication biases were present and meta-regression identified no confounding for grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula, center volume or 30-day mortality. Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy was only strongly associated with significantly lower rates of postoperative pulmonary complications and surgical site infection, shorter length of stay, and significantly higher rates of R0 margin resections.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy remains noninferior to open pancreatoduodenectomy for grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula but is strongly associated with significantly lower rates of postoperative pulmonary complications and surgical site infection. Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy can be adopted safely with good outcomes irrespective of annual center resection volume.

First experience with robotic pancreatoduodenectomy in Singapore

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Transition from open and laparoscopic to robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy in a UK tertiary referral hepatobiliary and pancreatic centre - Early experience of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

Pancreaticoduodenectomy is performed using an open technique (OPD) as the gold standard. An increase in those performed laparoscopically (LPD) and robotically (RPD) are now reported. We compared the short-term outcomes of RPD cases with LPD and OPD.

METHODS

A retrospective review of a prospectively collected database was undertaken of our first consecutive RPD, our first LPD and consecutive OPD cases. Those requiring venous and/or arterial resection were excluded.

RESULTS

RPD (n = 25) had longer median operating times (461 (IQR 358-564) mins) than LPD (n = 41) (330 (IQR 262.5-397.5) mins) and OPD (n = 37) (330 (IQR 257-403) mins, p < 0.0001). Estimated blood loss and transfusion requirement was less after RPD and LPD compared to OPD (p = 0.012 and p < 0.0001 respectively). No RPD cases required conversion to open operation compared to 24.4% of LPD. Morbidity was comparable with a Clavien Dindo score ≥3 in 20.00%, 24.39% and 18.92% for RPD, LPD and OPD respectively (p = 0.83). Post-operative pancreatic fistula rates were seen in 16.00%, 29.27% and 21.62% of our RPD, LPD and OPD cohorts respectively (p = 0.81). 90-day mortality was seen in 0.97% of the total cohort. Length of hospital stay (LOS) was shorter for RPD compared to both LPD (p = 0.030) and OPD (p = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

RPD is safe to perform with comparable outcomes to LPD and OPD. Further evidence is provided that a randomised controlled trial for PD techniques is required.

Novel Technique for Single-Layer Pancreatojejunostomy is Not Inferior to Modified Blumgart Anastomosis in Robotic Pancreatoduodenectomy: Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

A novel technique of single-layer continuous suturing (SCS) for pancreaticojejunostomy (PJ) during robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD), a technically straightforward procedure, has been shown to produce promising results in a previous study. The present RCT aims to show that SCS during RPD does not increase the incidence of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) when compared with modified Blumgart anastomosis (MBA).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between January 2019 and September 2019, consecutive patients (ASA score ≤ 2) who underwent RPD were enrolled and randomized to the SCS or the MBA group. The primary endpoint was the rate of CR-POPF. A noninferiority margin of 10% was chosen.

RESULTS

Of the 186 patients, 4 were excluded because PJ was not performed. The remaining 182 patients were randomized to the SCS group (n = 89) or MBA group (n = 93). CR-POPF rate was not inferior in the SCS group [SCS: 6.7%, MBA: 11.8%; 95% confidence interval (- 0.76, - 0.06), P = 0.0002]. PJ duration was significantly lower in the SCS group (P < 0.01). No significant differences were found between the two groups in operative time, estimated blood loss, postoperative hospital stay, or rates of conversion to laparotomy, morbidity, reoperation, or mortality. On subgroup analysis of patients with a soft pancreas and small main pancreatic duct, SCS significantly reduced the duration of PJ.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that SCS was not inferior to MBA in terms of the CR-POPF rate during RPD. Registration number: ChiCTR1800020086 ( www.Chictr.org.cn ).

Surgical Management of Neuroendocrine Tumours of the Pancreas

Neuroendocrine tumours of the pancreas (pNET) are rare, accounting for 1-2% of all pancreatic neoplasms. They develop from pancreatic islet cells and cover a wide range of heterogeneous neoplasms. While most pNETs are sporadic, some are associated with genetic syndromes. Furthermore, some pNETs are 'functioning' when there is clinical hypersecretion of metabolically active peptides, whereas others are 'non-functioning'. pNET can be diagnosed at a localised stage or a more advanced stage, including regional or distant metastasis (in 50% of cases) mainly located in the liver. While surgical resection is the cornerstone of the curative treatment of those patients, pNET management requires a multidisciplinary discussion between the oncologist, radiologist, pathologist, and surgeon. However, the scarcity of pNET patients constrains centralised management in high-volume centres to provide the best patient-tailored approach. Nonetheless, no treatment should be initiated without precise diagnosis and staging. In this review, the steps from the essential comprehensive preoperative evaluation of the best surgical approach (open versus laparoscopic, standard versus sparing parenchymal pancreatectomy, lymphadenectomy) according to pNET staging are analysed. Strategies to enhance the short- and long-term benefit/risk ratio in these particular patients are discussed.

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy in elderly and younger patients: A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) has gradually been accepted as it has overcome some of the limitations of laparoscopic surgery. Outcomes following RPD in elderly patients are still uncertain. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and feasibility of RPD in elderly patients.

METHODS

The demographics and perioperative outcomes of a consecutive series of patients who underwent RPD between January 2018 and September 2019, were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were divided into 2 groups: elderly patients (≥75 years) and younger patients (<75 years).

RESULTS

Of 431 patients who were included in this study, 77 were elderly patients and 354 were younger patients. Elderly patients had a significantly higher ASA score than younger patients (P < 0.001). There were no significant differences in operative time, estimated blood loss and blood transfusion rate between groups (P > 0.05). Elderly patients had significantly higher morbidity and longer postoperative hospital stay than younger patients (49.3% vs. 31.1%, P = 0.002; 22.8 vs. 13.3 days, P < 0.001, respectively). However, the reoperation, 90-day readmission and mortality rates were comparable in the two groups (P > 0.05). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that a higher ASA score was the only independent factor for postoperative morbidity (OR 2.02, 95% CI 1.06-3.88, P = 0.03), while old age was not (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.36-1.81, P = 0.80).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated that RDP was safe and feasible in elderly patients. Age should not be a contraindication to RPD. Elderly patients with careful patient selection should be considered for RPD.

Oncological outcomes of robotic-assisted versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a propensity score-matched analysis

Background

Robotic-assisted minimally invasive surgery is associated with worse oncologic outcomes for some but not other types of cancers. We conducted a propensity score-matched analysis to compare oncologic outcomes of robotic-assisted laparoscopic (RPD) vs. open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).

Methods

Treatment-naïve PDAC patients undergoing either RPD or OPD at our hospital between January 2013 and December 2017 were included. Propensity score matching was conducted at a ratio of 1:2. The primary outcome was disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS).

Results

A total of 672 cases were identified. The propensity score-matched cohort included 105 patients receiving RPD and 210 patients receiving OPD. The 2 groups did not differ in the number of retrieved lymph nodes [11 (7–16) vs. 11 (6–17), P = 0.622] and R0 resection rate (88.6% vs. 89.0%, P = 0.899). There was no statistically significant difference in median DFS (14 [95% CI 11–22] vs. 12 [95% CI 10–14] months (HR 0.94; 95% CI 0.87–1.50; log-rank P = 0.345) and median OS (27 [95% CI 22–35] vs. 20 [95% CI 18–24] months (HR 0.77; 95% CI 0.57–1.04; log-rank P = 0.087) between the two groups. Multivariate COX analysis showed that RPD was not an independent predictor of DFS (HR 0.90; 95% CI 0.68–1.19, P = 0.456) or OS (HR 0.77; 95% CI 0.57–1.05, P = 0.094).

Conclusion

Comparable DFS and OS were observed between patients receiving RPD and OPD. This preliminary finding requires further confirmation with prospective randomized controlled trials.

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy in the era of minimally invasive surgery

Minimally invasive surgery has become a worldwide trend to reduce the wound and mitigate pain. However, the role of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) has not been well established in the era of minimally invasive surgery. It would be nearly impossible to apply minimally invasive surgery in the tedious and complicated Whipple operation without an experienced and dedicated pancreas team. The pancreatic team led by Shyr YM and Wang SE at Taipei Veterans General Hospital have already been highly accredited with a Copper Award of Symbol of National Quality (SNQ award), entitled with "Minimally Invasive Robotic Pancreatic Surgery-Small Wound for Major Pancreatic Surgery" in Taiwan in 2019. RPD was claimed to be associated with less blood loss, less delayed gastric emptying, shorter length of postoperative stay, and lower wound infection rate, but longer operative time, as compared with the traditional open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD). More than 99% of the patients undergoing minimally invasive RPD are satisfied with the surgical outcomes and would like to recommend RPD to those with periampullary lesions. RPD could be recommended not only to surgeons but also to patients in terms of surgical outcomes and patient satisfaction. Moreover, our study showed a survival benefit for pancreatic head adenocarcinoma in RPD group, with 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year survival of 82.9%, 45.3%, and 26.8%, respectively, as compared with 63.8%, 26.2%, and 17.4% in OPD.

A Review of Clinicopathological Characteristics and Treatment of Solid Pseudopapillary Tumor of the Pancreas with 2450 Cases in Chinese Population

Background

Solid pseudopapillary tumor of the pancreas (SPTP) has been reported as a rare disease with low malignant potential. The aim of this study was to summarize experiences of the diagnosis and treatment for the patients reported in the Chinese population.

Method

2450 SPTP cases reported in English and Chinese literature before Jan 2020 were for our review and analysis retrospectively.

Result

There are 389 male cases and 2061 female cases, and the ratio of male/female was 1 : 5.3. The average age was 29.3 years. The main clinical symptoms were upper abdominal pain and bloating discomfort in 51.6% of the cases and epigastric mass. 38.6% of the tumor was located at the head of the pancreas and 55.4% at the body and tail of the pancreas. The most frequent operative styles were tumor enucleation (38.4%). Pathology showed that the average diameter of the tumor was 8.2 cm and 12.3% of SPTP was malignant. 98.3% of cases had favorable survival.

Conclusions

SPTP is a rare indolent tumor occurring mainly in young women, and the main clinical performances are abdominal mass and abdominal pain; most tumors are distributed at the head and the tail of the pancreas; the prognosis after complete resection is excellent.

Open and Minimal Approaches to Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma

Surgical options and approaches to pancreatic cancer are changing in the current era. Neoadjuvant treatment strategies for pancreatic cancer combined with the increased use of minimal access surgical techniques mean that the modern pancreatic surgeon requires mastering a number of surgical approaches with to optimally manage patients. Whilst traditional open surgery remains the most frequent approach for surgery, the specific steps during surgery may need to be modified in light of the aforementioned neoadjuvant treatments. Robotic and laparoscopic approaches to pancreatic resection are feasible, but these surgical methods remain in their infancy. In this review article, we summarise the current surgical approaches to pancreatic cancer and how these are adapted to the minimal access setting with discussion of the patient outcome data.

Outcome of robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy during initial learning curve versus laparotomy

To analyze the initial learning curve (LC) for robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (RAPD) and compare RAPD during the initial LC with open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) in terms of outcome. This study is a retrospective review of patients who consecutively underwent RAPD and OPD between October 2015 and January 2020 in our hospital. 41 consecutive RAPD cases and 53 consecutive open cases were enrolled for review. Compared with OPD, RAPD required a significantly longer operative time (401.1 ± 127.5 vs. 230.8 ± 44.5 min, P < 0.001) and higher cost (194621 ± 78342 vs. 121874 ± 39973 CNY, P < 0.001). Moreover, compared with the OPD group, the RAPD group revealed a significantly smaller mean number of lymph nodes harvested in malignant cases (15.6 ± 5.9 vs 18.9 ± 7.3, P = 0.025). No statistically significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of incidence of Clavien-Dindo grade III-V morbidities and 90-day mortality and readmission (P>0.05). In the CUSUM graph, one peak point was observed at the 8th case, after which the operation time began to decrease. LC for RAPD may be less than 30 cases, and RAPD is safe and feasible during the initial LC.