Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a French prospective single-center experience and cost-effectiveness analysis

Nationwide cost-effectiveness and quality of life analysis of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND

This study analyzed the Quality of Life (QoL) and cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic (LDP) versus robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP).

METHODS

Consecutive patients submitted to LDP or RDP from 2010 to 2020 in four high-volume Italian centers were included, with a minimum of 12 months of postoperative follow-up were included. QoL was evaluated using the EORTC QLQ-C30 and EQ-5D questionnaires, self-reported by patients. After a propensity score matching, which included BMI, gender, operation time, multiorgan and vascular resections, splenic preservation, and pancreatic stump management, the mean differential cost and Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALY) were calculated and plotted on a cost-utility plane.

RESULTS

The study population consisted of 564 patients. Among these, 271 (49%) patients were submitted to LDP, while 293 (51%) patients to RDP. After propensity score matching, the study population was composed of 159 patients in each group, with a median follow-up of 59 months. As regards the QoL analysis, global health and emotional functioning domains showed better results in the RDP group (p = 0.037 and p = 0.026, respectively), whereas the other did not differ. As expected, the median crude costs analysis confirmed that RDP was more expensive than LDP (16,041 Euros vs. 10,335 Euros, p < 0.001). However, the robotic approach had a higher probability of being more cost-effective than the laparoscopic procedure when a willingness to pay more than 5697 Euros/QALY was accepted.

CONCLUSION

RDP was associated with better QoL as explored by specific domains. Crude costs were higher for RDP, and the cost-effectiveness threshold was set at 5697 euros/QALY.

Cost-effectiveness of robotic vs laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. Results from the national prospective trial ROBOCOSTES

INTRODUCTION

Although several studies report that the robotic approach is more costly than laparoscopy, the cost-effectiveness of robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) over laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is still an issue. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of the RDP and LDP approaches across several Spanish centres.

METHODS

This study is an observational, multicenter, national prospective study (ROBOCOSTES). For one year from 2022, all consecutive patients undergoing minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy were included, and clinical, QALY, and cost data were prospectively collected. The primary aim was to analyze the cost-effectiveness between RDP and LDP.

RESULTS

During the study period, 80 procedures from 14 Spanish centres were analyzed. LDP had a shorter operative time than the RDP approach (192.2 min vs 241.3 min, p = 0.004). RDP showed a lower conversion rate (19.5% vs 2.5%, p = 0.006) and a lower splenectomy rate (60% vs 26.5%, p = 0.004). A statistically significant difference was reported for the Comprehensive Complication Index between the two study groups, favouring the robotic approach (12.7 vs 6.1, p = 0.022). RDP was associated with increased operative costs of 1600 euros (p < 0.031), while overall cost expenses resulted in being 1070.92 Euros higher than the LDP but without a statistically significant difference (p = 0.064). The mean QALYs at 90 days after surgery for RDP (0.9534) were higher than those of LDP (0.8882) (p = 0.030). At a willingness-to-pay threshold of 20,000 and 30,000 euros, there was a 62.64% and 71.30% probability that RDP was more cost-effective than LDP, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The RDP procedure in the Spanish healthcare system appears more cost-effective than the LDP.

Minimally invasive approach for retrorectal tumors above and below S3: a multicentric tertiary center retrospective study (MiaRT study)

BACKGROUND

Retrorectal tumors are uncommon lesions developed in the retrorectal space. Data on their minimally invasive resection are scarce and the optimal surgical approach for tumors below S3 remains debated.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of consecutive patients who underwent minimally invasive resection of retrorectal tumors between 2005 and 2022 at two tertiary university hospital centers, by comparing the results obtained for lesions located above or below S3.

RESULTS

Of over 41 patients identified with retrorectal tumors, surgical approach was minimally invasive for 23 patients, with laparoscopy alone in 19, with transanal excision in 2, and with combined approach in 2. Retrorectal tumor was above S3 in 11 patients (> S3 group) and below S3 in 12 patients (< S3 group). Patient characteristics and median tumor size were not significantly different between the two groups (60 vs 67 mm; p = 0.975). Overall median operative time was 131.5 min and conversion rate was 13% without significant difference between the two groups (126 vs 197 min and 18% vs 8%, respectively; p > 0.05). Final pathology was tailgut cyst (48%), schwannoma (22%), neural origin tumor (17%), gastrointestinal stromal tumor (4%), and other (19%). The 90-day complication rates were 27% and 58% in the > S3 and < S3 groups, respectively, without severe morbidity or mortality. After a median follow-up of 3.3 years, no recurrence was observed in both groups. Three patients presented chronic pain, three anal dysfunction, and three urinary dysfunction. All were successfully managed without reintervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Minimally invasive surgery for retrorectal tumors can be performed safely and effectively with low morbidity and no mortality. Laparoscopic and transanal techniques alone or in combination may be recommended as the treatment of choice of benign retrorectal tumors, even for lesions below S3, in centers experienced with minimally invasive surgery.

Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy: a pan-European multicenter propensity-matched study

BACKGROUND

The use of robot-assisted and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy is increasing, yet large adjusted analyses that can be generalized internationally are lacking. This study aimed to compare outcomes after robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy in a pan-European cohort.

METHODS

An international multicenter retrospective study including patients after robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy from 50 centers in 12 European countries (2009-2020). Propensity score matching was performed in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome was major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo ≥III).

RESULTS

Among 2,082 patients undergoing minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy, 1,006 underwent robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and 1,076 laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy. After matching 812 versus 812 patients, the rates of major morbidity (31.9% vs 29.6%; P = .347) and 30-day/in-hospital mortality (4.3% vs 4.6%; P = .904) did not differ significantly between robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy, respectively. Robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with a lower conversion rate (6.7% vs 18.0%; P < .001) and higher lymph node retrieval (16 vs 14; P = .003). Laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with shorter operation time (446 minutes versus 400 minutes; P < .001), and lower rates of postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C (19.0% vs 11.7%; P < .001), delayed gastric emptying grade B/C (21.4% vs 7.4%; P < .001), and a higher R0-resection rate (73.2% vs 84.4%; P < .001).

CONCLUSION

This European multicenter study found no differences in overall major morbidity and 30-day/in-hospital mortality after robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy compared with laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy. Further, laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with a lower rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula, delayed gastric emptying, wound infection, shorter length of stay, and a higher R0 resection rate than robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy. In contrast, robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with a lower conversion rate and a higher number of retrieved lymph nodes as compared with laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy.

Evaluating the economic efficiency of open, laparoscopic, and robotic distal pancreatectomy: an updated systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This study compared the cost-effectiveness of open (ODP), laparoscopic (LDP), and robotic (RDP) distal pancreatectomy (DP).

METHODS

Studies reporting the costs of DP were included in a literature search until August 2023. Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted, and surface under cumulative ranking area (SUCRA) values, mean difference (MD), odds ratio (OR), and 95% credible intervals (CrIs) were calculated for outcomes of interest. Cluster analysis was performed to examine the similarity and classification of DP approaches into homogeneous clusters. A decision model-based cost-utility analysis was conducted for the cost-effectiveness analysis of DP strategies.

RESULTS

Twenty-six studies with 29,164 patients were included in the analysis. Among the three groups, LDP had the lowest overall costs, while ODP had the highest overall costs (LDP vs. ODP: MD - 3521.36, 95% CrI - 6172.91 to - 1228.59). RDP had the highest procedural costs (ODP vs. RDP: MD - 4311.15, 95% CrI - 6005.40 to - 2599.16; LDP vs. RDP: MD - 3772.25, 95% CrI - 4989.50 to - 2535.16), but incurred the lowest hospitalization costs. Both LDP (MD - 3663.82, 95% CrI - 6906.52 to - 747.69) and RDP (MD - 6678.42, 95% CrI - 11,434.30 to - 2972.89) had significantly reduced hospitalization costs compared to ODP. LDP and RDP demonstrated a superior profile regarding costs-morbidity, costs-mortality, costs-efficacy, and costs-utility compared to ODP. Compared to ODP, LDP and RDP cost $3110 and $817 less per patient, resulting in 0.03 and 0.05 additional quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), respectively, with positive incremental net monetary benefit (NMB). RDP costs $2293 more than LDP with a negative incremental NMB but generates 0.02 additional QALYs with improved postoperative morbidity and spleen preservation. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggests that LDP and RDP are more cost-effective options compared to ODP at various willingness-to-pay thresholds.

CONCLUSION

LDP and RDP are more cost-effective than ODP, with LDP exhibiting better cost savings and RDP demonstrating superior surgical outcomes and improved QALYs.

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.

Study International Multicentric Pancreatic Left Resections (SIMPLR): Does Surgical Approach Matter?

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery is increasingly preferred for left-sided pancreatic resections. The SIMPLR study aims to compare open, laparoscopic, and robotic approaches using propensity score matching analysis.

METHODS

This study included 258 patients with tumors of the left side of the pancreas who underwent surgery between 2016 and 2020 at three high-volume centers. The patients were divided into three groups based on their surgical approach and matched in a 1:1 ratio.

RESULTS

The open group had significantly higher estimated blood loss (620 mL vs. 320 mL, p < 0.001), longer operative time (273 vs. 216 min, p = 0.003), and longer hospital stays (16.9 vs. 6.81 days, p < 0.001) compared to the laparoscopic group. There was no difference in lymph node yield or resection status. When comparing open and robotic groups, the robotic procedures yielded a higher number of lymph nodes (24.9 vs. 15.2, p = 0.011) without being significantly longer. The laparoscopic group had a shorter operative time (210 vs. 340 min, p < 0.001), shorter ICU stays (0.63 vs. 1.64 days, p < 0.001), and shorter hospital stays (6.61 vs. 11.8 days, p < 0.001) when compared to the robotic group. There was no difference in morbidity or mortality between the three techniques.

CONCLUSION

The laparoscopic approach exhibits short-term benefits. The three techniques are equivalent in terms of oncological safety, morbidity, and mortality.

Short-Term Outcomes of Conventional Laparoscopic versus Robot-Assisted Distal Pancreatectomy for Malignancy: Evidence from US National Inpatient Sample, 2005-2018

BACKGROUND

The primary treatment for pancreatic cancer is surgical resection, and laparoscopic resection offers benefits over open surgery. This study aimed to compare the short-term outcomes of robot-assisted vs. conventional laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy.

METHODS

Data of adults ≥ 20 years old with pancreatic cancer who underwent conventional laparoscopic or robot-assisted laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy were extracted from the United States (US) Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) 2005-2018 database. Comorbidities and complications were identified through the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes. Short-term outcomes were compared using logistic regression and included length of hospital stay (LOS), perioperative complications, in-hospital mortality, unfavorable discharge, and total hospital costs.

RESULTS

A total of 886 patients were included; 27% received robot-assisted, and 73% received conventional laparoscopic surgery. The mean age of all patients was 65.3 years, and 52% were females. Multivariable analysis revealed that robot-assisted surgery was associated with a significantly reduced risk of perioperative complications (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.45-0.83) compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery. Specifically, robot-assisted surgery was associated with a significantly decreased risk of VTE (aOR = 0.35, 95% CI: 0.14-0.83) and postoperative blood transfusion (aOR = 0.37, 95% CI: 0.23-0.61). Robot-assisted surgery was associated with a significantly shorter LOS (0.76 days shorter, 95% CI: -1.43--0.09) but greater total hospital costs (18,284 USD greater, 95% CI: 4369.03-32,200.70) than conventional laparoscopic surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the higher costs, robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy is associated with decreased risk of complications and shorter hospital stays than conventional laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy.

[Robotic pancreatic surgery]

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

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

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

Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: A propensity score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery is becoming increasingly popular in the field of pancreatic surgery. However, there are few studies of robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and feasibility of RDP for PDAC.

METHODS

Patients who underwent RDP or laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) for PDAC between January 2015 and September 2020 were reviewed. Propensity score matching analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Of the 335 patients included in the study, 24 underwent RDP and 311 underwent LDP. A total of 21 RDP patients were matched 1:1 with LDP patients. RDP was associated with longer operative time (209.7 vs. 163.2 min; P = 0.003), lower open conversion rate (0% vs. 4.8%; P < 0.001), higher cost (15 722 vs. 12 699 dollars; P = 0.003), and a higher rate of achievement of an R0 resection margin (90.5% vs. 61.9%; P = 0.042). However, postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B or C showed no significant inter-group difference (9.5% vs. 9.5%). The median disease-free survival (34.5 vs. 17.3 months; P = 0.588) and overall survival (37.7 vs. 21.9 months; P = 0.171) were comparable between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

RDP is associated with longer operative time, a higher cost of surgery, and a higher likelihood of achieving R0 margins than LDP.

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.

Figures do matter: A literature review of 4587 robotic pancreatic resections and their implications on training

BACKGROUND

The use of robotic assistance in minimally invasive pancreatic resection is quickly growing.

METHODS

We present a systematic review of the literature regarding all types of robotic pancreatic resection (RPR). Our aim is to show for which procedures there is enough experience to permit safe training and provide an estimation of how many centers could serve as teaching institutions.

RESULTS

Sixty-four studies reporting on 4587 RPRs were analyzed. A total of 2598 pancreatoduodenectomies (PD) were reported by 28 centers from Europe (6/28; 21.4%), the Americas (11/28; 39.3%), and Asia (11/28; 39.3%). Six studies reported >100 robot PD (1694/2598; 65.2%). A total of 1618 distal pancreatectomies (DP) were reported by 29 centers from Europe (10/29; 34.5%), the Americas (10/29; 34.5%), and Asia (9/29; 31%). Five studies reported >100 robotic DP (748/1618; 46.2%). A total of 154 central pancreatectomies were reported by six centers from Europe (1/6; 16.7%), the Americas (2/6; 33.3%), and Asia (3/6; 50%). Only 49 total pancreatectomies were reported. Finally, 168 enucleations were reported in seven studies (with a mean of 15.4 cases per study). A single center reported on 60 enucleations (35.7%). Results of each type of robotic procedure are also presented.

CONCLUSIONS

Experience with RPR is still quite limited. Despite high case volume not being sufficient to warrant optimal training opportunities, it is certainly a key component of every successful training program and is a major criterion for fellowship accreditation. From this review, it appears that only PD and DP can currently be taught at few institutions worldwide.

Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy on perioperative outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Robotic surgery has become a promising surgical method in minimally invasive pancreatic surgery due to its three-dimensional visualization, tremor filtration, motion scaling, and better ergonomics. Numerous studies have explored the benefits of RDP over LDP in terms of perioperative safety and feasibility, but no consensus has been achieved yet. This article aimed to evaluate the benefits and drawbacks of RDP and LDP for perioperative outcomes. By June 2022, all studies comparing RDP to LDP in the PubMed, the Embase, and the Cochrane Library database were systematically reviewed. According to the heterogeneity, fix or random-effects models were used for the meta-analysis of perioperative outcomes. Odds ratio (OR), weighted mean differences (WMD), and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. A sensitivity analysis was performed to explore potential sources of high heterogeneity and a trim and fill analysis was used to evaluate the impact of publication bias on the pooled results. Thirty-four studies met the inclusion criteria. RDP provides greater benefit than LDP for higher spleen preservation (OR 3.52 95% CI 2.62-4.73, p < 0.0001) and Kimura method (OR 1.93, 95% CI 1.42-2.62, p < 0.0001) in benign and low-grade malignant tumors. RDP is associated with lower conversion to laparotomy (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.33-0.52, p < 0.00001), and shorter postoperative hospital stay (WMD - 0.57, 95% CI - 0.92 to - 0.21, p = 0.002), but it is more costly. In terms of postoperative complications, there was no difference between RDP and LDP except for 30-day mortality (RDP versus LDP, 0.1% versus 1.0%, p = 0.03). With the exception of its high cost, RDP appears to outperform LDP on perioperative outcomes and is technologically feasible and safe. High-quality prospective randomized controlled trials are advised for further confirmation as the quality of the evidence now is not high.

Current status of robotic surgery for hepato-pancreato-biliary malignancies

INTRODUCTION

Robotic surgery is an emerging aspect of gastrointestinal surgery. Hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery is currently being explored for a broad spectrum of indications, entities, and postoperative outcomes. Noninferiority and financial aspects are the focus of studies. In this review, the impact on oncological therapies is assessed.

AREAS COVERED

An extensive literature review was conducted, and relevant studies and articles and reviews for robotic surgery in the field of hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery were examined. Special attention was given to the oncological aspects of robotic surgery and its possible impact on the therapy of malignant neoplasms.

EXPERT OPINION

Robotic-assisted surgery for oncological indications is promising, in part, an established technique that has already shown its advantages in the last decade, although high-quality studies are missing. Upcoming experience must consider the oncological benefit and putative new indications in a rapidly changing field of anti-neoplastic regimens. Also, robotic surgery may possess the ability to accelerate digitalization and AI-based augmentation in this context.

Comparative Efficacy of Robot-Assisted and Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy: A Single-Center Comparative Study

Background

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) has become a routine procedure in pancreatic surgery. Although robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) has not been popularized yet, it has shown new advantages in some aspects, and exploring its learning curve is of great significance for guiding clinical practice.

Methods

149 patients who received RDP and LDP in our surgical team were enrolled in this retrospective study. Patients were divided into two groups including LDP group and RDP group. The perioperative outcomes, histopathologic results, long-term postoperative complications, and economic cost were collected and compared between the two groups. The cumulative summation (CUSUM) analysis was used to explore the learning curve of RDP.

Results

The hospital stay, postoperative first exhaust time, and first feeding time in the RDP group were better than those in the LDP group (P < 0.05). The rate of spleen preservation in patients with benign and low-grade tumors in the RDP group was significantly higher than that of the LDP group (P=0.002), though the cost of operation and hospitalization was significantly higher (P < 0.001). The learning curve of RDP in our center declined significantly with completing 32 cases. The average operation time, the hospital stay, and the time of gastrointestinal recovery were shorter after the learning curve node than before.

Conclusion

RDP provides better postoperative recovery and is not difficult to replicate, but the high cost was still a major disadvantage of RDP.

Robotic versus open pancreatic surgery: a propensity score-matched cost-effectiveness analysis

Background

Robotic pancreatic surgery (RPS) is associated with high intraoperative costs compared to open pancreatic surgery (OPS). However, it remains unclear whether several advantages of RPS such as reduced surgical trauma and a shorter postoperative recovery time could lead to a reduction in total costs outweighing the intraoperative costs. The study aimed to compare patients undergoing OPS and RPS with regards to cost-effectiveness in a propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis.

Methods

Patients undergoing OPS and RPS between 2017 and 2019 were included in this monocentric, retrospective analysis. The controlling department provided financial data (costs and revenues, net loss/profit). A propensity score-matched analysis was performed or OPS and RPS (matching criteria: age, American society of anesthesiologists (ASA) score, gender, body mass index (BMI), and type of pancreatic resection) with a caliper 0.2.

Results

In total, 272 eligible OPS cases were identified, of which 252 met all inclusion criteria and were thus included in the further analysis. The RPS group contained 92 patients. The matched cohorts contained 41 patients in each group. Length of hospital stay (LOS) was significantly shorter in the RPS group (12 vs. 19 days, p = 0.003). Major postoperative morbidity (Dindo/Clavien ≥ 3a) and 90-day mortality did not differ significantly between OPS and RPS (p > 0.05). Intraoperative costs were significantly higher in the RPS group than in the OPS group (7334€ vs. 5115€, p < 0.001). This was, however, balanced by other financial categories. The overall cost-effectiveness tended to be better when comparing RPS to OPS (net profit—RPS: 57€ vs. OPS: − 2894€, p = 0.328). Binary logistic regression analysis revealed major postoperative complications, longer hospital stay, and ASA scores < 3 were linked to the risk of net loss (i.e., costs > revenue).

Conclusions

Surgical outcomes of RPS were similar to those of OPS. Higher intraoperative costs of RPS are outweighed by advantages in other categories of cost-effectiveness such as decreased lengths of hospital stay.

Robotic Surgery for the Treatment of Achalasia Cardia: Surgical Technique, Initial Experiences and Literature Review

Background

The outcomes of surgical interventions for achalasia treatment improved with the advent of minimally invasive surgery and the introduction of robotic surgery. This article describes the technical details of robotic achalasia surgery, shares our initial experiences, and discusses why robotic surgery will become the first choice for the surgical treatment of achalasia.

Methods

The records of patients with a diagnosis of achalasia who underwent robotic surgery were evaluated retrospectively. The patients’ data were examined in terms of demographic parameters, duration of complaints, treatment options applied previously, robotic surgery technique, and postoperative outcomes.

Results

Of the six patients evaluated, four (66.7%) were males and two (33.3%) were females. Their mean age was 32 years (20-51 years), and the mean symptom duration was 4.6 years (2-9 years). All of the patients underwent robotic Heller cardiomyotomy surgery. After the myotomy procedure, five of the six patients (83.3%) underwent partial anterior fundoplication (Dor) as an antireflux procedure. The cruroraphy procedure was performed in one patient (16.7%) due to accompanying hiatal hernia, whereas the procedures were completed in five patients (83.3%) without performing posterior dissection of the oesophagus. In the postoperative follow-up period, no surgical problem was encountered, while reflux symptoms developed in one patient (16.7%) and were controlled by medical therapy.

Conclusions

The success of surgical treatment of achalasia is incontrovertible. Due to the various advantages of robotic surgery, it is now frequently used in narrow-area surgeries, such as achalasia surgery.

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.

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.

Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies: A systematic review and meta-analysis on costs and perioperative outcome

AIM

The aim of this meta-analysis is to compare perioperative outcomes and costs of robotic and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (RDP and LDP).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In accordance with the PRISMA guidelines, we searched Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane and Web of Science for reports published before December 2020.

RESULTS

The literature search identified 11 papers (1 187 patients). RDP showed a lower conversion rate (odds ratio: 2.56, 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 1.31 to 5.00) with no significant differences in bleeding and operative time, complications ≥ Clavien-Dindo grade III, pancreatic fistulas and length of stay. Despite RDP presenting higher costs in all included studies, none of these differences were significant. However, RDP showed higher total costs than LDP (standardized mean differences [SMD]: -1.18, 95% CI: -1.97 to -0.39). A subgroup analysis according to the continent of origin showed that studies coming from Asian research groups kept showing significant differences (SMD: -2.62, 95% CI: -3.38 to -1.85), while Western groups did not confirm these findings.

CONCLUSION

Based on low-quality evidence, despite some potential technical advantages, RDP still seems to be costlier than LDP.

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.

Outcomes of elective left colectomy in renal-transplanted patients: a single-center case-control study (LECoRT study)

PURPOSE

Renal-transplanted patients are reported to have a high anastomotic leakage (AL) rate after colorectal surgery. We aimed to define AL-related morbidity and mortality rates after elective left colectomy in renal-transplanted patients.

METHODS

Data were prospectively collected between 2010 and 2015 from patients who underwent elective left colectomy with supra-peritoneal anastomosis in a single French referral hospital. We compared AL rate, and morbidity and mortality rates between renal-transplanted patients and controls.

RESULTS

We identified 120 patients who underwent elective left colectomy during the study period. We retrospectively divided this cohort into 20 (17%) kidney-transplanted recipients (KTR-group) and the remaining 100 patients comprised the control group (C-group). There were no significant differences in sex, age, ASA score, body mass index, history of abdominal surgery and benign/malignant disease ratio between the KTR-group and the C-group. The AL rate was approximately four times higher in the KTR-group versus the C-group (25% vs 7%, p = 0.028). Intra-abdominal septic complications (p = 0.0005) and reoperation rates (p = 0.025) were also higher in the KTR-group. The laparoscopic approach was performed less in the KTR-group (35% versus 93%, p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Renal transplantation was identified as a risk factor of AL following elective left colectomy, as well as increased intra-abdominal septic morbidity and higher reoperation rate. Further multicentric studies are required to identify potential independent risk factors of AL after colorectal surgery in these frail populations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The present study was declared on ClinicalTrials.gov (ID: NCT04495023).

Registrar performance in minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy and effects on postoperative outcomes

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) is nowadays an established standard procedure for non-locally advanced pancreatic lesions without celio-mesenteric vascular invasion. However, little is known about how the involvement of junior surgeons in MIDP affects postoperative outcomes. We performed a retrospective case series study in order to determine whether registrar involvement in MIDP is associated with adverse outcomes.

METHODS

Data were analyzed from a prospectively created database of consecutive patients undergoing MIDP. Only data from 91 patients who underwent MIDP for non-PDAC lesions were included. Patients were divided in 3 groups: Consultant P1 (first 20 MIDP, n=20), Consultant P2 (after 20 MIDP, n=44), and Registrar group (n=27). Conversion rates and 90-day postoperative outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

Conversion rates were 5%, 0%, and 14% in Consultant P1 and P2 and Registrar groups, respectively (P1 vs. P2, p = 0.312 and P1 vs. Registrar, p=0.376). Only Comprehensive Complication Index was higher in Registrar group compared to Consultant P1 group (13 vs. 3.7; p = 0.041). Comparison between Consultant P2 and Registrar groups resulted in a significant higher conversion rate (0 vs. 14%, p = 0.029), increased blood loss (77 vs. 263 ml, p = 0.018), and longer surgery duration (156 vs. 212 min, p=0.001) for registrars MIDP. However, no differences were found in clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) (16 vs. 7.5%, p=0.282), Clavien-Dindo severe complication ≥3 score (11 vs. 4%, p=0.396), or length of hospital stay (9 vs. 9 days; p=0.614) between the consultant and registrar cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

With all the limitations of a retrospective study with a small sample size, junior surgeons' involvement in MIDP for non-PDAC lesions resulted in higher conversion rate, blood loss and duration of surgery without statistically significant difference on clinical outcomes compared to a consultant.

Evaluation of cost-effectiveness among open, laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) is still a matter of debate. This study compares the cost-effectiveness of open (ODP), laparoscopic (LDP) and robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP).

METHODS

Pubmed, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases were searched. Studies comparing cost-effectiveness of ODP and MIDP were included.

RESULTS

A total of 1052 titles were screened and 16 articles were included in the study, 2431 patients in total. LDP resulted the most cost-efficient procedure, with a mean total cost of 14,682 ± 5665 € and the lowest readmission rates. ODP had lower surgical procedure costs, 3867 ± 768 €. RDP was the safest approach regarding hospital stay costs (5239 ± 1741 €), length of hospital stay, morbidity, clinically relevant pancreatic fistula and reoperations.

CONCLUSION

In this meta-analysis MIDP resulted as the most cost-effective approach. LDP seems to be protective against high costs, but RDP seems to be safer.

Improvement in distal pancreatectomy for tumors in the body and tail of the pancreas

Background

Pancreatic resections are complex and technically challenging surgical procedures. They often come with potential limitations to high-volume centers. Distal pancreatectomy is a relatively simple procedure in most cases. It facilitates the development of up-to-date minimally invasive surgical procedures in pancreatic surgery including laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy and robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy.

Main body

To obtain a desirable long-term prognosis, R0 resection and adequate lymphadenectomy are crucial to the surgical management of pancreatic cancer, and they demand standard procedure and multi-visceral resection if necessary. With respect to combined organ resection, progress has been made in evaluating and determining when and how to preserve the spleen. The postoperative pancreatic fistula, however, remains the most significant complication of distal pancreatectomy, with a rather high incidence. In addition, a safe closure of the pancreatic remnant persists as an area of concern. Therefore, much efforts that focus on the management of the pancreatic stump have been made to mitigate morbidity.

Conclusion

This review summarized the historical development of the techniques for pancreatic resections in recent years and describes the progress. The review eventually looked into the controversies regarding distal pancreatectomy for tumors in the body and tail of the pancreas.

[Evidence for robotics in oncological pancreatic surgery]

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

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy: a case-matched cost-analysis between robot-assisted surgery and direct manual laparoscopy

Background

Few studies have reported a structured cost analysis of robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP), and none have compared the relative costs between the robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) and the direct manual laparoscopy (DML) in this setting. The aim of the present study is to address this issue by comparing surgical outcomes and costs of RDP and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies (LDP).

Methods

Eighty-eight RDP and 47 LDP performed between January 2008 and January 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. Three comparable groups of 35 patients each (Si-RDP-group, Xi-RDP group, LDP-group) were obtained matching 1:1 the RDP-groups with the LDP-group. Overall costs, including overall variable costs (OVC) and fixed costs were compared using generalized linear regression model adjusting for covariates.

Results

The conversion rate was significantly lower in the Si-RDP-group and Xi-RDP-group: 2.9% and 0%, respectively, versus 14.3% in the LDP-group (p = 0.045). Although not statistically significant, the mean operative time was lower in Xi-RDP-group: 226 min versus 262 min for Si-RDP-group and 247 min for LDP-group. The overall post-operative complications rate and the length of hospital stay (LOS) were not significantly different between the three groups. In LDP-group, the LOS of converted cases was significantly longer: 15.6 versus 9.8 days (p = 0.039). Overall costs of LDP-group were significantly lower than RDP-groups, (p < 0.001). At multivariate analysis OVC resulted no longer statistically significantly different between LDP-group and Xi-RDP-group (p = 0.099), and between LDP-group and the RDP-groups when the spleen preservation was indicated (p = 0.115 and p = 0.261 for Si-RDP-group and Xi-RDP-group, respectively).

Conclusions

RAS is more expensive than DML for DP because of higher acquisition and maintenance costs. The flattening of these differences considering only the variable costs, in a high-volume multidisciplinary center for RAS, suggests a possible optimization of the costs in this setting. RAS might be particularly indicated for minimally invasive DP when the spleen preservation is scheduled.

Minimally invasive pancreatic surgery—will robotic surgery be the future?

Due to the complexity of the procedures and the texture of the organ itself, pancreatic surgery remains a challenge in the field of visceral surgery. During the past decade, a minimally invasive approach to pancreatic surgery has gained distribution in clinical routine, extending from left-sided procedures to pancreatic head resections. While a laparoscopic approach has proven beneficial for many patients with left-sided pancreatic pathologies, the complex reconstruction in pancreas head resections remains worrisome with the laparoscopic approach. The robotic technique was established to overcome such technical constraints while preserving the advantages of the laparoscopic approach. Even though robotic systems are still in development, especially in pancreatoduodenectomy, the current literature demonstrates the feasibility of this approach and stable clinical and oncological outcomes compared to the open technique, albeit only under the condition of such operations being performed by specialist teams in a high-volume setting (>20 robotic pancreaticoduodenectomies per year). The aim of this review is to analyze the current evidence regarding a minimally invasive approach to pancreatic surgery and to review the potential of a robotic approach. Presently, there is still a scarcity of sound evidence and long-term oncological data regarding the role of minimally invasive and robotic pancreatic surgery in the literature, especially in the setting of pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Revo-i assisted robotic central pancreatectomy

Central pncreatectomy (CP) can be one of procedures for function-preserving pancreatectomy for patients with benign or low grade malignant pancreatic tumors. Surgeons have to deal with two cut surface of the pancreas when performing CP, which can be associated with severe complication, such as postoperative pancreatic fistula. Fine and delicate surgical skill is highly required for safe CP. With the advance of minimally invasive surgery, CP is now thought to be one of appropriate procedures for function-preserving minimally invasive pancreatectomy. Robotic surgery is thought to make complicated surgical procedure easy and effective. Recently, Korean robotic surgical system, Revo-i, was successfully developed by Meeraecompany and have been proved its safety and feasibility in several recent reports. A 56-year old woman was referred for a body of pancreatic lesion. Contrast abdominopelvic CT revealed a pancreatic body tumor measuring around 1.2 cm in diameter. The patient underwent a robot-assisted central pancreatectomy using Revo-i. The patient endured the procedure well and was discharged to home at postoperative day 9. This report showed a successful case of central pancreatectomy performed with the Korean robotic surgical system Revo-i.

[Robot-assisted operations in visceral surgery]

BACKGROUND

Although only a low percentage of abdominal surgical interventions are performed using a robotic platform, the total number has significantly increased in recent years and robotic surgery (RS) is no longer limited only to university hospitals. Despite the increasing popularity and many innovations in the field of robotic surgery with new devices, the data situation is confusing.

OBJECTIVE

This review deals with the current areas of application of robotic devices in abdominal surgery and whether there are any advantages compared to laparoscopic surgery (LS).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The current international literature was evaluated and is critically discussed with a particular focus on clinical trials.

RESULTS

While the disadvantages include high costs and longer times of surgery, the advantages are a stable optical platform and the high mobility even in confined spaces; however, no high-quality, randomized controlled trial in abdominal surgery is currently available that could demonstrate an advantage of RS compared to LS.

CONCLUSION

Although no clear advantages of RS for the patients could so far be demonstrated, it seems to be at least equivalent to LS. Undisputed is the level of comfort for the surgeon. Once the costs of RS can be reduced, LS will probably be replaced for most indications.

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.

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

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

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

Does tumor size influence the outcome of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy?

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is a safe procedure, but its role in resection of large pancreatic lesions has been questioned.

METHODS

Patients who underwent LDP for pancreatic solitary tumors in 1997-2017 were included in this study. The patients were divided into three groups in accordance with tumor size: <3.5 cm (group I); from 3.5 cm to 7.0 cm (group II), and ≥7 cm (group III).

RESULTS

218, 146 and 58 patients were identified in the groups I, II and III. Median tumor size in the groups I, II and III was 20, 47 and 81.5 mm (p < 0.001). Nine procedures (2.1%) were converted including 1(0.5%), 5(3.4%) and 3(5.2%) in the groups I, II and III (p = 0.036). Median operative time was longer in the group III compared with the groups I and II - 195 vs 158 and 159 min (p = 0.005). Median blood loss did not differ. Regression analysis revealed correlation between tumor size and operative time (R = 0.103; P = 0.035) and no correlation between tumor size and blood loss (R = 0.075; P = 0.125). Hospital stay was 5 days, similar in all groups.Postoperative morbidity was similar - 38.5, 32 and 34% in the group I, II and III.

CONCLUSION

LDP can be safely performed laparoscopically with outcomes similar to those for smaller tumors.

100 Robotic Distal Pancreatectomies: The Future at Hand

INTRODUCTION

This study was undertaken to examine 100 consecutive robotic distal pancreatectomies with splenectomies, and to compare our outcomes to predicted outcomes as calculated using the American college of surgeons national surgical quality improvement program (ACS NSQIP) Surgical Risk Calculator and to the outcomes contained within NSQIP.

METHODS

Outcomes were compared with predicted outcomes, calculated using the ACS NSQIP Surgical Risk Calculator, and with outcomes documented in NSQIP for distal pancreatectomy. For illustrative purposes, data are presented as median (mean ± SD).

RESULTS

Patients who underwent robotic distal pancreatectomy were of age 67 (63 ± 13.4) years with a BMI of 29 (29 ± 6.3) kg/m², with 49% being women. Operative duration was 242 (265 ± 112.2) minutes and estimated blood loss was 110 (211 ± 233.9) mL. Predicted outcomes were similar to those reported in NSQIP. Our actual outcomes were significantly superior to the predicted outcomes for serious complication, any complication, surgical site infection, sepsis, and length of stay. Compared to NSQIP outcomes, our actual outcomes for serious complication, any complication, surgical site infection, sepsis, and delayed gastric emptying were significantly superior. Twelve percent of operations were converted to "open." There were 3 deaths within 30 days, similar to predicted outcomes. Deaths were due to sepsis (2) and respiratory failure (1).

CONCLUSION

Our patients' predicted outcomes were the same as national outcomes; our patients were not a select group. However, their actual outcomes were like or significantly superior than those predicted by NSQIP or reported in NSQIP. We believe that the robot has the future of distal pancreatectomy with or without splenectomy.

Cost-effectiveness and quality of life analysis of laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomy: a propensity score-matched study

BACKGROUND

This study analyzed the Quality of Life (QoL) and cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic (LDP) versus robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP).

METHOD

All patients who underwent LDP or RDP from 2011 to 2017 and with a minimum postoperative follow-up of 12 months were included in the study. To minimize bias, a propensity score-matched analysis (1:2) was performed. Two different questionnaires (EORTC QLQ-C30 and EQ-5D) were completed by the patients. The mean differential cost and mean differential Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALY) were calculated and plotted on a cost-utility plane.

RESULTS

The study population consisted of 152 patients. After having applied the propensity score matching, the final population included 103 patients divided into RDP group (n = 37, 36%) and LDP (n = 66, 64%). No differences were found between groups regarding the baseline, intraoperative, postoperative, and pathological variables (p > 0.05). The QoL analysis showed a significant improvement in the RDP group on the postoperative social function, nausea, vomiting, and financial status (p = 0.010, p = 0.050, and p = 0.030, respectively). As expected, the crude costs analysis confirmed that RDP was more expensive than LDP (12,053 Euros vs. 5519 Euros, p < 0.001). However, the robotic approach had a higher probability of being more cost-effective than the laparoscopic procedure when a willingness to pay of more than 4800 Euros/QALY was accepted.

CONCLUSION

RDP was associated with QoL improvement in specific domains. Crude costs were higher relative to LDP. Cost-effectiveness threshold resulted to be 4800 euros/QALY. The increasing worldwide diffusion of the robotic technology, with easier access and possible cost reduction, could increase the sustainability of this procedure.

Robotic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy: the Verona experience

BACKGROUND

The minimally invasive approach in spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy has currently been emphasized in benign and pre-malignant pancreatic diseases. The study aims to demonstrate the safety and feasibility of our technique of robotic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (RSPDP) by a stepwise approach.

METHODS

The data of consecutive patients presented for RSPDP from 2014 to 2019 at Verona University were retrieved from a prospectively maintained database. The patients were divided into two groups based on the surgical procedure performed, such as Kimura's (KG) or Warshaw's (WG) technique, and then compared.

RESULTS

In the study period, 32 patients underwent RSPDP. Twenty-three patients presented for the Kimura procedure (72%), while nine patients underwent the Warshaw procedure (28%). A higher body mass index was found in the KG (26 ± 4 vs. 22 ± 3, p = 0.037). Regarding the pathological data, the WG group differed in the tumor dimension, and the lymph nodes harvested (30 ± 2 vs. 17 ± 10, 9 ± 5 vs. 3 ± 4, p = 0.0028, and p = 0.005, respectively). Notably, no conversions and mortality were recorded. The overall morbidity was 25% ( eight patients) with no difference between the groups (p = 0.820). The mean length of stay was 8 days, and was similar between the groups (p = 0.350).

CONCLUSIONS

The present study suggests that RSPDP is a valid option for the treatment of benign or pre-malignant pancreatic diseases of the distal pancreas, with comparable morbidity with the standard treatment and no mortality. Further research is needed to standardize the technique and to assess the immunological, surgical, and financial benefits of the procedure.

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.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

DISCUSSION

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

Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic left pancreatectomy at a high-volume, minimally invasive center

INTRODUCTION

While minimally invasive left pancreatectomy has become more widespread and generally accepted over the last decade, opinions on modality of minimally invasive approach (robotic or laparoscopic) remain mixed with few institutions performing a significant portion of both operative approaches simultaneously.

METHODS

247 minimally invasive left pancreatectomies were retrospectively identified in a prospectively maintained institutional REDCap™ database, 135 laparoscopic left pancreatectomy (LLP) and 108 robotic-assisted left pancreatectomy (RLP). Demographics, intraoperative variables, postoperative outcomes, and OR costs were compared between LLP and RLP with an additional subgroup analysis for procedures performed specifically for pancreatic adenocarcinoma (35 LLP and 23 RLP) focusing on pathologic outcomes and 2-year actuarial survival.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in preoperative demographics or indications between LLP and RLP with 34% performed for chronic pancreatitis and 23% performed for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. While laparoscopic cases were faster (p < 0.001) robotic cases had a higher rate of splenic preservation (p < 0.001). Median length of stay was 5 days for RLP and LLP, and rate of clinically significant grade B/C pancreatic fistula was approximately 20% for both groups. Conversion rates to laparotomy were 4.3% and 1.8% for LLP and RLP approaches respectively. RLP had a higher rate of readmission (p = 0.035). Pathologic outcomes and 2-year actuarial survival were similar between LLP and RLP. LLP on average saved $206.67 in OR costs over RLP.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that at a high-volume center with significant minimally invasive experience, both LLP and RLP can be equally effective when used at the discretion of the operating surgeon. We view the laparoscopic and robotic platforms as tools for the modern surgeon, and at our institution, given the technical success of both operative approaches, we will continue to encourage our surgeons to approach a difficult operation with their tool of choice.

International consensus statement on robotic pancreatic surgery

The robotic surgical system has been applied to various types of pancreatic surgery. However, controversies exist regarding a variety of factors including the safety, feasibility, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of robotic surgery. This study aimed to evaluate the current status of robotic pancreatic surgery and put forth experts' consensus and recommendations to promote its development. Based on the WHO Handbook for Guideline Development, a Consensus Steering Group* and a Consensus Development Group were established to determine the topics, prepare evidence-based documents, and generate recommendations. The GRADE Grid method and Delphi vote were used to formulate the recommendations. A total of 19 topics were analyzed. The first 16 recommendations were generated by GRADE using an evidence-based method (EBM) and focused on the safety, feasibility, indication, techniques, certification of the robotic surgeon, and cost-effectiveness of robotic pancreatic surgery. The remaining three recommendations were based on literature review and expert panel opinion due to insufficient EBM results. Since the current amount of evidence was low/meager as evaluated by the GRADE method, further randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are needed in the future to validate these recommendations.

Robotic Developments in Cancer Surgery

Indications for robotic surgery have been rapidly expanding since the first introduction of the robotic surgical system in the US market in 2000. As the robotic systems have become more sophisticated over the past decades, there has been an expansion in indications. Many new tools have been added with the aim of optimizing outcomes after oncologic surgery. Complex abdominal cancers are increasingly operated on using robot-assisted laparoscopy and with acceptable outcomes. In this article, the authors discuss robotic developments, from the past and the future, with an emphasis on cancer surgery.

Oncologic outcomes after robot-assisted versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: Analysis of the National Cancer Database

BACKGROUND

How the oncologic outcomes after robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) compare to those after laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) remains unknown.

METHODS

Using the National Cancer Database (NCDB), we analyzed all patients undergoing LDP or RDP for resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma over a 4-year period (2010-2013).

RESULTS

Of the 704 eligible patients, 605 (86%) underwent LDP and 99 (14%) underwent RDP. The median follow-up for patients was 25 months. There were no differences in the two groups with respect to sociodemographic, clinicopathologic, or treatment characteristics. On comparing LDP versus RDP, there was no difference in the margin-positive rate (15% vs 16%; P = 0.84); lymph nodes examined (12 vs 11; P = 0.67); overall survival (hazard ratio [HR], 1.1, 95% confidence intervals [CI], 0.7 to 1.7; 28 vs 25 months; P = 0.71); hospital stay (6 vs 5 days; P = 0.14); time to chemotherapy (50 vs 52 days; P = 0.65); 30-day readmission (9.4% vs 9.1%; P = 0.92); and mortality (1% vs 0%; P = 0.28). Patients undergoing LDP had a significantly higher conversion rate to open or minimally invasive pancreatic cancer resections compared with RDP (27% vs 10%; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The early national experience with RDP demonstrates similar oncologic outcomes to LDP, with a significantly lower conversion rate.