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

Risk factors and predictive model development for high blood loss in minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

High blood loss is an adverse event related to increased morbidity and poorer outcomes in pancreatic surgery patients. The aim of this study was to identify risk factors and establish a predictive model for high perioperative blood loss (HPBL) in minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP).

METHODS

We collected data from 353 patients who underwent MIDP at a university affiliated tertiary hospital between January 2016 and October 2023. Perioperative blood loss was calculated based on pre- and postoperative hemoglobin concentrations according to a combination of the formulas provided by Nadler and Gross. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed for the training cohort to identify the clinical factors independently associated with perioperative blood loss (PBL). A predictive nomogram based on these factors was established and validated.

RESULTS

Weight, imaging findings, serum albumin concentration, MIDP experience, spleen treatment, and operation time were independent predictors for HPBL. The established model for predicting HPBL showed that the area under the curve (AUC) was 0.799 (95% CI = 0.746-0.853) and 0.852 (95% CI = 0.760-0.943) for the training cohort and validation cohort, respectively. When utilized to predict blood transfusion, the AUC was 0.778 (95% CI = 0.691-0.865) in the training cohort and 0.818 (95% CI = 0.681-0.955) in the validation cohort. Patients with a high predicted risk had significantly higher incidences of postoperative pancreatic fistula, intra-abdominal infection, and longer hospital stays than patients with a low risk.

CONCLUSIONS

We established and validated a model for predicting HPBL in MIDP patients. This novel model may have future utility when generating surgical strategies.

Innovations in surgery for gallbladder cancer: A review of robotic surgery as a feasible and safe option

BACKGROUND

This study evaluates the efficacy and safety of robotic-assisted surgical techniques in the treatment of gallbladder cancer, comparing it with traditional open and laparoscopic methods.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature searched for comparative analyses of patient outcomes following robotic, open, and laparoscopic surgeries, focusing on oncological results and perioperative benefits.

RESULTS

Five total studies published between 2019 and 2023 were identified. Findings indicate that robotic-assisted surgery for gallbladder cancer is as effective as traditional methods in terms of oncological outcomes, with potential advantages in precision and perioperative recovery.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic surgery offers a viable and potentially advantageous alternative for gallbladder cancer treatment, warranting further research to confirm its benefits and establish comprehensive surgical guidelines.

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.

Perspectives on robotic HPB training in the UK: a survey analysis

BACKGROUND

We Published a step-up approach for robotic training in hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) surgery has been previously. The approach was mostly based on personal experience and communications between experts and needed appraisal and validation by the HPB surgical community. At the Great Britain and Ireland HPB Association (GBIHPBA) robotic HPB meeting held in Coventry, UK in October 2022, the authors sought consensus from the live audience, with an open forum for answering key questions. The aim of this exercise was to appraise the step-up approach, and in turn, lay the foundation for a more substantial UK robotic HPB surgical curriculum.

METHODS

The study was conducted using VEVOX online polling platform at the October 2022 GBIHPBA robotic HPB meeting in Coventry, UK. The questionnaire was designed based on a literature search and was externally validated. The data were collated and analysed to assess patterns of response.

RESULTS

A median (IQR) of 104 (96-117) responses were generated for each question. 93 consultants and 61 trainees were present Over 90% were in favour of a standardised training pathway. 93.6% were in favour of the proposed step-up approach, with a significant number (67.3%; p < 0.001) considering three levels of case complexity.

CONCLUSION

The survey shows a favourable outlook on adopting step-up training in robotic HPB surgery. Ongoing monitoring of progress, clinical outcomes, and collaboration among surgeons and units will bolster this evidence, potentially leading to an official UK robotic HPB curriculum.

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.

[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.

Laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomy: the choice and the future

INTRODUCTION

Distal pancreatectomy (DP) is currently well established as a minimally invasive surgery (MIS) procedure, using either a laparoscopic (LDP) or robotic (RDP) approach.

METHODS

Out of 83 DP performed between January 2018 and March 2022, 57 cases (68.7%) were performed using MIS: 35 LDP and 22 RDP (da Vinci Xi). We have assessed the experience with the two techniques and analyzed the value of the robotic approach. Cases of conversion have been examined in detail.

RESULTS

The mean operative times for LDP and RDP were 201.2 (SD 47.8) and 247.54 (SD 35.8) minutes, respectively (P = NS). No differences were observed in length of hospital stay or conversion rate: 6 (5-34) vs. 5.6 (5-22) days, and 4 (11.4%) vs. 3 (13.6%) cases, respectively (P = NS). The readmission rate was 3/35 patients (11.4%) treated with LDP and 6/22 (27.3%) cases of RDP (P = NS). There were no differences in morbidity (Dindo-Clavien ≥ III) between the two groups. Mortality was one case in the robotic group (a patient with early conversion due to vascular involvement). The rate of R0 resection was greater and statistically significant in the RDP group (77.1% vs. 90.9%) (P = .04).

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) is a safe and feasible procedure in selected patients. Surgical planning and stepwise implementation based on prior experience help surgeons successfully perform technically demanding procedures. RDP could be the approach of choice in distal pancreatectomy, and it is not inferior to LDP.

Current progress in robotic hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery at a high-volume center

There has been steady growth in the adoption of robotic HPB procedures world-wide over the past 20 years, but most of this increase has occurred only recently. Not surprisingly, the vast majority of robotics has been in the United States, with very few, select centers of adoption in Italy, South Korea, and Brazil, to name a few. We began our robotic HPB program in 2008, well before almost all other centers in the world, with the most notable exception of Giullianotti and colleagues. Our program began gradually, with smaller cases carefully selected to optimize the strengths of the original robotic platform and included complex biliary and pancreatic resections. We performed the first reported series of choledochojejunostomy for benign biliary strictures and first series of completion cholecystectomies. We began performing robotic distal pancreatectomies and longitudinal pancreaticojejunostomies, reporting our early experience for each of these procedures. Over time we progressed to robotic pancreaticoduodenectomies. Initially, these were performed with planned conversions until we were able to optimize efficiency. Now we have performed over 200 robotic whipples, reaching a 100% robotic completion rate by 2020. Finally, we have added robotic major hepatectomies, including resections for hilar cholangiocarcinoma to our repertoire. Since the program began, we have performed over 1600 robotic HPB cases. Outcomes from our program have shown superior lymph node harvest, lower DGE rates, shorter hospitalizations, and fewer rehab admissions with similar overall complications to open and laparoscopic procedures, signifying that over time a robotic HPB program is not only feasible but advantageous as well.

Robot-Assisted Versus Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy in Patients with Resectable Pancreatic Cancer: An International, Retrospective, Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RDP) is increasingly used as an alternative to laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer but comparative multicenter studies confirming the safety and efficacy of RDP are lacking.

METHODS

An international, multicenter, retrospective, cohort study, including consecutive patients undergoing RDP and LDP for resectable pancreatic cancer in 33 experienced centers from 11 countries (2010-2019). The primary outcome was R0-resection. Secondary outcomes included lymph node yield, major complications, conversion rate, and overall survival.

RESULTS

In total, 542 patients after minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy were included: 103 RDP (19%) and 439 LDP (81%). The R0-resection rate was comparable (75.7% RDP vs. 69.3% LDP, p = 0.404). RDP was associated with longer operative time (290 vs. 240 min, p < 0.001), more vascular resections (7.6% vs. 2.7%, p = 0.030), lower conversion rate (4.9% vs. 17.3%, p = 0.001), more major complications (26.2% vs. 16.3%, p = 0.019), improved lymph node yield (18 vs. 16, p = 0.021), and longer hospital stay (10 vs. 8 days, p = 0.001). The 90-day mortality (1.9% vs. 0.7%, p = 0.268) and overall survival (median 28 vs. 31 months, p = 0.599) did not differ significantly between RDP and LDP, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In selected patients with resectable pancreatic cancer, RDP and LDP provide a comparable R0-resection rate and overall survival in experienced centers. Although the lymph node yield and conversion rate appeared favorable after RDP, LDP was associated with shorter operating time, less major complications, and shorter hospital stay. The specific benefits associated with each approach should be confirmed by multicenter, randomized trials.

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.

Identifying the preoperative factors predicting the surgical difficulty of robotic distal pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND

Few studies have evaluated the preoperative factors predicting the surgical difficulty of robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP). This study aims to explore such factors and provide guidance on the selection of suitable patients to aid surgeons lacking extensive experience in RDP.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted on consecutive patients who underwent RDP to identify preoperative factors predicting surgical difficulty. High surgical difficulty was defined by both operation time and intraoperative estimated blood loss exceeding their median, or by conversion to laparotomy.

RESULTS

A total of 161 patients were ultimately enrolled, including 51 patients with high levels of surgical difficulty. Multivariate analysis revealed that male sex [OR (95% CI): 4.07 (1.77,9.40), p = 0.001], body mass index (BMI) ≥ 25 kg/m² OR (95% CI): 2.27 (1.03,5.00), p = 0.042], tumors located at the neck of the pancreas [OR (95% CI): 4.15 (1.49,11.56), p = 0.006] and splenic artery type B [OR (95% CI): 3.28 (1.09,9.91), p = 0.035] were independent risk factors for surgical difficulty. Regarding postoperative complications, high surgical difficulty was associated with the risk of overall complications and pancreatic fistula (grade B/C) (49.0% vs. 22.7%, p < 0.001; 39.2% vs. 19.1%, p = 0.006).

CONCLUSION

Male sex, body mass index ≥ 25 kg/m2, tumor located at the neck of the pancreas and splenic artery type B are associated with a high RDP difficulty level. These factors can be used preoperatively to assess the difficulty level of surgery, to help surgeons choose patients suitable for them and ensure surgical safety.

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.

Transition from open to robotic distal pancreatectomy in a low volume pancreatic surgery country: a single Australian centre experience

BACKGROUND

Advances in technology and techniques have allowed for robotic distal pancreatectomies to be readily performed in patients at high volume centres. This study describes the experience of a single surgeon during the learning curve and transition from open to robotic distal pancreatectomy in Australia, a traditionally low volume pancreatic surgery country.

METHODS

All patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy at an Australian-based tertiary referral centre between 2010 and 2021 were reviewed retrospectively. Demographic, clinicopathologic and survival data were analysed to compare perioperative and oncological outcomes between patients who underwent open, laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomies.

RESULTS

A total of 178 distal pancreatectomies were identified for analysis during the study period. Ninety-one open distal pancreatectomies (ODP), 48 laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies (LDP), and 39 robotic distal pancreatectomies (RDP) were performed. Robotic distal pancreatectomy was non-inferior with respect to perioperative outcomes and yielded statistically non-significant advantages over LDP and ODP.

CONCLUSION

RDP is feasible and can be performed safely in well-selected patients during the learning phase at large pancreatic centres in a traditionally low-volume country like Australia. Referral to large pancreatic centres where access to the robotic platform and surgeon experience is not a barrier, and where a robust multidisciplinary team meeting can take place, remains pivotal in the introduction and transition toward the robotic approach for management of patients with pancreatic body or tail lesions.

Establishing an open and robotic pancreatic surgery program in a level 1 trauma center community teaching hospital and comparing its outcomes to high-volume academic center outcomes: a retrospective review

BACKGROUND

The debate of whether to centralize hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery has been ongoing. The principal objective was to compare outcomes of a community pancreatic surgical program with those of high-volume academic centers.

METHODS

The current pancreatic surgical study occurred in an environment where (1) a certified abdominal transplant surgeon performed all surgeries; (2) complementary quality enhancement programs had been developed; (3) the hospital's trauma center had been verified; and (4) the hospital's surgical training had been accredited. Pancreatic surgical outcomes at high-volume academic centers were obtained through PubMed literature searches. Articles were selected if they described diverse surgical procedures. Two-tailed Fisher exact and mid-P tests were used to perform 2 × 2 contingency analyses.

RESULTS

The study patients consisted of 64 consecutive pancreatic surgical patients. The study patients had a similar pancreaticoduodenectomy proportion (59.4%) when compared to literature patients (66.8%; P = 0.227). The study patients also had a similar distal pancreatectomy proportion (25.0%) when compared to literature patients (31.9%; P = 0.276). The study patients had a significantly higher American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status ≥ 3 proportion (100%) than literature patients (28.1%; P < 0.001). The 90-day study mortality proportion (0%) was similar to the literature proportion (2.3%; P = 0.397). The study postoperative pancreatic fistula proportion was lower (3.2%), when compared to the literature proportion (18.4%; P < 0.001; risk ratio = 5.8). The study patients had a lower reoperation proportion (3.1%) than the literature proportion (8.7%; mid-P = 0.051; risk ratio = 2.8). The study patients had a lower surgical site infection proportion (3.1%) than those in the literature (21.1%; P < 0.001; risk ratio = 6.8). The study patients had equivalent delayed gastric emptying (15.6%) when compared to literature patients (10.6%; P = 0.216). The study patients had decreased Clavien-Dindo grades III-IV complications (10.9%) compared to the literature patients (21.8%; mid-P = 0.018). Lastly, the study patients had a similar readmission proportion (20.3%) compared to literature patients (18.4%; P = 0.732).

CONCLUSION

Despite pancreatic surgical patients having greater preoperative medical comorbidities, the current community study outcomes were comparable to or better than high-volume academic center results.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

Aim

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Systematic Review Registration

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

Robotic Revision of Hepaticojejunostomy for Benign Biliary Stricture

Surgical revision of biliary enteric anastomoses (BEA) can be a challenging undertaking and a robotic platform may provide advantages that address many of the technical obstacles. We present our technical approach and outcomes for patients undergoing robotic revision of BEA for benign strictures. A retrospective review was performed for robot-assisted benign BEA revision at our institution. Operative details, perioperative metrics, and outcomes are reported. Four patients underwent anastomotic revision following previously failed non-operative management. There were no intraoperative complications, mean length of stay was 4-days, and all patients experienced resolution of presenting clinical signs and symptoms. No patients required reoperation and there was no mortality. Postoperative outcomes were consistent with findings reported for other interventional modalities. Based on our experience we conclude robotic intervention in this context is safe and improves the technical feasibility of this complex procedure.

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.

Advanced Robotic Surgery: Liver, Pancreas, and Esophagus - The State of the Art?

Background

The trend in performing robotic-assisted operations in visceral surgery has been increasing in the last decade, also reaching the challenging field of hepatic, pancreatic, and esophageal surgery. Nevertheless, solid data about advantages and disadvantages of the robotic approach are still missing. The aim of this review is to analyze the benefit and impact of robotic surgery in the field of hepatic, pancreatic, and esophageal surgery, focusing on the comparison with the conventional laparoscopic or open approach.

Summary

The well-known advantages of laparoscopic surgery in comparison to the open approach are also valid for robotic surgery, with the addition of a 3D-view camera, wristed instrumentation, and an ergonomic console. On the other hand, the use of a robotic system leads to longer operating time and higher costs. Randomized controlled trials comparing the robotic approach with the laparoscopic one are still missing.

Key Message

Recent meta-analyses show promising results of the usage of robotic systems in advanced surgical procedures, like hepatic, pancreatic, and esophageal resections. Further randomized studies are needed to validate the postulated benefit.

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.

Robotic Resection of Gallbladder Cancer: A Single-Center Retrospective Comparative Study to Open Resection

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery is gaining support for resection of gallbladder cancer (GBC). This study aims to compare operative and early outcomes of robotic resection (RR) to open resection (OR) from a single institution performing a high volume of robotic HPB surgery.

METHODS

Twenty patients with GBC underwent RR from January 2013 to August 2019. Outcomes were compared to a historical control of 23 patients with OR. Radical cholecystectomy for suspected GBC and completion operations for incidental GBC after routine cholecystectomy were both included.

RESULTS

Robotic resection had lower blood loss compared to OR (150 vs 350 mL, P = .002) and shorter postoperative length of stay (2.5 vs 6 days, P < .001), while median operative time was similar (193 vs 208 min, P = .604). There were no statistical differences in 30-day major complications or readmissions. No 30-day mortalities occurred. There was no statistical difference in survival trend (P = .438) or median lymph node harvest (5 vs 3, P = .189) for RR compared to OR.

CONCLUSION

Robotic resection of GBC is safe and efficient, with lower length of hospital stay and blood loss compared to OR. Technical benefits of robotic-assisted surgery may prove advantageous though larger studies are still needed.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) are the two principal minimally invasive surgical approaches for patients with pancreatic body and tail adenocarcinoma. The use of RDP and LDP for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains controversial, and which one can provide a better R0 rate is not clear.

Methods

A comprehensive search for studies that compared robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for PDAC published until July 31, 2021, was conducted. Data on perioperative outcomes and oncologic outcomes (R0-resection and lymph node dissection) were subjected to meta-analysis. PubMed, Cochrane Central Register, Web of Science, and EMBASE were searched based on a defined search strategy to identify eligible studies before July 2021.

Results

Six retrospective studies comprising 572 patients (152 and 420 patients underwent RDP and LDP) were included. The present meta-analysis showed that there were no significant differences in operative time, tumor size, and lymph node dissection between RDP and LDP group. Nevertheless, compared with the LDP group, RDP results seem to demonstrate a possibility in higher R0 resection rate (p<0.0001).

Conclusions

This systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that RDP is a technically and oncologically safe and feasible approach for selected PDAC patients. Large randomized and controlled prospective studies are needed to confirm this data.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#recordDetails, identifier [CRD42021269353].

Systematic review and meta-analysis of risk factors of postoperative pancreatic fistula after distal pancreatectomy in the era of 2016 International Study Group pancreatic fistula definition

BACKGROUND

Risk factors for the development of clinically relevant POPF (CR-POPF) following distal pancreatectomy (DP) need clarification particularly following the 2016 International Study Group of Pancreatic Fistula (ISGPF) definition.

METHODS

A systemic search of MEDLINE, Pubmed, Scopus, and EMBASE were conducted using the PRISMA framework. Studies were evaluated for risk factors for the development CR-POPF after DP using the 2016 ISGPF definition. Further subgroup analysis was undertaken on studies ≥10 patients in exposed and non-exposed subgroups.

RESULTS

Forty-three studies with 8864 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The weighted rate of CR-POPF was 20.4% (95%-CI: 17.7-23.4%). Smoking (OR 1.29, 95%-CI: 1.08-1.53, p = 0.02) and open DP (OR 1.43, 95%-CI: 1.02-2.01, p = 0.04) were found to be significant risk factors of CR-POPF. Diabetes (OR 0.81, 95%-CI: 0.68-0.95, p = 0.02) was a significant protective factor against CR-POPF. Substantial heterogeneity was observed in the comparisons of pancreatic texture and body mass index. Seventeen risk factors achieved significance in a univariate or multivariate comparison as reported by individual studies in the narrative synthesis, however, they remain difficult to interpret as statistically significant comparisons were not uniform.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis found smoking and open DP to be risk factors and diabetes to be protective factor of CR-POPF in the era of 2016 ISGPF definition.

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 distal pancreatectomy: multicentre analysis

BACKGROUND

The role of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy is still unclear, and whether robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) offers benefits over laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is unknown because large multicentre studies are lacking. This study compared perioperative outcomes between RDP and LDP.

METHODS

A multicentre international propensity score-matched study included patients who underwent RDP or LDP for any indication in 21 European centres from six countries that performed at least 15 distal pancreatectomies annually (January 2011 to June 2019). Propensity score matching was based on preoperative characteristics in a 1 : 1 ratio. The primary outcome was the major morbidity rate (Clavien-Dindo grade IIIa or above).

RESULTS

A total of 1551 patients (407 RDP and 1144 LDP) were included in the study. Some 402 patients who had RDP were matched with 402 who underwent LDP. After matching, there was no difference between RDP and LDP groups in rates of major morbidity (14.2 versus 16.5 per cent respectively; P = 0.378), postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C (24.6 versus 26.5 per cent; P = 0.543) or 90-day mortality (0.5 versus 1.3 per cent; P = 0.268). RDP was associated with a longer duration of surgery than LDP (median 285 (i.q.r. 225-350) versus 240 (195-300) min respectively; P < 0.001), lower conversion rate (6.7 versus 15.2 per cent; P < 0.001), higher spleen preservation rate (81.4 versus 62.9 per cent; P = 0.001), longer hospital stay (median 8.5 (i.q.r. 7-12) versus 7 (6-10) days; P < 0.001) and lower readmission rate (11.0 versus 18.2 per cent; P = 0.004).

CONCLUSION

The major morbidity rate was comparable between RDP and LDP. RDP was associated with improved rates of conversion, spleen preservation and readmission, to the detriment of longer duration of surgery and hospital stay.

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 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.

"Kimura-first" strategy for robotic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy: experiences from 61 consecutive cases in a single institution

BACKGROUND

Robotic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (RSPDP) is an ideal procedure for benign and low-grade malignant tumors in the distal pancreas, and two splenic preservation techniques (the Kimura and Warshaw techniques) can be used for RSPDP. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of the "Kimura-first" strategy for RSPDP and to investigate the risk factors affecting the preservation of the spleen and splenic vessels.

METHODS

The electronic medical records of patients who underwent robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) between October 2016 and December 2019 at our institution were retrospectively reviewed. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to identify the risk factors influencing preservation of the spleen and splenic vessels during RDP.

RESULTS

Sixty-one patients scheduled for RSPDP who received RDP were included in this study [Kimura technique, 41 patients; Warshaw technique, 11 patients; and robotic distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy (RDPS), 9 patients]. The overall splenic preservation rate with RDP was 85.2% (52/61). The preservation rate of splenic vessels with the Kimura technique with RSPDP was 78.8% (41/52). The RSPDP group had remarkably less estimated blood loss (EBL; median 50 vs. 300 mL, P=0.000) and a lower morbidity rate (13.5% vs. 44.4%, P=0.047) than the RDPS group. The logistic regression models showed that obvious splenic vessel compression by the tumor was an independent risk factor for splenic vessel preservation with RSPDP (OR 0.021, 95% CI: 0.002-0.271, P=0.003) and RDP (OR 0.019, 95% CI: 0.002-0.176, P=0.000).

CONCLUSIONS

The "Kimura-first" strategy is feasible and safe for RSPDP, with high rates of splenic and splenic vessel preservation. Obvious splenic vessel compression by the tumor can be used as a predictor of splenic vessel preservation with planned RDP.

Applying the Delphi process for development of a hepatopancreaticobiliary robotic surgery training curriculum

BACKGROUND

Robotic hepatopancreaticobiliary (HPB) procedures are performed worldwide and establishing processes for safe adoption of this technology is essential for patient benefit. We report results of the Delphi process to define and optimize robotic training procedures for HPB surgeons.

METHODS

In 2019, a robotic HPB surgery panel with an interest in surgical training from the Americas and Europe was created and met. An e-consensus-finding exercise using the Delphi process was applied and consensus was defined as 80% agreement on each question. Iterations of anonymous voting continued over three rounds.

RESULTS

Members agreed on several points: there was need for a standardized robotic training curriculum for HPB surgery that considers experience of surgeons and based on a robotic hepatectomy includes a common approach for "basic robotic skills" training (e-learning module, including hardware description, patient selection, port placement, docking, troubleshooting, fundamentals of robotic surgery, team training and efficiency, and emergencies) and an "advanced technical skills curriculum" (e-learning, including patient selection information, cognitive skills, and recommended operative equipment lists). A modular approach to index procedures should be used with video demonstrations, port placement for index procedure, troubleshooting, and emergency scenario management information. Inexperienced surgeons should undergo training in basic robotic skills and console proficiency, transitioning to full procedure training of e-learning (video demonstration, simulation training, case observation, and final evaluation). Experienced surgeons should undergo basic training when using a new system (e-learning, dry lab, and operating room (OR) team training, virtual reality modules, and wet lab; case observations were unnecessary for basic training) and should complete the advanced index procedural robotic curriculum with assessment by wet lab, case observation, and OR team training.

CONCLUSIONS

Optimization and standardization of training and education of HPB surgeons in robotic procedures was agreed upon. Results are being incorporated into future curriculum for education in robotic surgery.

[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.

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.

A single institution experience with robotic and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies

BACKGROUNDS/AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

OBJECTIVE

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

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

A retrospective comparison of robotic versus laparoscopic distal resection and enucleation for potentially benign pancreatic neoplasms

PURPOSE

The present study aimed to compare robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic distal pancreatic resection and enucleation for potentially benign pancreatic neoplasms.

METHODS

Patients were retrieved from a prospectively maintained database. Demographic data, tumor types, and the perioperative outcomes were retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

In a 10-year period, 75 patients (female, n = 44; male, n = 31; median age, 53 years [range, 9-84 years]) were identified. The majority of patients had pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (n = 39, 52%) and cystic neoplasms (n = 23, 31%) with a median tumor size of 17 (3-60) mm. Nineteen (25.3%) patients underwent enucleation (robotic, n = 11; laparoscopic, n = 8) and 56 (74.7%) patients underwent distal pancreatic resection (robotic, n = 24; laparoscopic, n = 32), of those 48 (85%) underwent spleen-preserving procedures. Eight (10.7%) procedures had to be converted to open surgery. The rate of vessel preservation in distal pancreatectomy was significantly higher in robotic-assisted procedures (62.5% vs. 12.5%, p = 0.01). Twenty-six (34.6%) patients experienced postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo grade > 3). Twenty (26.7%) patients developed a pancreatic fistula type B. There was no mortality. After a median follow-up period of 58 months (range 2-120 months), one patient (1.3%) developed local recurrence (glucagonoma) after enucleation, which was treated with a Whipple procedure.

CONCLUSION

The robotic approach is comparably safe, but increases the rate of splenic vessel preservation and reduces the risk of conversion to open surgery.