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

Propensity score-matching analysis of retrograde artery first approach pancreatosplenectomy versus radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy for 'shoulder' pancreatic cancers

BACKGROUND

'Shoulder' pancreatic cancer is a challenging situation owing to its close proximity to the branches of the celiac artery and portal vein (PV). A pioneering study demonstrated the feasibility of retrograde artery first approach pancreatosplenectomy (RAFAPS) in treating 'shoulder' pancreatic cancer. However, comparative studies on this topic are lacking.

METHODS

In this single-centre cohort study, we retrospectively enrolled consecutive 'shoulder' pancreatic cancer cases from September 2019 to May 2023. Based on propensity score-matching analysis, we compared the safety and short-term oncological outcomes between RAFAPS and radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (RAMPS) for 'shoulder' pancreatic cancers. The primary outcome was a negative retroperitoneal margin rate.

RESULTS

In total, 135 (17.0%) 'shoulder' pancreatic cancers were identified among 794 pancreatic cancers during the study period. After matching based on body mass index, tumour size, distance from the right edge of the tumour to the left wall of the PV, and neoadjuvant chemotherapy, a cohort of 78 patients was selected for analysis (1:1 match, 39 per group). Invasion of splenic vein, splenic artery and PV were found in 40 (51.3%), 28 (35.9%) and 23 (29.5%) patients, respectively. RAFAPS was associated with a higher rate of negative retroperitoneal margins (100% vs 84.6%; relative risk = 1.18, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.034-1.351; P = 0.025) and less estimated blood loss (150 vs 300 ml; estimated difference: - 100 ml, 95% CI: - 200-0; P = 0.039) when compared to that of RAMPS.

CONCLUSION

RAFAPS is a safe and effective alternative to RAMPS for managing 'shoulder' pancreatic cancers in a minimally invasive era, with decreased blood loss and favourable retroperitoneal margin.

Single-docking robot-assisted radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy with partial left nephrectomy in a patient with synchronous pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasm and clear cell renal cell carcinoma

ABSTRACT

The synchronous occurrence of pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasm (PNEN) and clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) in one patient is extremely rare. Synchronous resection of both tumours is preferred over a two-stage procedure if possible. The robotic da Vinci Xi platform allows for multi-quadrant surgery with oncological outcomes comparable to those of laparoscopic or open surgery. We present the case report of an 80-year-old male who underwent synchronous resection of a PNEN in the tail of the pancreas and ccRCC in the left kidney. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first case report on this topic.

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.

Conversion to open surgery in obese patients undergoing minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy: results from a multicenter analysis

BACKGROUND

Although minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) is considered a standard approach it still presents a non-negligible rate of conversion to open that is mainly related to some difficulty factors, as obesity. The aim of this study is to analyze the preoperative factors associated with conversion in obese patients with MIDP.

METHODS

In this multicenter study, all obese patients who underwent MIDP at 18 international expert centers were included. The preoperative factors associated with conversion to open surgery were analyzed.

RESULTS

Out of 436 patients, 91 (20.9%) underwent conversion to open, presenting higher blood loss, longer operative time and similar rate of major complications. Twenty (22%) patients received emergent conversion. At univariate analysis, the type of approach, radiological invasion of adjacent organs, preoperative enlarged lymphnodes and ASA ≥ III were significantly associated with conversion to open. At multivariate analysis, robotic approach showed a significantly lower conversion rate (14.6 % vs 27.3%, OR = 2.380, p = 0.001). ASA ≥ III (OR = 2.391, p = 0.002) and preoperative enlarged lymphnodes (OR = 3.836, p = 0.003) were also independently associated with conversion.

CONCLUSION

Conversion rate is significantly lower in patients undergoing robotic approach. Radiological enlarged lymphnodes and ASA ≥ III are also associated with conversion to open. Conversion is associated with poorer perioperative outcomes, especially in case of intraoperative hemorrhage.

Long-Term Outcomes of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Ablation Vs Surgery for Pancreatic Cystic Tumors

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided pancreatic cyst ablation (EUS-PCA) is performed as an alternative to surgical resection in selected patients with pancreatic cystic tumors (PCTs). We aimed to directly compare the long-term outcomes between EUS-PCA and surgery for PCTs.

METHODS

We reviewed a PCT database to identify patients with unilocular or oligolocular PCTs who underwent EUS-PCA or surgery between January 2004 and July 2019. We performed 1:1 propensity score matching based on potential confounding factors. The primary outcome was long-term morbidities. Secondary outcomes included early (≤14 days) and late (>14 days) major adverse events (MAEs), development of diabetes mellitus, readmission, length of hospital stay, and therapeutic efficacy.

RESULTS

A total of 620 patients (EUS-PCA, n = 310; surgery, n = 310) were selected after propensity score matching. The EUS-PCA group showed a lower 10-year rate of cumulative long-term morbidities (1.6% vs 33.5%; P = .001) as well as lower rates of early MAE (1.0% vs 8.7%; P = .001), late MAE (0.3% vs 5.5%; P = .001), and readmission (1.0% vs 15.2%; P = .001). The EUS-PCA group had a shorter hospital stay (3.5 vs 10.3 d; P = .001) and a lower incidence of diabetes mellitus (2.2% vs 22.8%; P = .001), whereas the surgery group had a higher complete resolution rate (76.5% vs 100%; P = .001) and a lower relapse rate (4.6% vs 0.3%; P = .001).

CONCLUSIONS

For select patients with PCTs, EUS-PCA showed superior results to surgery in terms of long-term safety profile and preservation of pancreatic function.

Comparison of perioperative and oncologic outcomes after open, laparoscopic, and robotic distal pancreatectomy: a single-center retrospective study

As minimally invasive surgery gains grounds, surgeons are switching more towards laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) and robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) as opposed to open distal pancreatectomy (ODP). Through this study, we aimed at exploring the differences in perioperative and oncologic outcomes among the three surgical methods. We retrospectively collected data from 303 patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy (DP) at a single high-volume institution between June 2015 and December 2021. We equally compared the perioperative and oncologic outcomes in patients who underwent ODP, LDP, and RDP by analyzing clinicopathologic and survival data. We consecutively included 303 cases in the study: open = 147 (48.5%), laparoscopic = 50 (16.5%), and robotic = 106 (35.0%). The median tumor size was significantly larger in the ODP group (P < 0.001) compared to the others. Cases in the RDP group experienced a longer duration of surgery (P < 0.001), smaller amount of blood loss (P < 0.001), smaller amount of blood transfusion (P = 0.042), and a shorter duration of hospital stay (p = 0.040) compared to cases in the ODP group. There was no significant difference observed when comparing other postoperative outcomes across the groups. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were similar across the significant differences among the three groups. The short-term postoperative and oncologic outcomes observed in the RDP and LDP groups were not inferior to those in the ODP group. The RDP has some perioperative advantages over the ODP. Therefore, RDP and LDP can safely and feasibly be performed in selected pancreatic tumors by experienced pancreatic surgeons.

Learning curve of robotic-assisted splenic vessel-preserving spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy by one single surgeon: a retrospective cohort study

AIM

Splenic vessel-preserving spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (SVP-SPDP) has a lower risk of splenic infarction than the splenicvessel-sacrificing SPDP, but it is more technically demanding. Learning curve of robotic-assisted SVP-SPDP (RSVP-SPDP) remains unreported. This study sought to analyze the perioperative outcomes and learning curve of RSVP-SPDP by one single surgeon.

METHODS

Seventy-four patients who were intended to receive RSVP-SPDP at the First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University between May 2015 and January 2023 were included. The learning curve were retrospectively analyzed by using cumulative sum (CUSUM) analyses.

RESULTS

Sixty-two patients underwent RSVP-SPDP (spleen preservation rate: 83.8%). According to CUSUM curve, the operation time (median, 318 vs. 220 min; P < 0.001) and intraoperative blood loss (median, 50 vs. 50 mL; P = 0.012) was improved significantly after 16 cases. Blood transfusion rate (12.5% vs. 3.4%; P = 0.202), postoperative major morbidity rate (6.3% vs. 3.4%; P = 0.524), and postoperative length-of-stay (median, 10 vs. 8 days; P = 0.120) improved after 16 cases but did not reach statistical difference. None of the patients had splenic infarction or abscess postoperatively.

CONCLUSION

RSVP-SPDP was a safe and feasible approach for selected patients after learning curve. The improvement of operation time and intraoperative blood loss was achieved after 16 cases.

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.

Distal pancreatectomy with or without radical approach, vascular resections and splenectomy: Easier does not always mean easy

Because distal pancreatectomy (DP) has no reconstructive steps and less frequent vascular involvement, it is thought to be the easier counterpart of pancreaticoduodenectomy. This procedure has a high surgical risk and the overall incidences of perioperative morbidity (mainly pancreatic fistula), and mortality are still high, in addition to the challenges that accompany delayed access to adjuvant therapies (if any) and prolonged impairment of daily activities. Moreover, surgery to remove malignancy of the body or tail of the pancreas is associated with poor long-term oncological outcomes. From this perspective, new surgical approaches, and aggressive techniques, such as radical antegrade modular pancreato-splenectomy and DP with celiac axis resection, could lead to improved survival in those affected by more locally advanced tumors. Conversely, minimally invasive approaches such as laparoscopic and robotic surgeries and the avoidance of routine concomitant splenectomy have been developed to reduce the burden of surgical stress. The purpose of ongoing surgical research has been to achieve significant reductions in perioperative complications, length of hospital stays and the time between surgery and the beginning of adjuvant chemotherapy. Because a dedicated multidisciplinary team is crucial to pancreatic surgery, hospital and surgeon volumes have been confirmed to be associated with better outcomes in patients affected by benign, borderline, and malignant diseases of the pancreas. The purpose of this review is to examine the state of the art in distal pancreatectomies, with a special focus on minimally invasive approaches and oncological-directed techniques. The widespread reproducibility, cost-effectiveness and long-term results of each oncological procedure are also taken into deep consideration.

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.

Minimally Invasive Pancreatectomy: Robotic and Laparoscopic Developments

Minimally invasive pancreatectomy is increasingly used. Although offering potential advantages over open approaches, minimally invasive pancreatectomy has many challenges to maintain high-quality of oncologic resection. Multiple patient and surgical factors should be considered in planning laparoscopic or robotic resection, including the learning curve required to produce proficiency. For pancreaticoduodenectomy, distal pancreatectomy, and other pancreatic resections, a safe, margin-negative resection remains the goal. National and societal guidelines for the adoption of minimally invasive pancreatectomy are ongoing and will continue to be important as these techniques are further adopted.

Use and outcome of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery in the European E-MIPS registry

BACKGROUND

The European registry for minimally invasive pancreatic surgery (E-MIPS) collects data on laparoscopic and robotic MIPS in low- and high-volume centers across Europe.

METHODS

Analysis of the first year (2019) of the E-MIPS registry, including minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) and minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD). Primary outcome was 90-day mortality.

RESULTS

Overall, 959 patients from 54 centers in 15 countries were included, 558 patients underwent MIDP and 401 patients MIPD. Median volume of MIDP was 10 (7-20) and 9 (2-20) for MIPD. Median use of MIDP was 56.0% (IQR 39.0-77.3%) and median use of MIPD 27.7% (IQR 9.7-45.3%). MIDP was mostly performed laparoscopic (401/558, 71.9%) and MIPD mostly robotic (234/401, 58.3%). MIPD was performed in 50/54 (89.3%) centers, of which 15/50 (30.0%) performed ≥20 MIPD annually. This was 30/54 (55.6%) centers and 13/30 (43%) centers for MIPD respectively. Conversion rate was 10.9% for MIDP and 8.4% for MIPD. Overall 90 day mortality was 1.1% (n = 6) for MIDP and 3.7% (n = 15) for MIPD.

CONCLUSION

Within the E-MIPS registry, MIDP is performed in about half of all patients, mostly using laparoscopy. MIPD is performed in about a quarter of patients, slightly more often using the robotic approach. A minority of centers met the Miami guideline volume criteria for MIPD.

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.

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.

Comparison of 180° anti-reflux mucosectomy versus 270° anti-reflux mucosectomy for treatment of refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Anti-reflux mucosectomy (ARMS) is a novel endoscopic treatment for refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease (rGERD). Several studies have validated its safety and effectiveness, but postoperative dysphagia remains in concern. Since the influence of different resection ranges on efficacy and complications of ARMS has rarely been studied, this study aimed to compare outcomes of 180°ARMS and 270°ARMS in treatment of rGERD.

METHODS

This study was conducted from August 2017 to September 2020. 39 eligible patients underwent either 180° ARMS or 270° ARMS and followed up at 6 months postoperation. Primary outcome measure was assessed by Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Questionnaire (GERD-Q). Secondary outcomes included quality of life, PPI use, gastroesophageal flap valve grade, presence of reflux esophagitis, acid exposure time (AET), distal contractile integral (DCI), and integrated relaxation pressure (IRP) measured by high-resolution manometry (HRM) and complication rate. Per-protocol analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Among 39 patients, 18 underwent 180° ARMS, while 21 underwent 270° ARMS. At postoperative 6 months follow-up period, primary outcome showed no significant difference between two groups (p = 0.34). Similarly, no significant difference was demonstrated between groups regarding most secondary outcomes except for fewer complaints of newly dysphagia in 180° ARMS group. No other serious complications were observed in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Although 180° ARMS and 270° ARMS could be equally effective for treatment of rGERD, 180° ARMS might be more recommended due to lower incidence of newly post-procedural dysphagia.

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy: Laparoscopic versus robotic approach-A cohort study

Background and Aims

There is no consensus on the superiority of robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) over laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP).

Methods

Data of patients undergoing RDP and LDP were prospectively collected and compared.

Results

There were 65 RDP and 112 LDP. RDP took a shorter operation time than LDP. Overall, DP with splenectomy took a longer operation time than that with spleen preservation. This difference was only significant in LDP group. In both RDP and LDP groups, splenectomy was associated with increased blood loss, as compared with spleen preservation. No significant differences were observed in surgical morbidity between RDP and LDP. The hospital cost in RDP was almost double that of LDP, with a median of 13,404 versus 7765 USD.

Conclusion

LDP is comparable to RDP in regard to surgical outcomes. LDP with spleen preservation is highly recommended whenever possible and feasible for benign or low malignant lesions in terms of lower costs and less blood loss.

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy: Chronologic changes in the trends and clinical outcomes through a 15-year, single-center experience with 2212 patients

BACKGROUND

We identified the chronologic changes in the clinical outcomes of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) for left-sided pancreatic tumors in a single high-volume center over a period of 15 years.

METHODS

Between 2005 and 2019, 2212 patients underwent planned MIDP. Chronologic changes were analyzed according to 5-year intervals (P1, P2, P3). Furthermore, we assessed the prognostic factors of open conversion and postoperative complications.

RESULTS

MIDP has steadily increased during the last 15 years when compared to open distal pancreatectomy, from 10.8% to 84.9%. Also, MIDP for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) has been steadily increasing from 5.6% to 68.4%. According to the 5-year intervals, lengths of hospital stay decreased, but age and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) ≥3 increased; conversely, the rates of Clavien-Dindo classification ≥grade 3 (9.5%) and postoperative pancreatic fistula (39.7%) showed no differences. The 90-day mortality and open conversion rates were 0.2% and 3.5%, respectively. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed malignancy and extended pancreatectomy were risk factors for open conversion. Furthermore, the poor prognostic factors for severe complications were malignancy, extended pancreatectomy, and ASA ≥3.

CONCLUSION

MIDP has become a popular procedure not only for benign cases but also for malignant ones. However, well-organized training, experience and skill are necessary, especially for poor-performance patients and extensively malignant conditions.

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 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].

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 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.

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.

Essential updates 2018/2019: Current topics in the surgical treatment of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is highly malignant. While cancers in other organs have shown clear improvements in 5-year survival, the 5-year survival rate of pancreatic cancer is approximately 10%. Early relapse and metastasis are not uncommon, making it difficult to achieve an acceptable prognosis even after complete surgical resection of the pancreas. Studies have been performed on various treatments to improve the prognosis of PDAC, and multidisciplinary approaches including non-surgical treatments have led to gradual improvement. In the present literature review, we have described the significance of anatomical and biological resectability criteria, the concept of R0 resection in surgical treatment, the feasibility of minimally invasive surgery, the remarkable development of perioperative chemotherapy, the effectiveness of conversion surgery for unresectable PDAC, and ongoing challenges in PDAC treatment. We also provide an essential update on these subjects by focusing on recent trends and topics.

"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.

Robotic vs open distal pancreatectomy: A multi-institutional matched comparison analysis

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic surgery is still a challenge even in high-volume centers. Clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) represents the greatest contributor to major morbidity and mortality, especially following pancreatic distal resection. In this study, we compared robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) to open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) in terms of CR-POPF development and analyzed oncologic efficacy of RDP in the subgroup of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).

METHODS

We collected data from five high-volume centers for pancreatic surgery and performed a matched comparison analysis to compare short and long-term outcomes after ODP or RDP. Patients were matched with a 2:1 ratio according to age, ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) score, body mass index (BMI), final pathology, and TNM (Tumour, Node, Metastasis) staging system VIII ed.

RESULTS

Two hundred and forty-six patients who underwent 82 RDPs and 164 ODPs were included. No differences were found in the incidence of CR-POPF. In the PDAC group, median DFS and OS were 10.8 months and 14.8 months in the ODP group and 10.4 months and 15 months in the RDP group, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic distal pancreatectomy is a safe surgical strategy for PDAC and incidence of CR-POPF is equivalent between RDP and ODP. RDP should be considered equivalent to ODP in terms of oncological efficacy when performed in high-volume and proficient centers.

Adoption of Robotic Liver, Pancreatic and Biliary Surgery in Singapore: A Single Institution Experience with Its First 100 Consecutive Cases

Introduction: Presently, robotic hepatopancreatobiliary surgery (RHPBS) is increasingly adopted worldwide. This study reports our experience with the first 100 consecutive cases of RHPBS in Singapore. Methods: Retrospective review of a single-institution prospective database of the first 100 consecutive RHPBS performed over 6 years from February 2013 to February 2019. Eighty-six cases were performed by a single surgeon. Results: The 100 consecutive cases included 24 isolated liver resections, 48 pancreatic surgeries (including 2 bile duct resections) and 28 biliary surgeries (including 8 with concomitant liver resections). They included 10 major hepatectomies, 15 pancreaticoduodenectomies, 6 radical resections for gallbladder carcinoma and 8 hepaticojejunostomies. The median operation time was 383 minutes, with interquartile range (IQR) of 258 minutes and there were 2 open conversions. The median blood loss was 200ml (IQR 350ml) and 15 patients required intra-operative blood transfusion. There were no post-operative 90-day nor in-hospital mortalities but 5 patients experienced major (> grade 3a) morbidities. The median post-operative stay was 6 days (IQR 5 days) and there were 12 post-operative 30-day readmissions. Comparison between the first 50 and the subsequent 50 patients demonstrated a significant reduction in blood loss, significantly lower proportion of malignant indications, and a decreasing frequency in liver resections performed. Conclusion: Our experience with the first 100 consecutive cases of RHPBS confirms its feasibility and safety when performed by experienced laparoscopic hepatopancreatobiliary surgeons. It can be performed for even highly complicated major hepatopancreatobiliary surgery with a low open conversion rate. Keywords: Biliary surgery, hepaticojejunostomy, liver resection, pancreas, pancreaticoduodenectomy

Robotic pancreatectomy for intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm of the pancreas: A large-scale study

BACKGROUND

Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) of the pancreas is a mucin-producing tumor that develops from the epithelial lining of the main pancreatic duct or branch pancreatic ducts. Here, we assessed the feasibility and safety of various robotic pancreatectomy approaches to treating IPMN, and short- and long-term outcomes of robotic IPMN resection.

METHODS

Data from patients who underwent robotic pancreatectomy for IPMN between 2012 and 2019 at our hospital were retrospectively analyzed. The survival outcomes for patients were compared using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression analysis.

RESULTS

Of the 174 patients who underwent robotic pancreatectomy, 120 and 54 patients had benign or malignant tumors, respectively. Patients with malignant IPMN had lost more weight in the 6 months prior to surgery (P = .008), and a higher serum level of CA19-9 (P < .001) and CEA (P < .001). Postoperative pancreatic or biliary fistula occurred in 17 or 6 patients overall, respectively. The pathology of the IPMN (P = .030), tumor diameter (P = .016), mural nodule (P = .023), tumor capsule (P = .003) and CA19-9 (P = .024) values were all independent risk factors for survival. The median OS time after surgical resection for the malignant IPMN group was 29.0 months (range, 21.6-36.4). The OS was significantly different in patients with IPMN according to their different pathology, tumor capsule, mural nodule group, CA19-9 level, or tumor diameter.

CONCLUSIONS

This large-scale survey of 174 patients indicated that various robotic pancreatectomy approaches were feasible and safe for IPMN. Patients had an acceptable prognosis, indicating that robotic pancreatectomy represents a feasible potential therapeutic strategy for IPMN.

Left-posterior approach for artery-first en bloc resection in laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for left-sided pancreatic cancer

PURPOSE

We describe a "left-posterior approach" in which the important steps in laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) for left-sided pancreatic cancer are accomplished in the direction caudal and dorsal to the pancreas.

METHODS

The patients who underwent LDP with a left-posterior approach at our hospital from January 2016 to April 2020 were reviewed to evaluate the short-term postoperative outcomes. In LDP, we first dissected retroperitoneal tissues above the left renal vein and superior mesenteric artery, yielding the mobilization of the pancreatic body widely. Then, the splenic artery was divided behind the ventrally lifted pancreas as an artery-first approach. The regional lymphadenectomy was performed in an en bloc manner consecutively in the same operative field. The neck of the pancreas was transected with a linear stapler after mobilization of the spleen.

RESULTS

In nine patients (five men and four women) aged 76 years (range: 64-82 years), the operative time was 398 min (276-482 min) with the estimated blood loss of 40 ml (0-80 ml). No patients developed grade B/C pancreatic fistula or delayed gastric emptying. Postoperative complications classified as grade III in the Clavien-Dindo classification occurred in one patient (abdominal abscess). The pathology confirmed R0 resection in all patients who had pancreatic cancer (n = 5), IPMNs (n = 3), and high-grade pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PanIN) (n = 1). The number of retrieved lymph nodes was 35 (11-49).

CONCLUSION

The procedure with a left-posterior approach is a rational surgical technique in LDP for left-sided pancreatic cancer.

Retrograde artery first approach for "shoulder" pancreatic cancers in minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND

"Shoulder" pancreatic cancer, defined as tumor located at the confluence where the splenic vein meets the portal vein, has specific adjacent anatomies. It's difficult to resect this type of tumor with adequate regional lymphadenectomy.

METHODS

We described a new concept of "shoulder" pancreatic cancer, and retrospectively analyzed eleven consecutive cases from September 2019 to April 2020, to assess the safety and efficacy of the retrograde artery first approach in minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy. The primary outcome was set as radical (R0) resection rate.

RESULTS

All of the 11 cases achieved R0 resection, with a median of 8 (range 5-32) lymph nodes harvested, given the ratio of embraced splenic vein in 72.7% of the cases, splenic artery embracement in 45.5%, and SMV-PV wall invasion in 27.3%. The maximum tumor size on pathology was 35 (range 20-65) mm. The median operative time was 260 (range 155-470) min, and the median estimated blood loss was 200 (range 50-1000) ml. One case needed intraoperative transfusion. One grade B postoperative pancreatic fistula occurred accompanied with abdominal infection, while the rest of cases recovered uneventful. The median postoperative length of stay was 9 (range 6-20) days.

CONCLUSIONS

"Shoulder" pancreatic cancers are clinically significant. Retrograde artery first approach is a potentially safe and effective alternative to achieve a radical resection margin for shoulder pancreatic cancers in minimally invasive era. More evidences are needed in the future.

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.

Application of artificial intelligence for the diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis of pancreatic cancer

Pancreatic cancer is a complex cancer of the digestive tract. Diagnosis and treatment can be very difficult because of unclear early symptoms, the deep anatomical location of cancer tissues, and the high degree of cancer cell invasion. The prognosis is extremely poor; the 5-year survival rate of patients with pancreatic cancer is less than 1%. Artificial intelligence (AI) has great potential for application in the medical field. In addition to AI-based applications, such as disease data processing, imaging, and pathological image recognition, robotic surgery has revolutionized surgical procedures. To better understand the current role of AI in pancreatic cancer and predict future development trends, this article comprehensively reports the application of AI to the diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis of pancreatic cancer.