Single-centre comparison of robotic and open pancreatoduodenectomy: a propensity score-matched study

Comparing Operative Outcomes and Resection Quality in Robotic vs Open Pancreaticoduodenectomy: A Meta-analysis of 54,000 Patients

BACKGROUND

High morbidity and mortality make pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) one of the most complicated surgical procedures. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the outcomes of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD).

METHOD

A comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Cochrane Central, and Google Scholar was conducted from inception to November 2024. Studies comparing RPD and OPD in adults aged ≥ 18 years were included. Data for the outcomes of interest were extracted.

RESULTS

Forty-one studies with a total of 54,287 patients were pooled. RPD is significantly superior to OPD in terms of overall postoperative complications (RR = 0.91, 95% CI: [0.86-0.97]; p = 0.001), wound infections (RR = 0.63, 95% CI: [0.49-0.81], p = 0.0004), estimated blood loss (WMD = -171.99 ml, 95% CI: [ -217.76 to -126.22], p < 0.01) and hospitalization duration (WMD = -1.33 days, 95% CI: [ -1.84 to -0.82], p < 0.01) with a longer operating time (WMD = 73.22 min, 95% CI: [56.20 to 90.23], p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, RPD shows a lower risk of wound infections and overall postoperative morbidity compared to OPD. It has lower estimated blood loss, shorter hospitalization duration, and a longer operating time. The two approaches were comparable in terms of resection quality. More high-quality RCTs are required to draw definite conclusions.

Comparison of short-term outcomes of robotic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and propensity-score-matched studies

BACKGROUND

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) is used more commonly, but this surge is mostly based on observational data. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the short-term outcomes between RPD and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) using data collected from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and propensity-score-matched (PSM) studies.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science databases for RCTs and PSM studies comparing RPD and OPD. Risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.

RESULTS

Twenty-four studies, encompassing two RCTs and 22 PSM studies, were included, with a total of 9393 patients (RPD group: 3919 patients; OPD group: 5474 patients). Although RPD was associated with a longer operative time (MD, 61.61 min), patients may benefit from reduced blood loss (MD, -154.05 ml), shorter length of stay (MD, -1.60 days), lower blood transfusion rate (RR, 0.85), and wound infection rate (RR, 0.61). There were no significant differences observed in 30-day readmission (RR, 0.99), 90-day mortality (RR, 0.97), overall morbidity (RR, 0.88), major complications (RR, 1.01), reoperation (RR, 1.08), bile leak (RR, 1.01), chylous leak (RR, 0.98), postoperative pancreatic fistula (RR, 0.97), post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage (RR, 1.15), delayed gastric emptying (RR, 0.88), number of harvested lymph nodes (MD, -0.12), and R0 resection (RR, 1.01) between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Although some short-term outcomes were similar between RPD and OPD, RPD exhibited reduced intraoperative blood loss, shorter hospital stays, lower wound infection, and blood transfusion rates. In the future, RPD may become a safe and effective alternative to OPD.

Open vs robotic-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy, cost-effectiveness and long-term oncologic outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Whipple pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is a complex gastrointestinal surgery that is performed increasingly via minimally invasive approach through robotic platforms. We sought to provide a comparative review of available data regarding robot-assisted vs open PD in terms of cost-effectiveness, overall survival, and other perioperative and long-term oncologic outcomes.

METHODS

Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses criteria, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched from 1980 to April 2024 using designated keywords. English-language studies comparing costs and oncologic outcomes of robotic vs open PDs were considered for inclusion. Reviews, abstracts, case reports, letters to the editor, and non-English articles were excluded.

RESULTS

A total of 1733 studies were initially identified throughout the literature search. After the removal of duplicates, title and abstract screening identified 16 studies that were included in the review. No statistically significant differences were detected in terms of short-term complications (95% CI, 0.805-1.096; P = .42), mortality (95% CI, 0.599-1.123; P = .21), and readmission (95% CI, 0.959-1.211; P = .20) among patients undergoing open vs robotic PD. Robotic PDs was associated with a slightly better overall survival (95% CI, 1.020-1.233) and higher costs (95% CI, 0.134-1.139; P = .013). Mean length of stay (LOS) was higher in the open PD group (95% CI, -0.353 to 0.189; P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Robotic-assisted PD had a slightly shorter LOS and improved overall survival. There were no differences in short-term complications, mortality, or readmission. The use of cohort studies and residual potential selection bias necessitate randomized controlled trials to define the benefit of robotic PD.

The clinical implication of minimally invasive versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for non-pancreatic periampullary cancer: a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Most studies on minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) combine patients with pancreatic and periampullary cancers even though there is substantial heterogeneity between these tumors. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the role of MIPD compared to open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) in patients with non-pancreatic periampullary cancer (NPPC).

METHODS

A systematic review of Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane databases was performed by two independent reviewers to identify studies comparing MIPD and OPD for NPPC (ampullary, distal cholangio, and duodenal adenocarcinoma) (01/2015-12/2021). Individual patient data were required from all identified studies. Primary outcomes were (90-day) mortality, and major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo 3a-5). Secondary outcomes were postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), delayed gastric emptying (DGE), postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), blood-loss, length of hospital stay (LOS), and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

Overall, 16 studies with 1949 patients were included, combining 928 patients with ampullary, 526 with distal cholangio, and 461 with duodenal cancer. In total, 902 (46.3%) patients underwent MIPD, and 1047 (53.7%) patients underwent OPD. The rates of 90-day mortality, major morbidity, POPF, DGE, PPH, blood-loss, and length of hospital stay did not differ between MIPD and OPD. Operation time was 67 min longer in the MIPD group (P = 0.009). A decrease in DFS for ampullary (HR 2.27, P = 0.019) and distal cholangio (HR 1.84, P = 0.025) cancer, as well as a decrease in OS for distal cholangio (HR 1.71, P = 0.045) and duodenal cancer (HR 4.59, P < 0.001) was found in the MIPD group.

CONCLUSIONS

This individual patient data meta-analysis of MIPD versus OPD in patients with NPPC suggests that MIPD is not inferior in terms of short-term morbidity and mortality. Several major limitations in long-term data highlight a research gap that should be studied in prospective maintained international registries or randomized studies for ampullary, distal cholangio, and duodenum cancer separately.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO (CRD42021277495) on the 25th of October 2021.

Morbidity and survival after laparoscopic versus open pancreatoduodenectomy: propensity score matched comparison

PURPOSE

Technical challenges and a perceived higher risk of complications hinder a wide adoption of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy. We aim to further define the place of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy by comparison with the traditional open approach.

METHODS

A comparison of the surgical outcomes and survival after laparoscopic (LPD) versus open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) was retrospectively performed from a prospectively kept database. To reduce the effect of bias and confounding, baseline characteristics of both groups were matched using propensity score matching (NCT05110573; Nov 8, 2021; retrospectively registered).

RESULTS

From a total of 67 LPD and 105 OPD patients, propensity score matching resulted in two balanced groups of 38 patients. In both groups, 87% of surgeries were performed for cancer. In the LPD group, conversion rate was 22.4%. Mean operative time was significantly longer after LPD versus OPD (320.1 ± 53.8 vs. 277.7 ± 63.8 min; p = .008). Hospital stay was significantly shorter after LPD versus OPD (median 13.5 vs. 17.0 days; p = .039). No significant differences were observed in blood loss, total complication rate (73.7% vs. 86.8%; p = .249), major complication rate (26.5% vs. 10.5%; p = .137), postoperative pancreatic fistula rate (13.2% vs. 7.9%; p = .711), 90-day mortality rate (5.3% vs. 0%; p = .493), R0 resection rate (85.4% vs. 85.8%), or number of lymph nodes (median 10.0 vs. 8.5; p = .273). In cancer patients, no significant differences were observed in overall survival (median 27.1 vs. 23.9 months; p = .693), disease-free survival, or recurrence rate.

CONCLUSION

LPD provided acceptable short-term and oncological outcomes. Compared to OPD, we noted a higher major complication rate, without compromising surgical safety or oncological outcomes.

Surgical methods influence on the risk of anastomotic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Pancreaticoduodenectomy is the first choice surgical intervention for the radical treatment of pancreatic tumors. However, an anastomotic fistula is a common complication after pancreaticoduodenectomy with a high mortality rate. With the development of minimally invasive surgery, open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD), laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD), and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) are gaining interest. But the impact of these surgical methods on the risk of anastomosis has not been confirmed. Therefore, we aimed to integrate relevant clinical studies and explore the effects of these three surgical methods on the occurrence of anastomotic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted for studies reporting the RPD, LPD, and OPD. Network meta-analysis of postoperative anastomotic fistula (Pancreatic fistula, biliary leakage, gastrointestinal fistula) was performed.

RESULTS

Sixty-five studies including 10,026 patients were included in the network meta-analysis. The rank of risk probability of pancreatic fistula for RPD (0.00) was better than LPD (0.37) and OPD (0.62). Thus, the analysis suggests the rank of risk of the postoperative pancreatic fistula for RPD, LPD, and OPD. The rank of risk probability for biliary leakage was similar for RPD (0.15) and LPD (0.15), and both were better than OPD (0.68).

CONCLUSIONS

This network meta-analysis provided ranking for three different types of pancreaticoduodenectomy. The RPD and LPD can effectively improve the quality of surgery and are safe as well as feasible for OPD.

Meta-analysis of robotic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy in all patients and pancreatic cancer patients

Purposes

To compare perioperative outcomes of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) using evidence from cohort studies.

Methods

Outcomes of interest include operative time, blood loss, R0 resection rate, lymph nodes harvested, overall complication rate, pancreatic fistula rate, delayed gastric emptying rate and 90-day mortality.

Results

6 prospective studies and 15 retrospective studies were included. Five of these studies were limited to patients with pancreatic cancer. Operative time was significantly longer in RPD (WMD: 64.60 min; 95% CI: 26.89 to 102.21; p = 0.001). Estimated blood loss was lower in RPD (WMD: −185.44 ml; 95% CI: −239.66 to −131.21; p < 0.001). Overall complication rates (OR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.44 to 0.97; p < 0.001) and pancreatic fistula rate (OR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.55 to 0.82; p < 0.001) were both lower in RPD. Length of hospital stay was longer in OPD (WMD: −1.90; 95% CI: −2.47 to −1.33). 90-day mortality was lower in RPD [odds ratio (OR): 0.77; 95% CI: 0.45 to 0.95; p = 0.025].

Conclusion

At current level of evidence, RPD is a safer alternative than OPD with regard to post-operative outcomes and blood loss. However, in terms of oncological outcomes RPD show no advantage over OPD, and the cost of RPD was higher. In general, RPD is now considered a reliable technology, but high-quality randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies are still needed to support this conclusion.

Minimally Invasive Pancreatoduodenectomy: Contemporary Practice, Evidence, and Knowledge Gaps

Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy has gained popularity throughout the last decade. For laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy, some high-level evidence exists, but with conflicting results. There are currently no published randomized controlled trials comparing robotic and open pancreatoduodenectomy. Comparative long-term data for patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is lacking to date. Based on the existing evidence, current observed benefits of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy over open pancreatoduodenectomy seem scarce, but retrospective data indicate the safety of these procedures in selected patients. As familiarity with the robotic platform increases, studies have shown an expansion in indications, also including patients with vascular involvement and even indicating favorable results in patients with obesity and high-risk morphometric features. Several ongoing randomized controlled trials aim to investigate potential differences in short- and long-term outcomes between minimally invasive and open pancreatoduodenectomy. Their results are much awaited.

Robotic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: Is there any difference for frail patients?

BACKGROUND

Old age and frailty are predictors of early postoperative results after pancreatic surgery. We analysed the results of robotic and open pancreatoduodenectomy in elderly and frail patients.

METHODS

Data from the local robotic pancreatoduodenectomy database were reviewed and matched with those from open operations during the same period (2014-2020). Both old age and frailty were used to determine any correlation with postoperative outcomes. Elderly patients were defined as patients aged 70 years or more, while frailty was classified according to the validated modified Frailty Index.

RESULTS

A total of 118 pancreatoduodenectomies were included in the analysis: 65 (55.1%) robotic and 53 (44.9%) open. More than 50% of patients were frail. Overall, 7.6% of patients experienced grade IV Clavien-Dindo complications, and 3.4% died within 90 days after surgery. Frail patients experienced a similar rate of severe complications after robotic vs. open operations (5.3 vs. 11.6; p = 0.439) but earlier refeeding (3 days vs. 4 days; p = 0.006) and earlier drain removal (6 days vs. 7 days; p = 0.046) when operated on by a robotic approach. The oncological outcomes, including limphnodes retrieval, residual disease, recurrences, and survival, were not influenced by the surgical approach. Non-elderly patients also showed more benefits with the robotic approach (lower complication index, earlier refeeding, and drain removal).

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy is associated with risks of major complications that are comparable to those of open operation in frail patients. Some perioperative parameters (refeeding, drain removal) seem to favour robotics in frail patients and younger patients, although at the price of longer operating times.

Robotic pancreatic surgery: minimally invasive approach to challenging operations

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic surgery is still associated with high perioperative morbidity and mortality. The purpose of this study was to present the short-term outcomes of robot-assisted pancreatic surgery, including pancreaticoduodenectomy (RAPD), distal pancreatectomy (RDP) with or without splenectomy, enucleation (REN), and atypical resection (RAR), for benign, borderline, and malignant lesions at a high-volume center.

METHODS

A single-center, prospective database was used to retrospectively analyze the early outcomes of robotic pancreatic procedures completed between 2014 and 2020. Out of 124 attempted operations, 3 patients received palliative robotic surgery (2.4%). Of the remaining 121, 14 (11.6%) were converted to open surgery. The robotic procedures included 107 patients: 56 underwent RAPD, 31 underwent RDP (28 with and 3 without splenectomy), 16 underwent REN, and 4 underwent RAR (2 central and 2 total pancreatectomies).

RESULTS

The preoperative baseline characteristics and comorbidities were consistent with those of a Western population. The overall incidence of complications was 43.9%, with the more severe (Clavien-Dindo III-IV) occurring after RAPD (19.6%). We collected 7 (13.1%) postoperative pancreatic fistulae after RAPD, 5 (16.1%) after RADP, and 2 (12.5%) after REN. The two central pancreatectomies developed a biochemical leak without sequelae. Three patients (2.8%) died within 90 days after surgery. Early refeeding was achieved in those who did not experience severe complications, while the median hospital stay was 8 days. The median number of harvested lymph nodes was 22, with non-R1 microscopic residual tumors found.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic pancreatic surgery is a safe and oncologically adequate technique to manage benign and malignant diseases arising from the head, body, and tail of the pancreas.

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy provides better histopathological outcomes as compared to its open counterpart: a meta-analysis

The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate whether robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) may provide better clinical and pathologic outcomes compared to its open counterpart. The Pubmed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were systematically searched. Overall postoperative morbidity and resection margin involvement rate were the primary endpoints. Secondary endpoints included operating time, estimated blood loss (EBL), incisional surgical site infection (SSI) rate, length of hospital stay (LOS), and number of lymph nodes harvested. Twenty-four studies totaling 12,579 patients (2,175 robotic PD and 10,404 open PD were included. Overall postoperative mortality did not significantly differ [OR (95%CI) = 0.86 (0.74, 1.01); p = 0.06]. Resection margin involvement rate was significantly lower in robotic PD [15.6% vs. 19.9%; OR (95%CI) = 0.64 (0.41, 1.00); p = 0.05; NNT = 23]. Operating time was significantly longer in robotic PD [MD (95%CI) = 75.17 (48.05, 102.28); p < 0.00001]. EBL was significantly decreased in robotic PD [MD (95%CI) = - 191.35 (- 238.12, - 144.59); p < 0.00001]. Number of lymph nodes harvested was significantly higher in robotic PD [MD (95%CI) = 2.88 (1.12, 4.65); p = 0.001]. This meta-analysis found that robotic PD provides better histopathological outcomes as compared to open PD at the cost of longer operating time. Furthermore, robotic PD did not have any detrimental impact on clinical outcomes, with lower wound infection rates.