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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Cost-effectiveness of open versus laparoscopic pancreatectomy: A nationwide, population-based study

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic pancreatic resection is comparable to open pancreatic resection; however, cost-effectiveness analyses of laparoscopic pancreatic resection are scarce. The authors performed a population-based study investigating the cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic pancreatic resection versus open pancreatic resection.

METHODS

Data from 9,256 patients who received pancreaticoduodenectomy (66.8%) and distal pancreatectomy (33.2%) from 2016 to 2018 were retrieved from the Korean National Health Insurance Service. Events after pancreatectomy were categorized as no complication, complication, and death. Probabilities of each event and average cost during index admission and 1 year were utilized to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, the cost difference between two interventions divided by quality-adjusted life year. Quality-adjusted life year, a function of length and quality of life, was measured with utility values determined by researching literature.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic pancreatic resection was performed in 12.4% of pancreaticoduodenectomies and 53.4% of distal pancreatectomies. For pancreaticoduodenectomy, laparoscopic pancreatic resection was associated with an increase of 0.0022 quality-adjusted life years for index admission and 0.0023 quality-adjusted life years for 1 year compared with open pancreatic resection. The incremental cost was $321 for index admission and -$1,414 for 1 year, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $147,429 per quality-adjusted life year gained for index admission and -$614,965 per quality-adjusted life year gained for 1 year. For distal pancreatectomy, laparoscopic pancreatic resection improved 0.0131 quality-adjusted life years for index admission and 0.0285 quality-adjusted life years for index admission. The incremental cost was -$1,240 for index admission and -$5,875 for 1 year, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of -$94,519 per quality-adjusted life year gained for index admission and -$206,351 for 1 year.

CONCLUSION

laparoscopic pancreatic resection was a cost-effective alternative to open pancreatic resection for pancreaticoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy, except for the higher cost of index admission for pancreaticoduodenectomy.

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.

Quality of life after pancreatic surgery

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic surgery is challenging owing to the anatomical characteristics of the pancreas. Increasing attention has been paid to changes in quality of life (QOL) after pancreatic surgery.

AIM

To summarize and analyze current research results on QOL after pancreatic surgery.

METHODS

A systematic search of the literature available on PubMed and EMBASE was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Relevant studies were identified by screening the references of retrieved articles. Studies on patients' QOL after pancreatic surgery published after January 1, 2012, were included. These included prospective and retrospective studies on patients' QOL after several types of pancreatic surgeries. The results of these primary studies were summarized inductively.

RESULTS

A total of 45 articles were included in the study, of which 13 were related to pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD), seven to duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resection (DPPHR), nine to distal pancreatectomy (DP), two to central pancreatectomy (CP), and 14 to total pancreatectomy (TP). Some studies showed that 3-6 months were needed for QOL recovery after PD, whereas others showed that 6-12 months was more accurate. Although TP and PD had similar influences on QOL, patients needed longer to recover to preoperative or baseline levels after TP. The QOL was better after DPPHR than PD. However, the superiority of the QOL between patients who underwent CP and PD remains controversial. The decrease in exocrine and endocrine functions postoperatively was the main factor affecting the QOL. Minimally invasive surgery could improve patients' QOL in the early stages after PD and DP; however, the long-term effect remains unclear.

CONCLUSION

The procedure among PD, DP, CP, and TP with a superior postoperative QOL is controversial. The long-term benefits of minimally invasive versus open surgeries remain unclear. Further prospective trials are warranted.

ROBOTIC ASSISTED VERSUS LAPAROSCOPIC DISTAL PANCREATECTOMY: A RETROSPECTIVE STUDY

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) is associated with less blood loss and faster functional recovery. However, the benefits of robotic assisted distal pancreatectomy (RDP) over laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) are unknown.

AIMS

To compare RDP versus LDP for surgical treatment of benign lesions, pre-malignant and borderline malignant pancreatic neoplasias.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study comparing LDP with RDP. Main outcomes were overall morbidity and overall costs. Secondary outcomes were pancreatic fistula (PF), infectious complications, readmission, operative time (OT) and length of hospital stay (LOS).

RESULTS

Thirty patients submitted to LDP and 29 submitted to RDP were included in the study. There was no difference regarding preoperative characteristics. There was no difference regarding overall complications (RDP - 72,4% versus LDP - 80%, p=0,49). Costs were superior for patients submitted to RDP (RDP=US$ 6,688 versus LDP=US$ 6,149, p=0,02), mostly due to higher costs of surgical materials (RDP=US$ 2,364 versus LDP=1,421, p=0,00005). Twenty-one patients submitted to RDP and 24 to LDP developed pancreatic fistula (PF), but only 4 RDP and 7 LDP experienced infectious complications associated with PF. OT (RDP=224 min. versus LDP=213 min., p=0.36) was similar, as well as conversion to open procedure (1 RDP and 2 LDP).

CONCLUSIONS

The postoperative morbidity of robotic distal pancreatectomy is comparable to laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. However, the costs of robotic distal pancreatectomy are slightly higher.

A systematic review of full economic evaluations of robotic-assisted surgery in thoracic and abdominopelvic procedures

This study aims to conduct a systematic review of full economic analyses of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) in adults' thoracic and abdominopelvic indications. Authors used Medline, EMBASE, and PubMed to conduct a systematic review following the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines. Fully published economic articles in English were included. Methodology and reporting quality were assessed using standardized tools. Majority of studies (28/33) were on oncology procedures. Radical prostatectomy was the most reported procedure (16/33). Twenty-eight studies used quality-adjusted life years, and five used complication rates as outcomes. Nine used primary and 24 studies used secondary data. All studies used modeling. In 81% of studies (27/33), RAS was cost-effective or potentially cost-effective compared to comparator procedures, including radical prostatectomy, nephrectomy, and cystectomy. Societal perspective, longer-term time-horizon, and larger volumes favored RAS. Cost-drivers were length of stay and equipment cost. From societal and payer perspectives, robotic-assisted surgery is a cost-effective strategy for thoracic and abdominopelvic procedures.Clinical trial registration This study is a systematic review with no intervention, not a clinical trial.

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

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

Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy in obese patients

BACKGROUND

Although robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) has a lower conversion rate to open surgery and causes less blood loss than laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP), clear evidence on the impact of the surgical approach on morbidity is lacking. Prior studies have shown a higher rate of complications among obese patients undergoing pancreatectomy. The primary aim of this study is to compare short-term outcomes of RDP vs. LDP in patients with a BMI ≥ 30.

METHODS

In this multicenter study, all obese patients who underwent RDP or LDP for any indication between 2012 and 2022 at 18 international expert centers were included. The baseline characteristics underwent inverse probability treatment weighting to minimize allocation bias.

RESULTS

Of 446 patients, 219 (50.2%) patients underwent RDP. The median age was 60 years, the median BMI was 33 (31-36), and the preoperative diagnosis was ductal adenocarcinoma in 21% of cases. The conversion rate was 19.9%, the overall complication rate was 57.8%, and the 90-day mortality rate was 0.7% (3 patients). RDP was associated with a lower complication rate (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.52-0.89; p = 0.005), less blood loss (150 vs. 200 ml; p < 0.001), fewer blood transfusion requirements (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.15-0.50; p < 0.001) and a lower Comprehensive Complications Index (8.7 vs. 8.9, p < 0.001) than LPD. RPD had a lower conversion rate (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.19-0.39; p < 0.001) and achieved better spleen preservation rate (OR 1.96, 95% CI 1.13-3.39; p = 0.016) than LPD.

CONCLUSIONS

In obese patients, RDP is associated with a lower conversion rate, fewer complications and better short-term outcomes than LPD.

Pancreatic Cancer Health Disparity: Pharmacologic Anthropology

Pancreatic cancer (PCa) remains a formidable global health challenge, with high mortality rates and limited treatment options. While advancements in pharmacology have led to improved outcomes for various cancers, PCa continues to exhibit significant health disparities, disproportionately affecting certain populations. This paper explores the intersection of pharmacology and anthropology in understanding the health disparities associated with PCa. By considering the socio-cultural, economic, and behavioral factors that influence the development, diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes of PCa, pharmacologic anthropology provides a comprehensive framework to address these disparities and improve patient care.

Comparison of robotic versus laparoscopic versus open distal gastrectomy for locally advanced gastric cancer: a prospective trial-based economic evaluation

IMPORTANCE

It is largely unclear whether robotic distal gastrectomy (RDG) is cost-effective for locally advanced gastric cancer (LAGC).

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of RDG, laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG), and open distal gastrectomy (ODG) for patients with LAGC.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to balance baseline characteristics. A decision-analytic model was constructed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of RDG, LDG, and ODG.

EXPOSURES

RDG, LDG, and ODG.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and quality-adjusted life year (QALY).

RESULTS

This pooled analysis of two randomized controlled trials included 449 patients: 117, 254, and 78 patients in the RDG, LDG, and ODG groups, respectively. After IPTW, RDG demonstrated its priority in terms of less blood loss, postoperative length, and complication rate (all P < 0.05). RDG also showed higher QOL with more cost, representing an ICER of $85,739.73 per QALY and $42,189.53 per QALY compared to LDG and ODG, respectively. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, RDG achieved the best cost-effectiveness for patients with LAGC only when the willingness-to-pay threshold was > $85,739.73 per QALY, which significantly exceeded 3 times Chinese per capita GDP. Furthermore, one of the most important factors was the indirect costs of robotic surgery in terms of the cost-effectiveness of RDG compared to that of LDG or ODG.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Although improved short-term outcomes and QOL were seen in patients underwent RDG, the economic burden should be considered in the clinical decision-making regarding robotic surgery use for patients with LAGC. Our findings may vary in different health care settings and affordability. Trial registration CLASS-01 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov, CT01609309) and FUGES-011 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03313700).

Costs of complications following distal pancreatectomy: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Postoperative complications following distal pancreatectomy (DP) are common, especially postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF). In order to design adequate prophylactic strategies, it is of relevance to determine the costs of these complications. An overview of the literature on the costs of complications following DP is lacking.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library (inception until 1 August 2022). The primary outcome was the costs (i.e. cost differential) of major morbidity, individual complications and prolonged hospital stay. Quality of non-RCTs were assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Costs were compared with the use of Purchasing Power parity. This systematic review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021223019).

RESULTS

Overall, seven studies were included with 854 patients after DP. The rate POPF grade B/C varied between 13% and 27% (based on five studies) with a corresponding cost differential of EUR 18,389 (based on two studies). The rate of severe morbidity varied between 13% and 38% (based on five studies) with a corresponding cost differential of EUR 19,281 (based on five studies).

CONCLUSION

This systematic review reported considerable costs for POPF grade B/C and severe morbidity after DP. Prospective databases and studies should report on all complications in a uniform matter to better display the economic burden of complications of DP.

Economic evaluation of robotic and laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair

BACKGROUND

Robotic approach in paraesophageal hernia (PEH) repair may improve outcomes over laparoscopic approach, though at additional cost. This study aimed to compare cost-effectiveness of robotic and laparoscopic PEH repair.

METHODS

A decision tree was created analyzing cost-effectiveness of robotic and laparoscopic PEH repair. Costs were obtained from 2021 Medicare data and were accumulated within 60 months after surgery. Effectiveness was measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Branch-point probabilities and costs of robotic surgery consumables were obtained from published literature. The primary outcome of interest was incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). One-way, two-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. A secondary analysis including attributable capital and maintenance costs of robotic surgery was conducted as well.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic repair yielded 3.660 QALYs at $35,843.82. Robotic repair yielded 3.661 QALYs at $36,342.57, with an ICER of $779,488.62/QALY. Robotic repair was favored when rates of open conversion and symptom recurrence were low, or with reduced cost of robotic instruments. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis favored laparoscopic repair in 100% of simulations. When accounting for costs of robotic technology, robotic approach was preferred only in unrealistic clinical scenarios.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic repair is likely more cost-effective for most institutions, though results were relatively similar. With experienced surgeons who surpass the initial learning curve, robotic surgery may improve outcomes enough to be cost-effective, but only when excluding capital and maintenance fees.

Health-Related Quality of Life Following Robotic-Assisted or Video-Assisted Lobectomy in Patients With Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Results From the RVlob Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted lobectomy (RAL) is increasingly used as an alternative to video-assisted lobectomy (VAL) for resectable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, there is little evidence of any difference in postoperative health-related quality of life (HRQoL) between these two approaches.

RESEARCH QUESTION

Is RAL superior to VAL in improving quality of life in patients with resectable NSCLC?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

We performed a single-center, open-label randomized clinical trial from May 2017 to May 2020 with 320 enrolled patients undergoing RAL or VAL for resectable NSCLC (RVlob trial; NCT03134534). Postoperative pain was evaluated by visual analog score or numeric rating score on postoperative day 1 and at weeks 4, 24, and 48. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30), EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire in Lung Cancer (QLQ-LC13), and the European Quality of Life 5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaire were also administered at weeks 4, 24, and 48 after surgery.

RESULTS

One hundred and fifty-seven patients underwent RAL and 163 underwent VAL. The mean pain score of patients after RAL was significantly lower at week 4 (2.097 ± 0.111 vs 2.431 ± 0.108; P = .032). QLQ-C30 and QLQ-LC13 summary scores (P > .05) were similar for both RAL and VAL during the first 48 weeks of follow-up. HRQoL scores assessed with the EQ-5D questionnaire were also comparable between the two groups (P > .05) during the whole study period.

INTERPRETATION

Both RAL and VAL showed satisfactory and comparable HRQoL and postoperative pain up to 48 weeks after surgery, despite some minor statistical differences at week 4.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT03134534; URL: www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov.

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.

Pancreatic Enucleation Patients Share the Same Quality of Life as the General Population at Long-Term Follow-Up: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess short- and long-term outcomes including quality of life (QoL) following pancreatic enucleation (PE).

BACKGROUND

PE is deemed to preserve both the endocrine and the exocrine function while ensuring radicality. However, to assess whether this reflects an actual benefit perceived by patients, QoL has to be considered.

METHODS

Data from all consecutive patients undergoing PE from January 2010 to December 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. Surgical outcomes were graded according to the Clavien-Dindo classification, and EORTC-C30 and the EORTC-Pan26 were administered as a cross-sectional assessment of QoL. A control group consisting of healthy individuals from the general population was obtained and matched using the propensity score matching method.

RESULTS

Eighty-one patients underwent PE using the open (59.3%), laparoscopic (27.2%), or robot-assisted (13.5%) approach. Sixty-five (80.2%) patients exhibited functioning/nonfunctioning pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors at final pathology.Surgical morbidity and complications of a Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3 were 48.1% and 16.0%, respectively. In-hospital mortality was 0%. Postoperative pancreatic fistula, post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage, and delayed gastric emptying rates were 21.0%, 9.9%, and 4.9%, respectively.Patients returned the questionnaires after a median of 74.2 months from the index surgery. Postoperative new onset of diabetes mellitus (NODM) was observed in 5 subjects (7.1%), with age being an independent predictor. Seven patients (10.0%) developed postoperative exocrine insufficiency. At the analysis of QoL, all function and symptom scales were comparable between the 2 groups, except for 2 of the EORTC-Pan 26 symptom scales, ("worries for the future" and "body image", P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite being associated with significant postoperative morbidity, PE provides excellent long-term outcomes. The risk of NODM is low and related to patient age, with QoL being comparable to the general population. Such information should drive surgeons to pursue PE whenever properly indicated.

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.

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.

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.

More work is needed on cost-utility analyses of robotic-assisted surgery

OBJECTIVE

To comprehensively analyze the cost-utility of robotic surgery in clinical practice and to investigate the reporting and methodological quality of the related evidence.

METHODS

Data on cost-utility analyses (CUAs) of robotic surgery were collected in seven electronic databases from the inception to July 2021. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the CHEERs and QHES checklists. A systematic review was performed with the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio as the outcome of interest.

RESULTS

Thirty-one CUAs of robotic surgery were eligible. Overall, the identified CUAs were fair to high quality, and 63% of the CUAs ranked the cost-utility of robotic surgery as "favored," 32% categorized as "reject," and the remaining 5% ranked as "unclear." Although a high heterogeneity was present in terms of the study design among the included CUAs, most studies (81.25%) consistently found that robotic surgery was more cost-utility than open surgery for prostatectomy (ICER: $6905.31/QALY to $26240.75/QALY; time horizon: 10 years or lifetime), colectomy (dominated by robotic surgery; time horizon: 1 year), knee arthroplasty (ICER: $1134.22/QALY to $1232.27/QALY; time horizon: lifetime), gastrectomy (dominated by robotic surgery; time horizon: 1 year), spine surgery (ICER: $17707.27/QALY; time horizon: 1 year), and cystectomy (ICER: $3154.46/QALY; time horizon: 3 months). However, inconsistent evidence was found for the cost-utility of robotic surgery versus laparoscopic surgery and (chemo)radiotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Fair or high-quality evidence indicated that robotic surgery is more cost-utility than open surgery, while it remains inconclusive whether robotic surgery is more cost-utility than laparoscopic surgery and (chemo)radiotherapy. Thus, an additional evaluation is required.

Cost-Effectiveness of Robotic vs. Laparoscopic Surgery for Different Surgical Procedures: Protocol for a Prospective, Multicentric Study (ROBOCOSTES)

Background

The studies which address the impact of costs of robotic vs. laparoscopic approach on quality of life (cost-effectiveness studies) are scares in general surgery.

Methods

The Spanish national study on cost-effectiveness differences among robotic and laparoscopic surgery (ROBOCOSTES) is designed as a prospective, multicentre, national, observational study. The aim is to determine in which procedures robotic surgery is more cost-effective than laparoscopic surgery. Several surgical operations and patient populations will be evaluated (distal pancreatectomy, gastrectomy, sleeve gastrectomy, inguinal hernioplasty, rectal resection for cancer, Heller cardiomiotomy and Nissen procedure).

Discussion

The results of this study will demonstrate which treatment (laparoscopic or robotic) and in which population is more cost-effective. This study will also assess the impact of previous surgical experience on main outcomes.

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.

Modified Frailty Index to Assess Risk in Elderly Patients Undergoing Distal Pancreatectomy: A Retrospective Single-Center Study

Background

To compare the postoperative course of elderly patients (≥70 years) submitted to minimally invasive (MIDP) versus open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) and to evaluate if the modified Frailty Index (mFI) predicts the surgical course of elderly patients submitted to DP.

Methods

Data of patients aged ≥70 who underwent DP at a single institution between March 2011 and December 2019 were retrospectively retrieved. A 2:1 propensity score matching (PSM) was used to correct for differences in baseline characteristics. Then, postoperative complications were compared between the two groups (MIDP vs. ODP). Additionally, the entire cohort of DP elderly patients was stratified according to the mFI into three groups: non-frail (mFI = 0), mildly frail (mFI = 1/2), or severely frail (mFI = 3) and then compared.

Results

A total of 204 patients were analyzed. After PSM, 40 MIDP and 80 ODP patients were identified. The complications considered stratified homogenously between the two groups, with no statistically significant differences. The severity of the postoperative course increased as mFI did among the three groups regarding any complication (p = 0.022), abdominal collection (p = 0.014), pulmonary complication (p = 0.001), postoperative confusion (p = 0.047), Clavien-Dindo severity ≥3 events (p = 0.036), and length of stay (p = 0.018).

Conclusions

Elderly patients can be safely submitted to MIDP. The mFI identifies frail elderly patients more prone to develop surgical and non-surgical complications after DP.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00268-021-06436-2.

A randomized controlled trial of stapled versus ultrasonic transection in distal pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND

The pancreatic transection method during distal pancreatectomy is thought to influence postoperative fistula rates. Yet, the optimal technique for minimizing fistula occurrence is still unclear. The present randomized controlled trial compared stapled versus ultrasonic transection in elective distal pancreatectomy.

METHODS

Patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy from July 2018 to July 2020 at two high-volume institutions were considered for inclusion. Exclusion criteria were contiguous organ resection and a parenchymal thickness > 17 mm on intraoperative ultrasound. Eligible patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to stapled transection (Endo GIA Reinforced Reload with Tri-Staple Technology®) or ultrasonic transection (Harmonic Focus® + or Harmonic Ace® + shears). The primary endpoint was postoperative pancreatic fistula. Secondary endpoints included overall complications, abdominal collections, and length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

Overall, 72 patients were randomized in the stapled transection arm and 73 patients in the ultrasonic transection arm. Postoperative pancreatic fistula occurred in 23 patients (16%), with a comparable incidence between groups (12% in stapled transection versus 19% in ultrasonic dissection arm, p = 0.191). Overall complications did not differ substantially (35% in stapled transection versus 44% in ultrasonic transection arm, p = 0.170). There was an increased incidence of abdominal collections in the ultrasonic dissection group (32% versus 14%, p = 0.009), yet the need for percutaneous drain did not differ between randomization arms (p = 0.169). The median length of stay was 8 days in both groups (p = 0.880). Intraoperative blood transfusion was the only factor independently associated with postoperative pancreatic fistula on logistic regression analysis (OR 4.8, 95% CI 1.2-20.0, p = 0.032).

CONCLUSION

The present randomized controlled trial of stapled versus ultrasonic transection in elective distal pancreatectomy demonstrated no significant difference in postoperative pancreatic fistula rates and no substantial clinical impact on other secondary endpoints.

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].

Robotic Dual-Console Distal Pancreatectomy: Could it be Considered a Safe Approach and Surgical Teaching even in Pancreatic Surgery? A Retrospective Observational Study Cohort

Background

The study aims to assess the safety and feasibility of the robotic dual-console during a robotic distal pancreatectomy

Methods

The data of the consecutive patients submitted to RDP from 2012 to 2019 at the Verona University were retrieved from a prospectively maintained database. The patients submitted to RDP were divided into the dual-console platform group (DG) and compared to the standard robotic procedure group (SG).

Results

In the study period, 102 robotic distal pancreatectomies were performed, of whom 42 patients (41%) belonged to the DG and 60 patients (59%) to the SG. Higher operation time was recorded in the DG compared to the SG (410 vs. 265 min, p < 0.001). The overall conversion rate of the series was 7% (n 7 patients). All the conversions were observed in the SG (p = 0.021). No differences in morbidity or pancreatic fistula rate were recorded (p > 0.05). No mortality events in the 90th postoperative days were reported in this series.

Conclusions

The robotic dual-console approach for distal pancreatectomy is safe, feasible, and reproducible. The postoperative surgical outcomes are comparable to the standard RDP with the single-console da Vinci Surgical System®. This surgical technique can widely and safely improve the robotic surgical training program.

The current status and future directions of robotic pancreatectomy

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

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

AIM

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

MATERIAL AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Assessment of difficulty in laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: A modification of the Japanese difficulty scoring system - A single-center high-volume experience

Background

The Japanese difficulty scoring system (DSS) was developed to assess the difficulty of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP). The study aimed to validate a modified DSS (mDSS) in a European high‐volume center.

Methods

Patients' clinical data underwent LDP for benign and malignant pancreatic lesion between September 2013 and February 2020 were reviewed. Expert laparoscopic surgeons performed the procedures. The mDSS consisted of seven variables, such as type of operation, malignancy, neoadjuvant therapy, pancreatic resection line, tumor close to major vessels, tumor extension to peripancreatic tissue, and left‐sided portal hypertension and/or splenomegaly. According to the difficulty level and previous score, the mDSS was subdivided into three classes: low, intermediate, and high. Surrogates of case complexity (operative time, intraoperative blood loss and blood transfusion requirements, conversion rate) were used to validate the new scoring system.

Results

The study population included 140 LDP. Ninety‐five (68%), 35 (25%) and 10 (7%) patients belonged to low, intermediate, and high difficulty groups. The mDSS identified the complexity of the surgical case of the series for all the surrogates of complexity considered, namely conversion rate (P = .004), operative time (P = .033) and intraoperative blood loss (P = .009). No differences were recorded in the postoperative outcomes (P > .05).

Conclusion

The mDSS for LDP better stratified the pancreatic procedures according to their complexity. The new scoring system may allow an appropriate preoperative evaluation of surgical difficulty, facilitating LDP's training program. Future prospective studies are needed to validate the mDSS.

Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy: a single centre propensity score matching analysis

The laparoscopic approach is considered as standard practice in patients with body-tail pancreatic neoplasms. However, only a few randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and propensity score matching (PSM) studies have been performed. Thus, additional studies are needed to obtain more robust evidence. This is a single-centre propensity score-matched study including patients who underwent laparoscopic (LDP) and open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) with splenectomy for pancreatic neoplasms. Demographic, intra, postoperative and oncological data were collected. The primary endpoint was the length of hospital stay. The secondary endpoints included the assessment of the operative findings, postoperative outcomes, oncological outcomes (only in the subset of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma-PDAC) and total costs. In total, 205 patients were analysed: 105 (51.2%) undergoing an open approach and 100 (48.8%) a laparoscopic approach. After PSM, two well-balanced groups of 75 patients were analysed and showed a shorter length of hospital stay (P = 0.001), a lower blood loss (P = 0.032), a reduced rate of postoperative morbidity (P < 0.001) and decreased total costs (P = 0.050) after LDP with respect to ODP. Regarding the subset of patients with PDAC, 22 patients were analysed: they showed a significant shorter length of hospital stay (P = 0.050) and a reduction in postoperative morbidity (P < 0.001) after LDP with respect to ODP. Oncological outcomes were similar. LDP showed lower hospital stay and postoperative morbidity rate than ODP both in the entire population and in patients affected by PDAC. Total costs were reduced only in the entire population. Oncological outcomes were comparable in PDAC patients.

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.

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.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

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

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

[Evidence in minimally invasive surgery of the pancreas]

Minimally invasive pancreatic surgery lags behind the development of other fields of application of minimally invasive surgery. After a very slow development over the last two decades minimally invasive pancreatic surgery has currently gained wider acceptance especially in centers. This is due if nothing else, to the increasing availability of robotic assistance systems, which provide maneuverable instruments as well as a 3‑dimensional and enlarged view. Meanwhile, the technical feasibility for even complex pancreatic resections has been shown. This gives rise to the question whether laparoscopic or robotic techniques can generate equal or better results (evidence) with respect to perioperative morbidity, survival after oncological resection and the quality of life. As with all innovative techniques, which are implemented in surgery, the transferability to a wider audience, teaching methods and cost-effectiveness have to be evaluated. This article presents the current scientific evidence for laparoscopic and robotic pancreatic head and left-sided pancreatic surgery.