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

Utility of ligamentum teres hepatis flap reinforcement to prevent postoperative pancreatic fistulas in robotic distal pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND

Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is a significant contributor to morbidity and mortality after robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP). Ligamentum teres hepatis (LTH) reinforcement of the pancreatic remnant may reduce the incidence of POPF.

METHODS

Patients ≥18 years old, who underwent RDP at the University of Massachusetts Memorial Medical Center from 01/01/2018-08/31/2022. Primary endpoint was POPF incidence. Secondary outcomes included peri- and postoperative variables.

RESULTS

Thirty-three patients underwent RDP, of which LTH reinforcement was used in 21 (64 ​%) cases. Six (18 ​%) patients developed a POPF. No association was identified between LTH flap reinforcement and POPF (OR 1.18, 95 ​% CI 0.18 to 7.85, p ​= ​0.87). There were no peri- or postoperative complications related to ligamentum teres flap creation.

CONCLUSIONS

LTH reinforcement of the pancreatic remnant can be safely performed during RDP. Further studies are needed to assess the utility of this intervention to mitigate the risk of pancreatic fistula formation following RDP.

Effect of robotic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy on postoperative length of hospital stay and complications for pancreatic head or periampullary tumours: a multicentre, open-label randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The flexibility of the robotic system in resection and reconstruction provides potential benefits in pancreaticoduodenectomy. Increasingly, robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) has been reported with favourable outcomes, but high-level evidence is still scarce. We aimed to compare the short-term postoperative outcomes of RPD with those of open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD), and hypothesised that postoperative length of hospital stay would be shorter after RPD than after OPD.

METHODS

This multicentre, open-label randomised controlled trial was conducted at three high-volume hospitals in China. Patients were considered for participation in this trial if they were aged 18-75 years, had a resectable benign, premalignant, or malignant tumour in the pancreatic head or periampullary region; and were suitable for both RPD and OPD. Patients with distant metastases were excluded. Block randomisation was done with random block sizes of four, stratified by centre. Allocation was concealed via individual, sequentially numbered, opaque sealed envelopes. Eligible patients were randomly assigned to the RPD group or the OPD group in a 1:1 ratio by a masked research assistant. Surgeons and patients were not masked to trial group, but data collectors, postoperative outcome assessors, and data analysts were. All patients underwent RPD or OPD according to previously reported techniques. Participating surgeons had surpassed the learning curves of at least 40 RPD and 60 OPD procedures. The primary outcome was postoperative length of hospital stay, which was analysed in the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population. This trial is registered with the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2200056809) and is complete.

FINDINGS

Between March 5 and Dec 20, 2022, 292 patients were screened for eligibility, of whom 164 were enrolled and randomly assigned to the RPD group (n=82) or the OPD group (n=82). 161 patients who underwent surgical resection were included in the mITT analysis (81 in the RPD group and 80 in the OPD group). 94 (58%) participants were male and 67 (42%) were female. Postoperative length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the RPD group than in the OPD group (median 11·0 days [IQR 9·0 to 19·5] vs 13·5 days [11·5 to 18·0]; median difference -2·0 [95% CI -4·0 to 0·0]; p=0·029). During a follow-up period of 90 days, six (7%) of 81 patients in the RPD group and five (6%) of 80 patients in the OPD group required readmission. Reasons for readmission were intra-abdominal haemorrhage (one in each group), vomiting (two in the RPD group and one in the OPD group), electrolyte disturbance (one in each group), and fever (two in each group). There were two (1%) in-hospital deaths within 90 days of surgery, one in each group. The postoperative 90-day mortality rate (difference -0·02% [-5·6 to 5·5]; p=1·00) and the incidence of severe complications (ie, Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3; difference -1·5% [-14·5 to 11·4]; p=0·82) were similar between the two groups.

INTERPRETATION

For surgeons who had passed the learning curve, RPD was safe and feasible with the advantage of shorter postoperative length of hospital stay than OPD. Future research should focus on the medium-term and long-term outcomes between RPD and OPD.

FUNDING

None.

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.

Short- and long-term outcomes of robotic versus open radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy: a retrospective propensity score-matched cohort study

BACKGROUND

Robotic distal pancreatectomy has increasingly been accepted as it has overcome some of the limitations of open distal pancreatectomy, whilst the outcomes following robotic radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (RAMPS) in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) are still uncertain. This study aimed to evaluate the short and long-term outcomes of robotic RAMPS and open RAMPS for PDAC.

METHODS

The patients who underwent robotic RAMPS and open RAMPS for PDAC at our clinical centre between January 2017 and December 2021 were reviewed. After a propensity score matching (PSM) at a 1:1 ratio, the perioperative and pathological outcomes in the both groups were reviewed. Univariable and multivariable Cox regression analyses were used to identify independent prognosis factors for overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) of these patients.

RESULTS

318 cases were recorded in robotic and open groups. The robotic group showed advantages in operative time [205.00 (166.00, 240.00) min vs 235 (184.75, 270.00) min, P = 0.002], estimated blood loss [100 (50, 100) ml vs 300 (100, 400) ml, P < 0.001], delayed gastric emptying [0 vs 5.03%, P = 0.007] and postoperative hospital stay [7.00 (5.00, 10.00) days vs 11.00 (8.00, 14.00) days, P < 0.001]. There were no significant differences in rate of severe postoperative complications between the robotic group and the open group. Multivariable analysis showed that carbohydrate antigen 19-9, estimated blood loss, N stage, tumour differentiation, chemotherapy and vascular invasion were independent risk factors for OS and RFS of these patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic RAMPS was safe and had some advantages over open RAMPS for PDAC. There were no significantly differences in oncological outcomes and long-term survival rates between the robotic and open groups. Robotic RAMPS expanded the indications for minimally invasive surgeries for PDAC to a certain extent.

International consensus guidelines on robotic pancreatic surgery in 2023

Background

With the rapid development of robotic surgery, especially for the abdominal surgery, robotic pancreatic surgery (RPS) has been applied increasingly around the world. However, evidence-based guidelines regarding its application, safety, and efficacy are still lacking. To harvest robust evidence and comprehensive clinical practice, this study aims to develop international guidelines on the use of RPS.

Methods

World Health Organization (WHO) Handbook for Guideline Development, GRADE Grid method, Delphi vote, and the AGREE-II instrument were used to establish the Guideline Steering Group, Guideline Development Group, and Guideline Secretary Group, formulate 19 clinical questions, develop the recommendations, and draft the guidelines. Three online meetings were held on 04/12/2020, 30/11/2021, and 25/01/2022 to vote on the recommendations and get advice and suggestions from all involved experts. All the experts focusing on minimally invasive surgery from America, Europe and Oceania made great contributions to this consensus guideline.

Results

After a systematic literature review 176 studies were included, 19 questions were addressed and 14 recommendations were developed through the expert assessment and comprehensive judgment of the quality and credibility of the evidence.

Conclusions

The international RPS guidelines can guide current practice for surgeons, patients, medical societies, hospital administrators, and related social communities. Further randomized trials are required to determine the added value of RPS as compared to open and laparoscopic surgery.

"Parenchyma transection-first" strategy is superior to "tunnel-first" strategy in robotic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy with conservation of splenic vessels

BACKGROUND

Creating a tunnel between the pancreas and splenic vessels followed by pancreatic parenchyma transection ("tunnel-first" strategy) has long been used in spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (SPDP) with splenic vessel preservation (Kimura's procedure). However, the operation space is limited in the tunnel, leading to the risks of bleeding and difficulties in suturing. We adopted the pancreatic "parenchyma transection-first" strategy to optimize Kimura's procedure.

METHODS

The clinical data of consecutive patients who underwent robotic SPDP with Kimura's procedure between January 2017 and September 2022 at our center were retrieved. The cohort was classified into a "parenchyma transection-first" strategy (P-F) group and a "tunnel-first" strategy (T-F) group and analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 91 patients were enrolled in this cohort, with 49 in the T-F group and 42 in the P-F group. Compared with the T-F group, the P-F group had significantly shorter operative time (146.1 ± 39.2 min vs. 174.9 ± 46.6 min, P < 0.01) and lower estimated blood loss [40.0 (20.0-55.0) mL vs. 50.0 (20.0-100.0) mL, P = 0.03]. Failure of splenic vessel preservation occurred in 10.2% patients in the T-F group and 2.4% in the P-F group (P = 0.14). The grade 3/4 complications were similar between the two groups (P = 0.57). No differences in postoperative pancreatic fistula, abdominal infection or hemorrhage were observed between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The pancreatic "parenchyma transection-first" strategy is safe and feasible compared with traditional "tunnel-first strategy" in SPDP with Kimura's procedure.

Preliminary experience with a new robotic technique to facilitate distal pancreatectomy with spleen preservation: left lateral approach in right lateral decubitus position

Spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (SP-DP), for patients with benign or small low-grade malignant tumors of the body or tail of the pancreas, is the ideal procedure although it is technically demanding. The robotic da Vinci system has been introduced to overcome these technical challenges and reduce operative risks. We report our experience of a new variation in surgical technique: the left lateral approach robotic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (RSP-DP) in right lateral decubitus position. We performed this new variant of SP-DP, in five patients, using the da Vinci Xi system. Technical and clinical feasibility are described. The mean age and body mass index were 53.4 years and 31.4 kg/m2, respectively. The mean total operative time was 323 min. The estimated mean blood loss was 240 ml. In all patients, the spleen could be preserved. In four patients, the splenic vessels were also preserved. One patient required a Warshaw technique due to significant fibrosis attached to the splenic vein. The postoperative period of all patients was uneventful except the presence of biochemical leak (BL) in two patients that only required maintenance of the drainage at home. The mean length of hospital stay was 6 days after surgery. The left lateral approach robotic SP-DP in right lateral decubitus position is a feasible and safe procedure for distal benign or small low-grade malignant tumors of the left pancreas. The right lateral decubitus position associated to robotic surgery can facilitate this complex procedure, especially when splenic vessels preservation is indicated, with a lower risk of conversion and shortening of the learning curve.

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.

Impact of the transection plan on postoperative pancreatic fistulas occurring after robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy for nonmalignant pancreatic neoplasms

OBJECTIVES

Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is the main complication of distal pancreatectomy (DP) and affects the prognosis of patients. The impact of several clinical factors mentioned in recent studies on POPF remains controversial. This study aimed to investigate the impact of a remnant pancreas and other perioperative factors on POPFs occurring after robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RDP) for nonmalignant pancreatic neoplasms.

METHODS

A total of 197 patients who received robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RDP) for nonmalignant pancreatic neoplasms at the Pancreatic Disease Center, Ruijin Hospital Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine from January 2018 to December 2020 were included in this retrospective study. According to the intraoperative transection plan, patients were divided into an RDP body group and an RDP tail group. Clinical and pathological features and perioperative factors affecting POPF were analyzed and compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

The results showed that a transection plan involving the tail of the pancreas (OR = 2.133, 95% CI 1.109-4.103, p = 0.023) and spleen preservation (OR = 2.588, 95% CI 1.435-4.665, p = 0.001) independently increased the incidence of POPF in patients with nonmalignant pancreatic neoplasms treated by RDP. A transection plan involving the tail of the pancreas was also an independent risk factor (OR = 3.464, 95% CI 1.270-9.450, p = 0.015) for grade B/C POPF. Length of remnant pancreas > 6.23 cm was an independent risk factor for POPF (OR = 3.116, 95% CI 1.364-7.121, p = 0.007). Length of remnant pancreas > 9.82 cm was an independent risk factor for grade B/C POPF (OR = 3.340, 95% CI 1.386-8.051, p = 0.007).

CONCLUSION

This retrospective study suggests that a transection plan involving the tail of the pancreas is an independent risk factor for POPF in patients with nonmalignant neoplasms treated by RDP. We also propose that the postoperative length of the remnant pancreas evaluated by computed tomography scans can be used to identify patients with a high risk of POPF in order to optimize the individualized strategy.

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.

The standardized technique in robotic radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy using the flip-up approach

PURPOSE

Radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (RAMPS) was first introduced in 2003. It has been accepted as an alternative technique for pancreatic cancer of the body and tail. However, robotic RAMPS is not yet popular because of its technical difficulty and lack of standardized technique. This study describes in detail the standard steps of robotic RAMPS using the flip-up approach with the benefit of a robotic view when treating pancreatic cancer of the body and tail.

METHOD

We took advantage of our single-center experience to provide a step-by-step technique of robotic RAMPS procedure using the da Vinci Si system.

RESULTS

We divided the procedure into 11 key steps. The surgical steps are optimized to achieve margin-negative curative resection and sufficient regional lymphadenectomy. The artery-first approach is usually used to determine tumor resectability early before performing an irreversible operative step. We also determine the borders of surgical resection and divide the splenic artery after dividing the pancreatic neck and the splenic vein, which facilitates a complete lymphadenectomy around the celiac axis with a bottom-up view.

CONCLUSION

Robotic RAMPS using the flip-up approach is safe and feasible in performing curative resection for well-selected pancreatic cancer of the body and tail. A randomized controlled trial comparing open and robotic RAMPS is needed in the future.