Total laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: which one is better?

Outcomes evaluation of robotic versus laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a propensity score matching and learning curve analysis

BACKGROUND

Limited research has been conducted on the short-term outcomes comparing laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD), particularly in the post-learning curve stage. This study aims to investigate surgical efficacy and provide clinical practices for selecting suitable techniques between LPD and RPD.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted on consecutive patients who underwent RPD and LPD between April 2016 and December 2023. Baseline characteristics, pathological information, and perioperative data were analyzed. Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed to ensure the comparability of important factors between the groups.

RESULTS

A total of 277 patients were enrolled in the study, of which 145 underwent RPD. Following PSM, 116 patients were included in each group and baseline characteristics were well matched. The RPD group demonstrated a lower conversion rate to laparotomy (5.2% vs. 18.1%, p = 0.002), reduced blood loss (350 vs. 500 ml, p = 0.031), and a higher rate of R0 resection (91.4% vs. 80.7%, p < 0.05) compared to the laparoscopic group. The incidence of B2-Grade postoperative pancreatic fistula (B2-POPF) was also lower in the RPD group compared to the LPD group (4.3% vs. 11.2%, p = 0.037). Among patients in the post-learning curve stage, perioperative outcomes were similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

RPD offered several advantages over LPD, including lower rates of conversion to open and blood loss, higher rates of R0 resection, and improved POPF outcomes. Other perioperative outcomes were comparable between the two groups. Both techniques appeared feasible and safe in experienced surgeons, though RPD was preferred in complex cases.

Postoperative complications and surgical outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a meta-analysis of propensity-score-matched studies

BACKGROUND

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) is used more commonly, but high-level evidence is still scarce. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the short-term outcomes between RPD and laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) using data collected from propensity score-matched (PSM) studies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

Ten PSM studies were included, encompassing 8106 patients (RPD group: 3695 patients; LPD group: 4411 patients). Compared with LPD, RPD was associated with a lower conversion rate (RR, 0.56) and blood transfusion rate (RR, 0.49), as well as a higher number of harvested lymph nodes (MD, 2.15). There were no significant differences observed in 30-day readmission (RR, 1.02), 90-day mortality (RR, 1.01), overall morbidity (RR, 0.94), major complications (RR, 1.06), operative time (MD, -8.00 min), blood loss (MD, -19.37 mL), reoperation (RR, 0.95), bile leak (RR, 0.93), chylous leak (RR, 1.40), postoperative pancreatic fistula (RR, 1.06), delayed gastric emptying (RR, 0.92), wound infection (RR, 1.12), length of stay (MD, -0.32 days), and R0 resection (RR, 0.98) between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Although LPD and RPD had similar surgical outcomes, RPD had the perioperative advantage over LPD in decreasing conversion rates and blood transfusion rates and increasing the number of lymph nodes harvested. Further randomized controlled trials evaluating the potential advantages of RPD over LPD are warranted.

Robotic versus laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic and periampullary tumors: a meta-analysis

Objective

The value of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) compared with laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) for pancreatic and periampullary tumors is controversial. This study aims to assess the available literature and compare the short outcomes of RPD and LPD.

Methods

The PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science databases were searched to identify available research published up to 24 July, 2024. Risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.

Results

Seventeen studies with a total of 9417 patients (RPD group: 3334 patients; LPD group: 6083 patients) were included in this meta-analysis. The RPD group had lower overall morbidity (RR, 0.79), conversion (RR, 0.29) and blood transfusion rates (RR, 0.61), shorter length of stay (MD, -0.72 days), and higher number of harvested lymph nodes (MD, 0.62) than the LPD group. There were no significant differences in 90-day mortality (RR, 0.89), major complications (RR, 0.87), operative time (MD, -3.74 mins), blood loss (MD, -24.14 mL), reoperation (RR, 0.94), bile leak (RR, 0.62), postoperative pancreatic hemorrhage (RR, 0.96), postoperative pancreatic fistula (RR, 0.74), delayed gastric emptying (RR, 1.24), and R0 resection (RR, 1.00) between the groups.

Conclusions

Compared with LPD, RPD for pancreatic and periampullary tumors could be safe and effective, and it has superior surgical outcomes. Further randomized controlled trials to verify the potential advantages of RPD over LPD are necessary.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=581133, identifier CRD42024581133.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy for Pancreatic Cancer: Evaluation and Analysis of Surgical Efficacy

BACKGROUND

Evidence is limited for the treatment of pancreatic cancer among minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy.

METHODS

This retrospective analysis evaluated patients who underwent robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) or laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) from April 2016 to April 2023. Their baseline and perioperative data, including operative time, R0 resection rates, and severe complications rates, were analyzed, and the follow-up data, such as disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS), were collected.

RESULTS

A total of 253 cases of LPD and RPD were performed, and 101 cases with pancreatic cancer were included, of which 54 were LPD and 47 were RPD. The conversion rate (4.3% vs. 29.6%, p = 0.001) and blood loss (400 vs. 575 mL, p < 0.05) were lower in the RPD group. No significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of operative time, vessel resection rates, and TNM-stage diagnosis; however, R0 resection rates (80.9% vs. 70.4%) and lymph node harvest (24.2 vs. 21.9) had a higher tendency in the RPD group, and postoperative length of stay was shorter in the RPD cohort (11 vs. 13 days). Moreover, improved 1- to 3-years DFS (75.7%, 61.7%, and 36.0% vs. 59.0%, 35.6%, and 21.9%) and OS (94.7%, 84.7%, and 50.8% vs. 84.1%, 63.6%, and 45.5%) was found in the RPD group in comparison with the LPD group.

CONCLUSIONS

RPD had advantages in surgical safety and oncological outcomes compared with LPD, but was similar to the latter in perioperative outcomes. Long-term outcomes require further study.

Artisential®-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy: a comparative analysis with Robot(Da Vinci®)-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (R-PD) helps further improve the safety and efficacy of minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy. However, it faces challenges such as high costs and limitations in availability at different centers, making it difficult for patients to access. In this study, we evaluate the initial experience of Artisential®-assisted PD (A-PD) and compare its perioperative outcomes with R-PD, discussing the clinical applicability of A-PD.

METHODS

This study reviewed cases of R-PD and A-PD conducted between 2022 and 2023. A total of 34 patients underwent R-PD, while 26 patients underwent A-PD. Statistical analysis was conducted based on factors related to the patient's surgical procedure and postoperative prognostic indicators.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences observed between the two groups in terms of surgical factors. There were also no differences in the occurrence of postoperative complications. However, there was a significant difference in the length of hospital stay, with the Artisential® group having an average of 11.50 ± 5.54 days and the Robot group having 15.06 ± 5.34 days (p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

R-PD and A-PD showed no differences in procedures or outcomes. Using a multi-articulated device is beneficial where robot use is challenging.

Unplanned conversions of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy: short-term outcomes and suggested stepwise approach for a safe conversion

OBJECTIVE

With the increased adoption of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy, the effects of unplanned conversions to an 'open' operation are ill-defined. This study aims to describe the impact of unplanned conversions of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy on short-term outcomes and suggest a stepwise approach for safe unplanned conversions during robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy.

METHODS

This is an analysis of 400 consecutive patients undergoing robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy in a single high-volume institution. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD), and significance is accepted with 95% probability.

RESULTS

Between November 2012 and February 2023, 184 (46%) women and 216 (54%) men, aged 70 (68 ± 11.0) years, underwent a robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. Unplanned conversions occurred in 42 (10.5%) patients; 18 (5%) were converted due to unanticipated vascular involvement, 13 (3%) due to failure to obtain definitive control of bleeding, and 11 (3%) due to visceral obesity. Men were more likely to require a conversion than women (29 vs. 13, p = 0.05). Conversions were associated with shorter operative time (376 (323 ± 182.2) vs. 434 (441 ± 98.7) min, p < 0.0001) but higher estimated blood loss (675 (1010 ± 1168.1) vs. 150 (196 ± 176.8) mL, p < 0.0001). Patients that required an unplanned conversion had higher rates of complications with Clavien-Dindo scores of   III-V (31% vs. 12%, p = 0.003), longer length of stay (8 (11 ± 11.6) vs. 5 (7 ± 6.2), p = 0.0005), longer ICU length of stay (1 (2 ± 5.1) vs. 0 (0 ± 1.3), p < 0.0001) and higher mortality rates (21% vs. 4%, p = 0.0001). The conversion rate significantly decreased over time (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Unplanned conversions of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy significantly and negatively affect short-term outcomes, including postoperative mortality. Men were more likely to require a conversion than women. The unplanned conversions rates significantly decreased over time, implying that increased proficiency and patient selection may prevent unplanned conversions. An unplanned conversion should be undertaken in an organized stepwise approach to maximize patient safety.

Multidimensional Nomogram to Predict Postoperative Pancreatic Fistula after Minimally Invasive Pancreaticoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

Clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) is an inherently severe risk of pancreatic resection. Previous research has proposed models that identify risk factors and predict CR-POPF, although these are rarely applicable to minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD). This study aimed to evaluate the individual risks of CR-POPF and to propose a nomogram for predicting POPF in MIPD.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 429 patients who underwent MIPD. In the multivariate analysis, the Akaike information criterion stepwise logistic regression method was used to select the final model to develop the nomogram.

RESULTS

Of 429 patients, 53 (12.4%) experienced CR-POPF. On multivariate analysis, pancreatic texture (p = 0.001), open conversion (p = 0.008), intraoperative transfusion (p = 0.011), and pathology (p = 0.048) were identified as independent predictors of CR-POPF. The nomogram was developed based on patient, pancreatic, operative, and surgeon factors by using the following four additional clinical factors as variables: American Society of Anesthesiologists class ≥ III, size of pancreatic duct, type of surgical approach, and < 40 cases of MIPD experience.

CONCLUSIONS

A multidimensional nomogram was developed to predict CR-POPF after MIPD. This nomogram and calculator can help surgeons anticipate, select, and manage critical complications.

A comparative study of robotics and laparoscopic in minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy: A single-center experience

Objective

To retrospectively compare the short-term benefits of robotic surgery and laparoscopic in the perioperative period of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD).

Methods

This retrospective analysis evaluated patients who underwent laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) or robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) from March 2018 to January 2022 in the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University (Zhengzhou, China). Perioperative data, including operating time, complications, morbidity and mortality, estimated blood loss (EBL), and postoperative length of stay, were analysed.

Result

A total of 190 cases of MIPD were included, of which 114 were LPD and 76 were RPD. There was no significant difference between the two groups in gender, age, previous history of upper abdominal operation, jaundice (>150 µmol/L), or diabetes (P > 0.05). The conversion rate to laparotomy was similar in the LPD and RPD groups (5.3% vs. 6.6%, P = 0.969). A total of 179 cases of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy were successfully performed, including 108 cases of LPD and 71 cases of RPD. There were significant differences between the laparoscopic and robotic groups in operation time [mean, 5.97 h vs. 5.42 h, P < 0.05] and postoperative length of stay [mean, 15.3 vs. 14.6 day, P < 0.05]. No significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of EBL, intraoperative transfusion, complication rate, mortality rate, or reoperation rate (P > 0.05). There were no significant differences in pathological type, number of lymph nodes harvested, or positive lymph node rate (P > 0.05).

Conclusion

RPD had an advantage compared to LPD in reduced operation time and postoperative length of stay, technical feasibility, and safety.

Which one is better? Laparoscopic versus robotic reconstruction in the remnant soft pancreas with a small pancreatic duct following pancreaticoduodenectomy: a multicenter study with propensity score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

Evidence of the advantages of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) over laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) is limited. Thus, this study aimed to compare the surgical outcomes of laparoscopic reconstruction L-recon) versus robotic reconstruction (R-recon) in patients with soft pancreas and small pancreatic duct.

METHOD

Among 429 patients treated with minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) between October 2012 and June 2020 by three surgeons at three institutions, 201 patients with a soft pancreas and a small pancreatic duct (< 3 mm) were included in this study.

RESULTS

Sixty pairs of patients who underwent L-recon and R-recon were selected after propensity score matching. The perioperative outcomes were comparable between the reconstruction approaches, with comparable clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) rates (15.0% [L-recon] vs. 13.3% [R-recon]). The sub-analysis according to the type of MIPD procedure also showed comparable outcomes, but only a significant difference in postoperative hospital stay was identified. During the learning curve analysis using the cumulative summation by operation time (CUSUM_OT), two surgeons who performed both L-recon and R-recon procedures reached their first peak in the CUSUM_OT graph earlier for the R-recon group than for the L-recon group (i.e., 20th L-recon case and third R-recon case of surgeon A and 43rd L-recon case and seventh R-recon case of surgeon B). Surgeon C, who only performed R-recon, demonstrated the first peak in the 22nd case. The multivariate regression analysis for risk factors of CR-POPF showed that the MIPD procedure type, as well as other factors, did not have any significant effect.

CONCLUSION

Postoperative pancreatic fistula rates and the overall perioperative outcomes of L-recon and R-recon were comparable in patients with soft-textured pancreas and small pancreatic duct treated by experienced surgeons.