A comparison of robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a single surgeon's robotic experience in a high-volume center

Exploring the landscape of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery: Progress, challenges, and future directions

Minimally invasive surgery (MI) has become the standard of care for many surgical procedures aimed at reducing the burden on patients. However, its adoption in pancreatic surgery (PS) has been limited by the pancreas's unique location and the complexity of the dissection and reconstruction phases. These factors continue to contribute to PS having one of the highest morbidity and mortality rates in general surgery. Despite a rough start, MIPS has gained widespread acceptance in clinical practice recently. Robust evidence supports MI distal pancreatectomy safety, even in oncological cases, indicating its potential superiority over open surgery. However, definitive evidence of MI pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) feasibility and safety, particularly for malignant lesions, is still lacking. Nonetheless, reports from high-volume centers are emerging, suggesting outcomes comparable to those of the open approach. The robotic PS increasing adoption, facilitated by the wider availability of robotic platforms, may further facilitate the transition to MIPD by overcoming the technical constraints associated with laparoscopy and accelerating the learning curve. Although the MIPS implementation process cannot be stopped in this evolving world, ensuring patient safety through strict outcome monitoring is critical. Investing in younger surgeons with structured and recognized training programs can promote safe expansion.

Comparison of manual sutures and laparoscopic stapler for pancreatic stump closure techniques in robotic distal pancreatectomy: a single-center experience

BACKGROUND

Postoperative pancreatic fistulas (POPFs) are prevalent and major postoperative complications of distal pancreatectomy (DP). There are numerous ways to manage the pancreatic stump. However, no single approach has been shown to be consistently superior. Moreover, the potential role of robotic systems in reducing POPFs has received little attention.

METHODS

The clinical data of 119 patients who had consecutively received robotic distal pancreatectomy between January 2019 and December 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were divided into two groups according to the method of handling the pancreatic stump. The attributes of the patients and the variables during the perioperative period were compared.

RESULTS

The analysis included 72 manual sutures and 47 stapler procedures. The manual suture group had a shorter operative time (removing installation time) than the stapler group (125.25 ± 63.04 min vs 153.30 ± 62.03 min, p = 0.019). Additionally, the manual suture group had lower estimated blood loss (50 mL vs 100 mL, p = 0.009) and a shorter postoperative hospital stay. There were no significant differences in the incidence of clinically relevant POPFs between the two groups (18.1% vs 23.4%, P > 0.05). No perioperative death occurred in either group.

CONCLUSION

The manual suturing technique was shown to have an incidence of POPFs similar to the stapler technique in robotic distal pancreatectomy and to be safe and feasible.

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.

Prospective minimally invasive pancreatic resections from the IGOMIPS registry: a snapshot of daily practice in Italy on 1191 between 2019 and 2022

This retrospective analysis of the prospective IGOMIPS registry reports on 1191 minimally invasive pancreatic resections (MIPR) performed in Italy between 2019 and 2022, including 668 distal pancreatectomies (DP) (55.7%), 435 pancreatoduodenectomies (PD) (36.3%), 44 total pancreatectomies (3.7%), 36 tumor enucleations (3.0%), and 8 central pancreatectomies (0.7%). Spleen-preserving DP was performed in 109 patients (16.3%). Overall incidence of severe complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3) was 17.6% with a 90-day mortality of 1.9%. This registry analysis provided some important information. First, robotic assistance was preferred for all MIPR but DP with splenectomy. Second, robotic assistance reduced conversion to open surgery and blood loss in comparison to laparoscopy. Robotic PD was also associated with lower incidence of severe postoperative complications and a trend toward lower mortality. Fourth, the annual cut-off of ≥ 20 MIPR and ≥ 20 MIPD improved selected outcome measures. Fifth, most MIPR were performed by a single surgeon. Sixth, only two-thirds of the centers performed spleen-preserving DP. Seventh, DP with splenectomy was associated with higher conversion rate when compared to spleen-preserving DP. Eighth, the use of pancreatojejunostomy was the prevalent reconstruction in PD. Ninth, final histology was similar for MIPR performed at high- and low-volume centers, but neoadjuvant chemotherapy was used more frequently at high-volume centers. Finally, this registry analysis raises important concerns about the reliability of R1 assessment underscoring the importance of standardized pathology of pancreatic specimens. In conclusion, MIPR can be safely implemented on a national scale. Further analyses are required to understand nuances of implementation of MIPR in Italy.

Surgical Outcomes of Robotic Distal Pancreatectomy Versus Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy at a Hospital in a Sparsely Populated Area

Background

Robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) has a better or comparable surgical outcome when compared with laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP). However, whether the surgical outcome for these procedures in local, low-volume hospitals are comparable with those of the typically larger centers described in published reports remains unclear.

Methods

This study enrolled 48 patients who underwent either RDP or LDP between August 2012 and April 2023. Data were retrospectively analyzed to evaluate the short-term surgical outcomes of RDP versus LDP in our hospital, which is a low-volume center.

Results

The use of stapling with reinforcement in RDP was significantly higher than in LDP, and the postoperative hospital stay for RDP was significantly shorter than for LDP. Except for these two variables, there were no statistically significant differences between RDP and LDP in preoperative, intraoperative, or postoperative patient characteristics.

Conclusion

RDP can be performed as safely and effectively as LDP in a low-volume hospital located in a sparsely populated area.

Spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy from multi-port to reduced-port surgery approach

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive pancreatic surgery via the multi-port approach has become a primary surgical method for distal pancreatectomy (DP) due to its advantages of lower wound pain and superior cosmetic results. Some studies have applied reduced-port techniques for DP in an attempt to enhance cosmetic outcomes due to the minimally invasive effects. Numerous recent review studies have compared multi-port laparoscopic DP (LDP) and multi-port robotic DP (RDP); most of these studies concluded multi-port RDP is more beneficial than multi-port LDP for spleen preservation. However, there have been no comprehensive reviews of the value of reduced-port LDP and reduced-port RDP.

AIM

To search for and review the studies on spleen preservation and the clinical outcomes of minimally invasive DP that compared reduced-port DP surgery with multi-port DP surgery.

METHODS

The PubMed medical database was searched for articles published between 2013 and 2022. The search terms were implemented using the following Boolean search algorithm: ("distal pancreatectomy" OR "left pancreatectomy" OR "peripheral pancreatic resection") AND ("reduced-port" OR "single-site" OR "single-port" OR "dual-incision" OR "single-incision") AND ("spleen-preserving" OR "spleen preservation" OR "splenic preservation"). A literature review was conducted to identify studies that compared the perioperative outcomes of reduced-port LDP and reduced-port RDP.

RESULTS

Fifteen articles published in the period from 2013 to 2022 were retrieved using three groups of search terms. Two studies were added after manually searching the related papers. Finally, 10 papers were selected after removing case reports (n = 3), non-English language papers (n = 1), technique papers (n = 1), reviews (n = 1), and animal studies (n = 1). The common items were defined as items reported in more than five papers, and data on these common items were extracted from all papers. The ten studies included a total of 337 patients (females/males: 231/106) who underwent DP. In total, 166 patients (females/males, 106/60) received multi-port LDP, 126 (females/males, 90/36) received reduced-port LDP, and 45 (females/males, 35/10) received reduced-port RDP.

CONCLUSION

Reduced-port RDP leads to a lower intraoperative blood loss, a lower postoperative pancreatic fistula rate, and shorter hospital stay and follow-up duration, but has a lower spleen preservation rate.