Robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreatic surgery

Clinical outcomes of organ-preserving pancreatectomy for benign or low-grade malignant pancreatic tumors: A multicenter nationwide survey in Japan

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Whether organ-preserving pancreatic surgery has an advantage in postoperative short- and long-term outcomes or not is still unknown because only small case series studies have been available to date. In this multicenter retrospective study, we aimed to elucidate the clinical advantage and disadvantage of organ-preserving pancreatectomy among patients with low-grade malignant pancreatic tumors and benign pancreatic diseases.

METHODS

We included patients diagnosed with benign or low-malignant pancreatic tumor who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) in 621 cases, duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resection (DPPHR) in 31 cases, middle pancreatectomy (MP) in 148 cases, distal pancreatectomy (DP) in 814 cases, and spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (SPDP) in 259 cases between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2017. Preoperative backgrounds, surgical outcomes and pre- and postoperative (3, 6, 12, 24, and 36 months) nutritional status were compared between these procedures.

RESULTS

In terms of short-term outcomes, the incidence of pancreatic fistula in patients who underwent MP was significantly higher than in patients with standard pancreatectomy. As for the long-term pancreatic functions in the cases of head or body lesion, both exocrine and endocrine functions after MP were significantly favorable compared with the PD group from 3 to 36 months after surgery. In pancreatic body or tail lesion, significant advantage of endocrine function, but not exocrine function, was found in the MP group compared to standard DP at all time points.

CONCLUSIONS

MP may contribute to the improvement of postoperative quality of life for patients with pancreatic body low-malignant tumors, rather than PD or DP; however, reducing the incidence of short-term complications such as pancreatic fistula is a future challenge.

Total robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a systematic review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is a complex operation with high perioperative morbidity and mortality, even in the highest volume centers. Since the development of the robotic platform, the number of reports on robotic-assisted pancreatic surgery has been on the rise. This article reviews the current state of completely robotic PD.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed including studies published between January 2000 and July 2016 reporting PDs in which all procedural steps (dissection, resection and reconstruction) were performed robotically.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria, including a total of 738 patients. Data regarding perioperative outcomes such as operative time, blood loss, mortality, morbidity, conversion and oncologic outcomes were analyzed. No major differences were observed in mortality, morbidity and oncologic parameters, between robotic and non-robotic approaches. However, operative time was longer in robotic PD, whereas the estimated blood loss was lower. The conversion rate to laparotomy was 6.5-7.8%.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic PD is feasible and safe in high-volume institutions, where surgeons are experienced and medical staff are appropriately trained. Randomized controlled trials are required to further investigate outcomes of robotic PD. Additionally, cost analysis and data on long-term oncologic outcomes are needed to evaluate cost-effectiveness of the robotic approach in comparison with the open technique.

Initial Experience With Robotic Pancreatic Surgery: Technical Feasibility and Oncological Implications

Robotic surgery has been introduced in the field of minimally invasive surgery to improve the handling of high-demanding procedures with encouraging results. We aimed to evaluate the clinical safety and the oncological adequacy of robot-assisted pancreatic surgery by analyzing a consecutive series in terms of surgical and oncological outcomes. A total of 53 consecutive cases including 36 pancreatoduodenectomies (PD) and 14 distal pancreatectomies (DP) were evaluated. The overall postoperative morbidity and mortality were 32% and 3.8%, respectively. Radical resection was achieved in 93.7% of PD and 100% of DP, with a mean number of harvested lymph nodes of 29.8 for PD and 20.5 for DP. The 3-year cumulative overall survival was 44.2% and 73.9% for patient with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and nonductal malignancy, respectively. Robotic technology may be useful to reproduce conventional open pancreatic surgery with a minimally invasive approach, overcoming some of the intrinsic limitations of conventional laparoscopy.

[Robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy]

AIM

To compare the results of robot-assisted and conventional techniques of pancreatoduodenectomy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

It was performed the retrospective investigation of results of robot-assisted and conventional pylorus-preserving pancreatoduodenectomy in 7 and 7 patients respectively.

RESULTS

Duration of robot-assisted and conventional surgery was 460.71±119.77 and 288.57±62.2 minutes, volume of blood loss--414.28±285.36 and 400±163.30 ml respectively. Postoperative complications after robot-assisted technique were classified as Grade I according to Clavien-Dindo classification. Pancreatic fistulae were absent (ISGPF (2005)). Lower duration of abdominal drainage and opioid analgesia were observed. Also narcotic drugs were required by not all patients after robot-assisted surgery. Histological study revealed the large number of excised lymphatic nodes.

CONCLUSION

Obvious advantage of robot-assisted operation was precision of great vessels and lymphatic nodes dissection, performing anastomoses. Robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy corresponds to all requirements inherent to radical cancer surgery.

Laparoscopic pancreatic surgery: An overview of the literature and experiences of a single center

Pancreatic surgery was reported as early as 1898. Since then significant developments have been made in the field of pancreatic resections. In addition, advances in laparoscopic surgery in general have seen the description of this approach in pancreatic surgery with increasing frequency. Although there are no randomized controlled trials, several large series and comparative studies have reported on the short and long term outcome of laparoscopic pancreatic surgery. Furthermore, in the last decade published systematic reviews and meta-analyses have reported on cost effectiveness and outcomes of these procedures.

Single-incision versus conventional laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a single-institution case-control study

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is becoming increasingly established at specialized surgical institutions worldwide. The purpose of this study was to compare single-incision laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (panLESS) with conventional laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (panLAP) to assess feasibility and 30-day morbidity.

METHODS

Eight consecutive patients who underwent panLESS were matched with patients who underwent panLAP in the same time period. Matching criteria were age, body mass index, and American Society of Anesthesiologists score. Feasibility was based on tumor size, operative time, intraoperative bleeding, resection status, and hospital stay. Thirty-day morbidity was defined by the revised Accordion Classification system and the International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistula definition.

RESULTS

Over a 19-month period, 8 and 16 patients were identified for panLESS and panLAP, respectively. There were no significant differences in tumor size, operative time, intraoperative bleeding, resection status, and hospital stay between the two groups. Surgical complications developed in four panLESS patients and five panLAP patients, and out of which, two patients from each group developed a postoperative pancreatic fistula (grade B).

CONCLUSIONS

This study indicates that panLESS is comparable to panLAP in terms of feasibility. More experience is needed to define what role single-incision distal pancreatectomy should have in minimal invasive pancreatic surgery.

A systematic review on robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery might have several advantages in respect of the laparoscopic approach since might make more feasible the execution of a complex procedure such as pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). The aim of the present systematic review is to evaluate the current state of the literature on robotic PD.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed, from January 1st 2003 to July 31st 2012, for studies which reported PDs performed for neoplasm and in which at least one surgical reconstructive or resective step was robotically performed.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies, representing 207 patients, met the inclusion criteria. The definition of the robotic approach was heterogeneous since the technique was defined as robotic, robotic-assisted, robot-assisted laparoscopic and robotic hybrid. Resection and reconstruction steps of robotic PD were also heterogeneous combining sequentially different approaches: totally robotic technique, laparoscopic-robotic resection and robotic reconstruction, laparoscopic resection and robotic reconstruction, hand port-assisted laparoscopic resection and robotic reconstruction, laparoscopic-robotic resection and reconstruction through mini-laparotomy. As regard the type of PD 66% were classic Whipple operations and 34% pylorus-preserving pancreatoduodenectomies. The management of pancreatic stump was a pancreaticogastrostomy in 23%, end-to-side pancreaticojejunostomy in 67%, and fibrin glue occlusion of the main pancreatic duct in 10% of cases. The overall procedure failure (rates of conversion to open surgery) was 14%. The overall morbidity rate was 58% and the reoperation rate was 7.3%.

CONCLUSIONS

There have been an increasing number of recent case series suggesting increased utilization of robotic PD over the past decade. The technical approach is heterogenous. For highly selected patient, robotic PD is feasible with similar morbidity and mortality compared to open or purely laparoscopic approaches. Data on cost analysis are lacking and further studies are needed to evaluate also the cost-effectiveness of the robotic approach for PD in comparison to open or laparoscopic techniques. The current state of the art analysis on robotic DP can be also useful in planning future trials.

Current status of robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy: a comprehensive review

BACKGROUND

This article reviews the current status of robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy.

METHOD

Searches of MEDLINE and PubMed databases were conducted using the keywords "laparoscopic pancreatectomy," "robotic surgery," "pancreaticoduodenectomy" and "distal pancreatectomy" to find articles published between January 1990 and September 2012. Additional papers were identified by a manual search of the references in key articles.

RESULTS

Only cases reports, cohort series and nonrandomized comparative studies were available to validate the outcomes of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy. There was no randomized controlled trial comparing the robotic approach to the laparoscopic or open approach. To the best of our knowledge, only four studies have compared the robotic approach and the open approach for pancreaticoduodenectomy, and four studies have been published comparing the robotic approach and the laparoscopic approach for distal pancreatectomy. The data were difficult to interpret because of the heterogeneity of the pathologies and techniques used. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy for appropriately selected patients can be performed safely, with postoperative complication rates and mortality rate comparable to results observed with laparoscopic or open techniques. Robotic surgical systems also seem to improve the spleen-preservation rate in distal pancreatectomy. The oncologic outcomes have not yet been adequately evaluated.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy are safe and feasible in appropriately selected patients. However, because of uncertainties regarding long-term oncologic outcome, caution should be exercised in assessing the appropriateness of this operation for individual patients. Further randomized and controlled studies are required to support the routine use of the robotic technology for pancreatectomy.

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: Up-to-date and literature review

Pancreatic surgery represents one of the most challenging areas in digestive surgery. In recent years, an increasing number of laparoscopic pancreatic procedures have been performed and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) has gained world-wide acceptance because it does not require anastomosis or other reconstruction. To date, English literature reports more than 300 papers focusing on LDP, but only 6% included more than 30 patients. Literature review confirms that LDP is a feasible and safe procedure in patients with benign or low grade malignancies. Decreased blood loss and morbidity, early recovery and shorter hospital stay may be the main advantages. Several concerns still exist for laparoscopic pancreatic adenocarcinoma excision. The individual surgeon determines the technical conduction of LDP, with or without spleen preservation; currently robotic pancreatic surgery has gained diffusion. Additional researches are necessary to determine the best technique to improve the procedure results.

Laparoscopic pancreatectomy for malignancy

Utilization of laparoscopic techniques for resection of the pancreas has slowly gained acceptance in specific situations and is now being applied to more challenging endeavors, such as pancreaticoduodenectomy for cancer. This review provides a summary of laparoscopic applications for pancreatic malignancy, with specific attention to the most common methods of pancreatic resection and their respective oncologic outcomes, including margin status, lymph node retrieval, and survival.