Robotic approach mitigates perioperative morbidity in obese patients following pancreaticoduodenectomy

The weight of BMI in impacting postoperative and oncologic outcomes in pancreaticoduodenectomy is attenuated by a robotic approach

This study was undertaken to observe the effect of body mass index (BMI) on perioperative outcomes and survival when comparing robotic vs 'open' pancreaticoduodenectomy. With IRB approval, we prospectively followed 505 consecutive patients who underwent either robotic or 'open' pancreaticoduodenectomy from 2012 to 2021. For illustrative purposes, patients were separated based on the Center for Disease Control and Prevention BMI table but regression analysis was utilized to identify significant relationships involving BMI. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD). Significance was determined at p ≤ 0.05. 205 and 300 patients underwent 'open' and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy, respectively. Neither sex nor age correlated with BMI in patients undergoing 'open' nor robotic operation. Operative duration correlated with increasing BMI in each operational approach, which was statistically significant for those receiving the 'open' operation (p = 0.02). There were statistically significantly fewer lymph nodes harvested with rising BMI in patients that had an 'open' operation (p = 0.01), but no such difference was found in patients undergoing the robotic approach. Length of stay (LOS) and in-hospital mortality were statistically significantly associated with rising BMI when an 'open' operation was undertaken (p = 0.02 and p = 0.0002, respectively) but not when the robotic platform was utilized. Patients with higher BMI had significantly longer operative duration, smaller lymph node harvest, greater LOS, and increased in-hospital mortality rate when undergoing 'open' pancreaticoduodenectomy, but not robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. Thus, the robotic platform may attenuate the increased technical and oncologic difficulties associated with a greater BMI in patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Challenge in optimizing robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy including nerve plexus hanging maneuver: a Japanese single center experience of 76 cases

BACKGROUND

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) is technically demanding, and 20-50 cases are required to surpass the learning curve. This study aimed to show our experience of 76 cases from the introduction of RPD and report the changes in surgical results owing to the accumulation of cases and optimization of surgical techniques.

METHODS

A total of 76 patients who underwent RPD between November 2009 and May 2023 at the Fujita Health University Hospital were divided into three groups: competency (n = 23, Nov 2009-Mar 2020), proficiency (n = 31, Apr 2020-Jun 2022), and mastery (n = 22, Jul 2022-May 2023) phases. In the mastery phase, for the education of new surgeons and maintenance of surgical quality, optimization of the procedure, including hanging maneuver with or without stapling transection of the retropancreatic tissue was implemented. The surgical outcomes were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

The mean operation time decreased over time despite of the participation of newly started operators in mastery phase [competency: 921.5 min (IQR 775-996 min) vs. proficiency: 802.8 min (IQR 715-887 min) vs. mastery: 609.2 min (IQR 514-699 min), p < 0.001]. Additionally, Clavien-Dindo ≥ grade IIIa complications decreased from 52.2% in competency phase to 35.5% and 9.1% in proficiency and mastery phases, respectively (p = 0.005).

CONCLUSION

Operation time and major complications decreased along the learning curve from the introduction of RPD. In addition, optimization of the procedure, including hanging maneuver of the retropancreatic tissue seemed to be effective in reducing operation time and educating new RPD surgeons.

Prevalence of and risk factors for surgical site infections after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Surgical site infections (SSIs) are one of the most common complications after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD); however, the global prevalence and risk factors for SSIs after PD remain unknown.

Objectives

To investigate the prevalence of and risk factors for SSIs after PD.

Methods

The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Science Direct databases were systematically searched from inception to 1 December 2022. Observational studies reporting adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of risk factors for SSIs in patients undergoing PD were included. Two independent reviewers in teams performed data extraction, risk of bias assessment, and level of evidence analysis. The pooled results were estimated using a random-effects model. The I 2 statistic and Q χ 2 statistic were used to assess heterogeneity. Funnel plots, Egger's regression test, and the trim-and-fill method were used to determine publication bias. The primary outcomes were identifying risk factors for SSIs after PD. The secondary outcomes were the pooled prevalence rates of SSIs.

Results

A total of 98 704 patients from 45 studies were included, and 80% of the studies were considered high quality. The estimated pooled prevalence of SSIs was 23% (0.19-0.27, I 2=97%). The prevalence of SSIs was found to be higher in Japan and lower in USA. Preoperative biliary stenting, higher body mass index (BMI), longer operation time, postoperative pancreatic fistula, soft pancreatic texture, perioperative blood transfusion, and cardiac disease were identified as significant risk factors for the development of SSIs after PD. Additionally, broad-spectrum antibiotics were a significant protective factor against SSIs. Subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis showed that the results were robust.

Conclusion and relevance

The prevalence of SSIs remains high and varies widely among regions. It is necessary to take effective preventive measures and carry out more prospective studies to further verify these results.

Advantages of robotic gastrectomy for overweight patients with gastric cancer: a comparison study of robotic gastrectomy and conventional laparoscopic gastrectomy

PURPOSE

A high body mass index (BMI) generally increases the risk of postoperative complications because of the intraperitoneal adipose tissue. Robotic gastrectomy (RG) decreases the surgical difficulty of conventional laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) for these patients. We conducted the present study to identify the advantages of RG over LG for overweight patients.

METHODS

We reviewed clinical data on patients who underwent either LG or RG at the National Cancer Center Hospital East between January, 2014 and May, 2022.

RESULTS

The 1298 patients eligible patients were divided into a non-overweight cohort (n = 996) (LG, n = 818; RG, n = 178) and an overweight cohort (n = 302) (LG, n = 250; RG, n = 52) according to a BMI cut-off of 25 kg/m2. In the overweight cohort, the RG group had a lower incidence of grade ≥ III postoperative complications (0.0 vs. 8.8%, p = 0.01) and grade ≥ II postoperative complications (11.5 vs. 22.0%, p = 0.12) than the LG group. Multivariate analysis identified that RG was significantly associated with a lower incidence of grade ≥ II postoperative complications in the overweight cohort (odds ratio, 0.33; 95% confidence interval, 0.12-0.87; p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

RG may reduce the risk of postoperative complications, compared with conventional LG, in overweight patients.

Learning Curves in Establishing a New Minimally Invasive Pancreas Program

INTRODUCTION

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (rPD) is a complex operation with a reported learning curve of 80 cases. Two recent graduates of a formal robotic complex general surgical oncology training program have been performing rPD at our institution since 2016, which had no previous institutional experience with rPD.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the learning curve associated with developing a new robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (rPD) program by fellowship trained surgeons with institutional support.

METHODS

Sixty patients undergoing rPD from 2016 to 2022 were reviewed for and compared with proficiency benchmarks set by the University of Pittsburg experience.

RESULTS

By 30 cases, operative time met the proficiency benchmark of 391 minutes. Additionally, the entire cohort had comparable rates of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (6.7% vs 3%, P = .6), 30-day mortality (0% vs 3%, P = .18), major complications (Clavien >2; 23% vs 17%, P = .14), and length of stay (6 vs 7 days, P = .49) when compared to the benchmark.

CONCLUSION

Perioperative outcomes were comparable to proficiency benchmarks from initiation of the new rPD program, and operative time reached proficiency benchmark by 30 cases. This data suggests that graduates of formal rPD training programs can safely establish new minimally invasive pancreas programs at sites with no previous institutional rPD experience.

Four-Day Robotic Whipple: Early Discharge after Robotic Pancreatoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

The authors aimed to assess the safety of an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) and early discharge pathway in a robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) program and compared outcomes with an open PD control cohort to identify the synergistic effects of robotic surgery and an ERAS pathway on lengths of stay (LOS).

STUDY DESIGN

Consecutive patients undergoing open or robotic PD from a single surgeon between March 2020 and July 2022 were identified. Logistic regression models were used for adjusted analyses of postoperative outcomes.

RESULTS

There were 134 consecutive PD patients, of which 40 (30%) were performed robotically. Pancreatic adenocarcinoma was the most common indication in both open (56%) and robotic (55%, p = 0.51) groups, with a similar proportion of them being borderline resectable or locally advanced tumors (78% vs 82% in robotic group, p = 0.82). The LOS was significantly shorter in the robotic PD group (median, 5 [IQR 4 to 7] days) when compared with the open PD group (median, 6 [IQR 5 to 8] days, p < 0.001). LOS of 4 days or fewer were observed in 40% of the robotic PD group compared with only 3% of patients in the open PD group (p < 0.001). There was no difference in the overall readmission rate (10% vs 12% in the robotic PD group, p = 0.61). On multivariable logistic regression, robotic PD was independently associated with higher odds of LOS of 4 days or fewer (odds ratio 22.4, p = 0.001) when compared with open PD.

CONCLUSIONS

An ERAS and early discharge pathway could be safely implemented in a robotic PD program. Patients undergoing robotic PD have significantly shorter length of stay without increased complication or readmission rate compared with open PD, with 40% of patients undergoing robotic PD achieving a LOS of 4 days or fewer.

Robotic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy in elderly patients: a propensity score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is complex procedure with high morbidity in the elderly. This retrospective study aimed to compare post-operative outcomes in patients ≥75 years of age who underwent robot-assisted (RA)PD and open PD.

METHODS

We analyzed 2502 patients ≥75 years of age who underwent PD from 2015 to 2018 in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database. RAPD and open PD patients were propensity score matched 1:5 to assess the 30-day outcomes of interest: postoperative complications, length of stay, discharge destination, and readmissions.

RESULTS

Of 725 matched patients, 110 underwent RAPD, 615 OPD, and 12 were converted to an open operation. Post-operative outcomes were largely similar between cohorts. RAPD was associated a shorter length of stay (median 8 days, interquartile range [IQR] 6 to 11) than OPD (median 8 days, IQR 7 to 13) (p = 0.003). However, RAPD was associated with more readmissions (28.1% vs. 17.7%; p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

RAPD in patients ≥75 years of age appears to be safe and has a similar complication profile to open PD. Randomized or well-designed prospective matched studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Robotic approach mitigates the effect of major complications on survival after pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary cancer

BACKGROUND

Major complications (MCs) after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) are a known independent predictor of worse oncologic outcomes. There are limited data on the effect of major complications on long-term outcomes after robotic PD (RPD). The aim of this study is to compare the effect of MC on overall (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) after RPD and open PD (OPD).

METHODS

This is a single-center, retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database of all patients undergoing PD for periampullary cancer including ampullary adenocarcinoma, distal cholangiocarcinoma, and duodenal carcinoma. Univariate analysis was performed on all clinical, pathologic, and treatment factors. MCs were defined as Clavien-Dindo ≥ grade 3. Kaplan-Maier survival analysis was performed with log-rank test for group comparison. Multivariable Cox regression analysis was used to identify factors associated with overall survival (OS) in both the OPD and RPD groups.

RESULTS

A total of 190 patients with ampullary carcinoma (n = 98), cholangiocarcinoma (n = 55), and duodenal adenocarcinoma (n = 37) were examined over the study period with 61.1% (n = 116) undergoing RPD and 38.9% (n = 74) undergoing OPD. There was no significant difference in patient demographics between the RPD and OPD cohorts. Furthermore, R0 resection rates, tumor size, and lymph node involvement were similar between the RPD and OPD cohorts. OPD had higher rate of MC (40.5% vs 28.3% in RPD, p = 0.011) including clinically relevant pancreatic fistula (25.7% vs 8.6%, p = 0.001) and wound infection (34.5% vs 13.8%, p < 0.001). MCs were associated with a lower OS in the OPD cohort (HR = 2.18, 95%CI 1.0-4.55, p = 0.038). MCs were not associated with OS in the RPD cohort (HR = 1.55, 95%CI 0.87-2.76, p = 0.14).

CONCLUSION

MCs are associated with worse patient outcomes after OPD but not after RPD. Robotic approach mitigates and possibly abrogates the negative effects of MCs on patient outcomes after PD for malignancy and is associated with improved adjuvant chemotherapy completion rates.

Minimally invasive approaches increase postoperative complications in obese patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy during the initial development period: a propensity score matching study

BACKGROUND

Obesity increases surgical risks in various abdominal surgeries and its impact on open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) and minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) remains unknown. This study aimed to compare the surgical outcomes of OPD and MIPD in obese and non-obese patients by propensity score matching (PSM) analysis during the implementation of MIPD.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed all pancreaticoduodenectomies from December 2014 to May 2021. Obesity was defined as body mass index > 25 kg/m² according to World Health Organization International Obesity Task Force. PSM was used to minimize the selection bias of MIPD.

RESULTS

Among 462 pancreaticoduodenectomies (339 OPDs, 123 MIPDs), there were 313 patients in the non-obese group (MIPD: 78, OPD: 235) and 149 patients in the obese group (MIPD: 45, OPD: 104). After PSM, there were 70 MIPD/106 OPD patients in the non-obese group and 38 MIPD/54 OPD patients in the obese group. The obese MIPD patients had more fluid collection (36.8% vs 9.8%, p = 0.002), a higher Clavien-Dindo (CD) grade (p = 0.007), more major complications (42.1% vs 14.8%, p = 0.004), and longer operative times (306 min vs 264 min, p < 0.001) than the obese OPD patients. The non-obese MIPD patients had lower CD grades (p = 0.02), longer operative times (294 vs 264 min, p < 0.001), and less blood loss (100 mL vs 200 mL) than the non-obese OPD patients. MIPD was a strong predictor of major complication (CD ≥ 3) in obese patients (odds ratio 3.11, 95% CI: 1.40-6.95, p = 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

Minimally invasive approaches deteriorate the CD grade, fluid collection, and major complications in obese patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy during the initial development period. Non-obese patients may benefit from MIPD over OPD in terms of less blood loss and lower CD grades. The impact of BMI on MIPD should be considered when assessing the surgical risks.

Comparison of surgical outcomes among open, laparoscopic, and robotic pancreatoduodenectomy: a single-center retrospective study

Background

There is no general consensus on the feasibility and safety of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) and whether it increases surgical risks. The purpose of this study was to assess the safety, feasibility, and rationality of RPD by comparing perioperative data among open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD), laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD), and RPD performed in our center in recent years.

Methods

Clinical data of patients had undergone RPD (n = 32), LPD (n = 21), and OPD (n = 86) in The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University between January 2016 and June 2020 were retrospectively collected and analyzed.

Results

RPD required more time for operation (537.2 min vs. 441.5 min, p < 0.001) than OPD did, but less time to remove abdominal drainage tube (12.5 d vs. 17.3 d, p = 0.001). The differences between the RPD group and LPD group were interesting, as the two groups had similar operation time (537.2 min vs. 592.9 min, p = 1.000) and blood loss (482.8 ml vs. 559.5 ml, p > 0.05), but the RPD group had a higher activity of daily living score on postoperative day 3 (35.8 vs. 25.7, p = 0.0017) and a lower rate of conversion to OPD (6.5% vs. 38.1%, p = 0.011). Regarding complications, such as the postoperative pancreatic fistula, abdominal hemorrhage, intra-abdominal infection, bile leakage, reoperation, and perioperative mortality, there were no significant differences among the three groups.

Conclusions

Not only is RPD feasible and reliable, it also offers significant advantages in that it improves postoperative recovery of skills needed for everyday life, has a low conversion rate to open surgery, and does not increase surgical risks.

Minimally Invasive Pancreatoduodenectomy: Contemporary Practice, Evidence, and Knowledge Gaps

Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy has gained popularity throughout the last decade. For laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy, some high-level evidence exists, but with conflicting results. There are currently no published randomized controlled trials comparing robotic and open pancreatoduodenectomy. Comparative long-term data for patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is lacking to date. Based on the existing evidence, current observed benefits of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy over open pancreatoduodenectomy seem scarce, but retrospective data indicate the safety of these procedures in selected patients. As familiarity with the robotic platform increases, studies have shown an expansion in indications, also including patients with vascular involvement and even indicating favorable results in patients with obesity and high-risk morphometric features. Several ongoing randomized controlled trials aim to investigate potential differences in short- and long-term outcomes between minimally invasive and open pancreatoduodenectomy. Their results are much awaited.

Pancreatoduodenectomy in obese patients: surgery for nonmalignant tumors might be deferred

BACKGROUND

Obesity has traditionally been considered a cause of increased surgical complexity and poor outcomes following pancreatoduodenectomy (PD). This study aimed at evaluating the role of obesity in terms of mortality and failure to rescue (FTR), with a particular focus on nonmalignant tumors.

METHODS

All patients undergoing elective PD over 10 consecutive years were analyzed. Patients were stratified according to their BMI and categorized into two groups. Predictors of mortality and FTR were assessed through logistic regression.

RESULTS

Out of 1865 patients included, 151 were obese (8.1%). Overall mortality and FTR were 3.1% and 14.1%, respectively. In obese patients, mortality was 6.0% and FTR 26.5%, significantly higher compared to nonobese (p < 0.05). In the multivariable analysis, obesity, age > 70 years, and ASA-PS score were independent predictors of mortality and FTR. Postoperative pancreatic fistula (35.8% vs. 25.8%), postpancreatectomy acute pancreatitis (24.5% vs. 12.5%), and chyle leak (6.0% vs. 3.2%) were more frequent among obese patients. In the subgroup of patients with nonmalignant tumors (n = 443), obesity was the only independent predictor of FTR.

CONCLUSION

PD performed in obese patients was associated with higher surgical morbidity and mortality. When dealing with nonmalignant tumors, deferring surgery in obese patients should be strongly considered.

Robotic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy, comparing therapeutic indexes; a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is a challenging procedure with peri-operative complications. Robotic surgery offers improved dexterity, visibility, and accessibility. Recently, many centres have reported improved clinical outcomes for robotic PD. We reviewed the safety and efficacy of robotic PD in comparison to open PD using 'Therapeutic Index' (TI).

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was conducted in various databases. Articles published between January 2010 and March 2021 reporting totally-robotic and open PD were included, according to the PRISMA and AMSTAR-2 guidelines. The Cochrane tool was used for risk of bias assessment. We compared 30-day mortality rates (MR₃₀), lymphadenectomy rates (LR), R0 resection rates (R₀RR) and therapeutic index (TI). STATA 16.1 was used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

The four studies that met inclusion criteria included 5090 PDs, out of which 617 were totally-robotic (RPD) and 4473 were open (OPD). Variance ratio tests demonstrated a)Higher TI for RPD versus OPD (1807.42 vs 1723.37, p = 0.86), b)Significantly smaller MR₃₀ (2.50 vs 19.00, p = 0.0004), c)Significantly lower R₀RR (130.50 vs 939.25, p = 0.00) and d)No significant difference in LR between RPD and OPD (35.63 vs 38.25, p = 0.81). Meta-regression analysis showed a significantly higher TI coefficient of RPD than OPD (0.66 vs -0.40, p = 0.08, α = 0.1).

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests that robotic PD is safe and not inferior to open PD and our analysis RPD demonstrated a higher therapeutic index than OPD. Randomised controlled trials are required to establish the efficacy of robotic PD. Also, standardisation of reporting mortality, survival and oncological outcomes is needed for the effective calculation of TI.

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic head cancer and periampullary lesions

Pancreaticoduodenectomy, so-called "Whipple operation," is a time-consuming and technically demanding complex operation. Traditionally, this procedure has been performed most usually by open approach, which results in a large and painful wound. With the introduction of laparoscopic and robotic surgery, minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has emerged as a worldwide trend to improve wound cosmesis and to minimize wound pain. Although MIS for pancreaticoduodenectomy has also been attempted at some centers, the role of MIS, either robotic or laparoscopic approach, has not been well-established for complex pancreaticoduodenectomy. Given that laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy has been limited by its technical complexity and the high level of advanced laparoscopic skills required for pancreatic reconstruction, a robotic surgical system is introduced to overcome several limitations related to the laparoscopic approach. Providing high-quality three-dimensional (3-D) vision, high optical magnification, articulation of robotic instruments, greater precision with suture targeting, and elimination of surgeon tremor, robotic surgical systems innovatively perform more delicate and complex procedures involving extensive dissection and suturing techniques such as pancreaticoduodenectomy. Although associated with longer operative time, robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) has been claimed to have the benefits of less delayed gastric emptying, less blood loss, shorter length of postoperative stay, and lower wound infection rate, as compared with the traditional open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD). Moreover, RPD seems to be not only technically feasible but also justified without compromising the survival outcomes for pancreatic head and ampullary adenocarcinomas. Therefore, RPD could be recommended not only to surgeons but also to patients in terms of surgical feasibility, surgical outcomes, and patient satisfaction.

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 distal pancreatectomy reduces pancreatic fistula in patients without visceral obesity as compared to open distal pancreatectomy: A propensity score matching retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Several studies have suggested an association between visceral obesity and adverse perioperative outcomes in pancreatic surgery. However, no study has reported the impact of visceral obesity on robotic pancreatic surgery. This study aimed to assess the impact of preoperative visceral obesity on clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) patients following robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) or open distal pancreatectomy (ODP).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed on all patients who consecutively underwent RDP or ODP for PDAC. The visceral adipose tissue was measured on preoperative computed tomography (CT) images at the L3 vertebra level. A 1:1 propensity score matching method was used in the visceral obesity group and the nonvisceral obesity group to minimize the bias between RDP and ODP.

RESULTS

Between December 2011 and December 2018, a total of 445 patients were included. Visceral obesity (n = 219) was found to be associated with higher estimated blood loss (p = 0.033), a higher CR-POPF rate (p = 0.001), delayed drain removal (p = 0.005) and a longer length of stay (p = 0.033). In multivariable analysis, visceral obesity was an independent risk factor for CR-POPF (OR: 1.69; 95% CI 1.07-2.67, p = 0.024). Among patients without visceral obesity, the incidence of CR-POPF was lower among RDP than among ODP patients (11.27% vs. 23.87%, p = 0.028), and the difference remained after propensity score matching (9.52% vs. 26.98%, p = 0.011). However, there was no significant difference in the CR-POPF rate between RDP and ODP for visceral obesity patients.

CONCLUSION

In nonvisceral obesity patients, RDP had better perioperative outcomes than ODP, with a significantly lower CR-POPF rate. However, in visceral obesity patients, RDP showed equivalent CR-POPF rate when compared to ODP.

Impact of body mass index on the early experience of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy

Obesity increases surgical morbidity and mortality in open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD). Its influence on robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) remains uncertain. This study aimed to investigate the impact of body mass index (BMI) on the early experience of RPD. Between June 2015 and April 2020, 68 consecutive RPDs were performed at the National Cheng Kung University Hospital. The patients were categorized as normal-weight (BMI < 23 kg/m²), overweight (BMI = 23–27.5 kg/m²), and obese (BMI > 27.5 kg/m²) according to the definition of obesity in Asian people from the World Health Organization expert consultation. Preoperative characteristics, operative details, and postoperative outcomes were prospectively collected. The cumulative sum was used to assess the learning curves. The average age of the patients was 64.8 ± 11.7 years with an average BMI of 24.6 ± 3.7 kg/m² (23 normal-weight, 29 overweight, and 16 obese patients). Eighteen patients were required to overcome the learning curve. The overall complication rate was 51.5%, and the major complication rate (Clavien grade ≥ III) was 19.1%. The normal-weight group showed the most favorable outcomes. The blood loss, major complication rate, peripancreatic fluid collection rate, and conversion rate were higher in the obese group than in the non-obese group. There were no differences in the operative time, clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula, postoperative hemorrhage, delayed gastric emptying, bile leak, wound infection, reoperation, hospital stay, and readmission rate between the obese and non-obese groups. Multivariate analysis showed obesity as the only independent factor for major complications (OR: 5.983, CI: 1.394–25.682, p = 0.001), indicating that obesity should be considered as a surgical risk factor during the implementation of RPD.

500 Minimally Invasive Robotic Pancreatoduodenectomies: One Decade of Optimizing Performance

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to present the outcomes of our decade-long experience of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy and provide insights into successful program implementation.

BACKGROUND

Despite significant improvement in mortality over the past 30 years, morbidity following open pancreatoduodenectomy remains high. We implemented a minimally invasive pancreatic surgery program based on the robotic platform as one potential method of improving outcomes for this operation.

METHODS

A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained institutional database was performed to identify patients who underwent robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) between 2008 and 2017 at the University of Pittsburgh.

RESULTS

In total, 500 consecutive RPDs were included. Operative time, conversion to open, blood loss, and clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula improved early in the experience and have remained low despite increasing complexity of case selection as reflected by increasing number of patients with pancreatic cancer, vascular resections, and higher Charlson Comorbidity scores (all P<0.05). Operating room time plateaued after 240 cases at a median time of 391 minutes (interquartile rang 340-477). Major complications (Clavien >2) occurred in less than 24%, clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula in 7.8%, 30- and 90-day mortality were 1.4% and 3.1% respectively, and median length of stay was 8 days. Outcomes were not impacted by integration of trainees or expansion of selection criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

Structured implementation of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy can be associated with excellent outcomes. In the largest series of RPD, we establish benchmarks for the surgical community to consider when adopting this approach.

Real robotic total mesopancreas excision (TMpE) assisted by hanging manoeuver (HM): Standardised technique

BACKGROUND

Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is one of the most demanding interventions for digestive surgeons. R0 resection is a key point for the overall survival and disease-free survival. Total mesopancreas excision (TMpE) has been described by laparotomy but laparoscopy did not provide good results probably because of the technical difficulties of the approach. We propose a standardised total robotic approach.

METHODS

In this step-by-step technical description, we propose as example, a case of a 53-year-old man with a pancreatic head adenocarcinoma with doubts about the invasion of the mesopancreas surrounding superior mesenteric artery. The mesopancreas hanging manoeuver allows us to perform a TMpE.

RESULTS

The surgery performed was a robotic artery first pancreaticoduodenectomy with TMpE. The pathological result was pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma pT2, N1 (1/23), M0, V0, L0, Pn0, R0.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic approach is safe, effective and reproductible. Through a standardised technique, it may overcome some of the technical difficulties of laparoscopic PD.

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy decreases the risk of clinically relevant post-operative pancreatic fistula: a propensity score matched NSQIP analysis

BACKGROUND

A single-institution study demonstrated robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) was protective against clinically-relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) compared to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD). We sought to compare the national rate of CR-POPF by approach.

METHODS

Procedure-targeted pancreatectomy Participant User Data File was queried from 2014 to 2017 for all patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy. A modified fistula risk score was calculated and patients were stratified into risk categories. Multivariate logistic regression and propensity score matching was used.

RESULTS

The rate of CR-POPF (15.6% vs. 11.9%; p = 0.026) was higher in OPD compared to RPD. On subgroup analysis, OPD had higher CR-POPF in high risk patients (32.9% vs. 19.4%; p = 0.007). On multivariable analysis OPD was a predictor of increased CR-POPF (Odds Ratio [OR] = 1.61 [1.15-2.25]; p = 0.005). Other operative factors associated with increased CR-POPF included soft pancreatic texture (OR = 2.65 [2.27-3.09]; p < 0.001) and concomitant visceral resection (OR = 1.41 [1.03-1.93]; p = 0.031). Increased duct size (reference <3 mm) was predictive of decreased CR-POPF: 3-6 mm (OR = 0.70 [0.61-0.81]; p < 0.001) and ≥6 mm (OR = 0.47 [0.37-0.60]; p < 0.001). Following propensity score matching, RPD continued to be protective against the occurrence of CR-POPF (OR = 1.54 [1.09-2.17]; p = 0.013).

CONCLUSIONS

This is the largest multicenter study to evaluate the impact of RPD on POPF. It suggests that RPD can be protective against POPF, especially for high risk patients.

Short-term Outcomes After Robot-Assisted vs Open Pancreaticoduodenectomy After the Learning Curve

Question

What are the actual advantages of robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) after the learning curve?

Findings

In this cohort study of 187 individuals, robot-assisted PD had advantages over open PD in operative time, estimated blood loss, and postoperative hospital stay after the learning curve.

Meaning

The true advantages of robot-assisted PD could be revealed after passing the learning curve.

Importance

Robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) has been reported to be safe and feasible. As a new technique, RPD has a learning curve similar to that of other types of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery such as laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy. To our knowledge, no reports exist on the outcomes of open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) and RPD after the learning curve.

Objective

To analyze and evaluate the actual advantages of RPD.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Between May 2010 and December 2018, 450 patients underwent RPD in the Shanghai Ruijin Hospital affiliated with Shanghai Jiaotong University in Shanghai, China, a high-volume pancreatic disease center. According to our previous study, an important flexion point in the learning curve is 250 cases. Data on the last 200 RPD cases were collected from January 2017 to December 2018. During that period, 634 patients underwent OPD. These patients were divided into 2 groups, and propensity score matching was used to minimize bias. The demographic data and operative outcomes were collected and analyzed. Analysis began May 2019.

Exposures

Robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy and OPD.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The short-term operative outcomes of RPD and OPD.

Results

After 1:1 matching, 187 cases of RPD and OPD were recorded. In the RPD group, 78 patients (41.7%) were women, and the mean (SD) age was 60.9 (11.4) years. In the OPD group, 80 patients (42.8%) were women, and the mean (SD) age was 60.1 (10.8) years. Robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy had advantages in operative time (mean [SD], 279.7 [76.3] minutes vs 298.2 [78.3] minutes; P = .02), estimated blood loss (mean [SD], 297.3 [246.8] mL vs 415.2 [497.9] mL; P = .002), and postoperative length of hospital stay (mean [SD], 22.4 [16.7] days vs 26.1 [16.3] days; P = .03). However, there was no significant difference in the R0 resection rate and incidence rate of postoperative complications, such as postoperative pancreatic fistula, bile leak, and delayed gastric emptying. The incidence rates of postoperative bleeding and reoperation in the RPD group were similar to those in the OPD group, with no statistically significant difference.

Conclusions and Relevance

After passing the learning curve, RPD had advantages in operative time and blood loss compared with OPD. There were no differences in postoperative complications such as postoperative pancreatic fistula, bile leak, and delayed gastric emptying. However, patients recovered more quickly after RPD than after OPD. A prospective randomized clinical trial is needed in the future to verify these results.

Robotic Pancreatoduodenectomy: Patient Selection, Volume Criteria, and Training Programs

INTRODUCTION

There has been a rapid development in minimally invasive pancreas surgery in recent years. The most recent innovation is robotic pancreatoduodenectomy. Several studies have suggested benefits as compared to the open or laparoscopic approach. This review provides an overview of studies concerning patient selection, volume criteria, and training programs for robotic pancreatoduodenectomy and identified knowledge gaps regarding barriers for safe implementation of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A Pubmed search was conducted concerning patient selection, volume criteria, and training programs in robotic pancreatoduodenectomy.

RESULTS

A total of 20 studies were included. No contraindications were found in patient selection for robotic pancreatoduodenectomy. The consensus and the Miami guidelines advice is a minimum annual volume of 20 robotic pancreatoduodenectomy procedures per center, per year. One training program was identified which describes superior outcomes after the training program and shortening of the learning curve in robotic pancreatoduodenectomy.

CONCLUSION

Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy is safe and feasable for all indications when performed by specifically trained surgeons working in centers who can maintain a minimum volume of 20 robotic pancreatoduodenectomy procedures per year. Large proficiency-based training program for robotic pancreatoduodenectomy seem essential to facilitate a safe implementation and future research on robotic pancreatoduodenectomy.

A deep pancreas is a novel predictor of pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy in patients with a nondilated main pancreatic duct

BACKGROUND

We investigated the risk factors for clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy in patients with a nondilated main pancreatic duct.

METHODS

We investigated a total of 354 patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy. The diameter of the main pancreatic duct, the shortest distance from the body surface to the pancreas (the pancreatic depth), and the computed tomography attenuation index (the difference between the pancreatic and splenic computed tomography attenuation) were measured in preoperative computed tomography.

RESULTS

One hundred eighty-one (51.1%) patients had a nondilated main pancreatic duct, and 50 (27.6%) of the 181 patients with a nondilated main pancreatic duct developed a clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula. Univariate analyses revealed that the calculated body mass index (≥21.8 kg/m²) (P = .004), deep pancreas (pancreatic depth ≥51.2 mm) (P = .001), and low computed tomography attenuation index (≤-3.8 Hounsfield units) (P = .02) were significant risk factors for clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula. The multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that deep pancreas (odds ratio 2.370; 95% confidence interval 1.0019-5.590; P = .049) was an independent risk factor for clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula. Among patients with a nondilated main pancreatic duct, deep pancreas (in comparison to patients without deep pancreas) was associated with male sex (72.7% vs 54.9%; P = .016), higher body mass index (22.5 kg/m² vs 19.6 kg/m²; P < .001), a history of diabetes mellitus (24.5% vs 8.5%; P = .006), a lower computed tomography attenuation index (-9.6 Hounsfield units vs -4.6 Hounsfield units; P = .007), a longer operative time (454 minutes vs 420 minutes; P = .007), and a higher volume of intraoperative blood loss (723 mL vs 500 mL; P < .001), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Deep pancreas may be an important parameter associated with significant risk factors for clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy in patients with a nondilated main pancreatic duct.

Systematic review and updated network meta-analysis comparing open, laparoscopic, and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy

The treatment of periampullary and pancreatic head neoplasms is evolving. While minimally invasive Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) has gained worldwide interest, there has been a debate on its related outcomes. The purpose of this paper was to provide an updated evidence comparing short-term surgical and oncologic outcomes within Open Pancreaticoduodenectomy (OpenPD), Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy (LapPD), and Robotic Pancreaticoduodenectomy (RobPD). MEDLINE, Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane Central Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were referred for systematic search. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was executed. Forty-one articles (56,440 patients) were included; 48,382 (85.7%) underwent OpenPD, 5570 (9.8%) LapPD, and 2488 (4.5%) RobPD. Compared to OpenPD, LapPD and RobPD had similar postoperative mortality [Risk Ratio (RR) = 1.26; 95%CrI 0.91–1.61 and RR = 0.78; 95%CrI 0.54–1.12)], clinically relevant (grade B/C) postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) (RR = 1.12; 95%CrI 0.82–1.43 and RR = 0.87; 95%CrI 0.64–1.14, respectively), and severe (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3) postoperative complications (RR = 1.03; 95%CrI 0.80–1.46 and RR = 0.93; 95%CrI 0.65–1.14, respectively). Compared to OpenPD, both LapPD and RobPD had significantly reduced hospital length-of-stay, estimated blood loss, infectious, pulmonary, overall complications, postoperative bleeding, and hospital readmission. No differences were found in the number of retrieved lymph nodes and R0. OpenPD, LapPD, and RobPD seem to be comparable across clinically relevant POPF, severe complications, postoperative mortality, retrieved lymphnodes, and R0. LapPD and RobPD appears to be safer in terms of infectious, pulmonary, and overall complications with reduced hospital readmission We advocate surgeons to choose their preferred surgical approach according to their expertise, however, the adoption of minimally invasive techniques may possibly improve patients’ outcomes.

Does center or surgeon volume influence adoption of minimally invasive versus open pancreatoduodenectomy? A systematic review and meta-regression

BACKGROUND

There has been increasing uptake of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy during the past decade, but it remains a highly specialized procedure as benefits over open pancreatoduodenectomy remain contentious. This study aimed to evaluate current evidence on minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy versus open pancreatoduodenectomy in terms of impact of center volume on outcomes.

METHODS

A systematic review of articles on comparative cohort and registry studies on minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy versus open pancreatoduodenectomy published until 31st December 2019 were identified, and meta-analyses were performed. Primary endpoints were International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistula grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula and 30-day mortality.

RESULTS

After screening 7,390 studies, 43 comparative cohort studies (8,755 patients) with moderate methodological quality and 3 original registry studies (43,735 patients) were included. For the cohort studies, the median annual hospital minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy volume was 10. No significant differences were found in grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula (odds ratio: 0.98, 95% confidence interval: 0.78-1.23) or 30-day mortality (odds ratio: 1.14, 95% confidence interval: 0.65-2.01) between minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy when compared with open. No publication biases were present and meta-regression identified no confounding for grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula, center volume or 30-day mortality. Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy was only strongly associated with significantly lower rates of postoperative pulmonary complications and surgical site infection, shorter length of stay, and significantly higher rates of R0 margin resections.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy remains noninferior to open pancreatoduodenectomy for grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula but is strongly associated with significantly lower rates of postoperative pulmonary complications and surgical site infection. Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy can be adopted safely with good outcomes irrespective of annual center resection volume.

Robotic and open pancreaticoduodenectomy: results from Taipei Veterans General Hospital in Taiwan

This study is to clarify the feasibility and justification of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) by comparing the outcomes between RPD and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) groups. All perioperative data and outcomes were prospectively collected. There were 304 (63.9%) RPD and 172 (36.1%) OPD. The median operation time was longer in RPD group than OPD (7.5 vs 7.0 h). The blood loss was much lower in RPD group, with a median of 130 vs. 400 c.c. in OPD group. Based on Clavien-Dindo classification, grade 0 (no complication) was 51.8% in RPD group, higher than 43.2% in OPD. Delayed gastric emptying was only 3.5% in RPD group, much lower than 13.6% in OPD. Wound infection rate was also lower in RPD group, 3.2% vs. 7.7% in OPD. The postoperative hospital stay was shorter in RPD group, with a median of 20 days, vs. 24 days in OPD. There was no significant difference regarding the lymph node yield, surgical mortality, postoperative pancreatic fistula, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage, chyle leakage and bile leakage between RPD and OPD groups. For pancreatic head adenocarcinoma, the survival outcome was better in RPD group, with 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year survival of 82.9%, 45.3%, and 26.8% respectively, as compared with 63.8%, 26.2%, and 17.4% in OPD. RPD is not only feasible but also justified without increasing the surgical risks and compromising the survival outcomes. Moreover, RPD might provide benefits of less blood loss, less delayed gastric emptying, lower wound infection rate and shorter length of postoperative stay, as compared with OPD.

The role of older age and obesity in minimally invasive and open pancreatic surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to assess the impact of older age (≥70 years) and obesity (BMI ≥30) on surgical outcomes of minimally invasive pancreatic resections (MIPR). Subsequently, open pancreatic resections or MIPR were compared for elderly and/or obese patients.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted as part of the 2019 Miami International Evidence-Based Guidelines on MIPR (IG-MIPR). Study quality assessment was according to The Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN). A meta-analysis was performed to assess the impact of MIPR or open pancreatic resections in elderly patients.

RESULTS

After screening 682 studies, 13 observational studies with 4629 patients were included. Elderly patients undergoing laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) had less blood loss (117 mL, p < 0.001) and a shorter hospital stay (3.5 days p < 0.001) than elderly patients undergoing open distal pancreatectomy (ODP). Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) B/C, major complication and reoperation rate were not significantly different in elderly patients undergoing either laparoscopic or open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD). One study compared robot PD with OPD in obese patients, indicating that patients with robotic surgery had less blood loss (mean 250 ml vs 500 ml, p = 0.001), shorter operative time (mean 381 min vs 428 min, p = 0.003), and lower rate of POPF B/C (13% vs 28%, p = 0.039).

CONCLUSION

The current available limited evidence does not suggest that MIPR is contraindicated in elderly or obese patients. Additionally, outcomes in MIPR are equal or more beneficial compared to the open approach when applied in these patient groups.

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy in the era of minimally invasive surgery

Minimally invasive surgery has become a worldwide trend to reduce the wound and mitigate pain. However, the role of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) has not been well established in the era of minimally invasive surgery. It would be nearly impossible to apply minimally invasive surgery in the tedious and complicated Whipple operation without an experienced and dedicated pancreas team. The pancreatic team led by Shyr YM and Wang SE at Taipei Veterans General Hospital have already been highly accredited with a Copper Award of Symbol of National Quality (SNQ award), entitled with "Minimally Invasive Robotic Pancreatic Surgery-Small Wound for Major Pancreatic Surgery" in Taiwan in 2019. RPD was claimed to be associated with less blood loss, less delayed gastric emptying, shorter length of postoperative stay, and lower wound infection rate, but longer operative time, as compared with the traditional open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD). More than 99% of the patients undergoing minimally invasive RPD are satisfied with the surgical outcomes and would like to recommend RPD to those with periampullary lesions. RPD could be recommended not only to surgeons but also to patients in terms of surgical outcomes and patient satisfaction. Moreover, our study showed a survival benefit for pancreatic head adenocarcinoma in RPD group, with 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year survival of 82.9%, 45.3%, and 26.8%, respectively, as compared with 63.8%, 26.2%, and 17.4% in OPD.

Robotic Whipple for pancreatic ductal and ampullary adenocarcinoma: 10 years experience of a US single-center

BACKGROUND

There is currently ample consensus about the safety and feasibility of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD). However, few studies are available on the long-term oncological outcomes of this procedure. We present a long-term survival analysis (up to 10 years) of our series of RPD carried out for ductal and ampullary adenocarcinoma.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected approved database was carried out including 39 patients who underwent RPD for pancreatic ductal and ampullary adenocarcinomas.

RESULTS

The 5-year overall survival for ductal and ampullary carcinoma was 41% with an estimated median and mean survival of 27 and 52 months. The ampullary group had significantly longer 5-year survival (68%) than the ductal group (30%).

CONCLUSION

Our data show, within the limitations of their retrospective nature, that robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy provides similar short- and long-term survival outcomes compared to open technique in the treatment of pancreatic ductal and ampullary adenocarcinoma.

Safety and oncologic efficacy of robotic compared to open pancreaticoduodenectomy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

Emerging data from multi-institutional and national databases suggest that robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy is safe and feasible for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Nevertheless, there are limited reports evaluating its safety and oncologic efficacy following neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

METHOD

This is a retrospective study from the 2010-2016 National Cancer Database comparing the postoperative, pathological and long-term oncologic outcomes between robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) for pancreatic adenocarcinoma following neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

RESULTS

We identified 155 (5%) RPD and 3329 (95%) OPD following neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The use of the robot increased from 3 cases in 2010 to 50 cases in 2016. RPD patients were more likely to receive adjuvant chemotherapy and to be treated at academic centers. After adjustment, RPD was associated with a higher proportion of adequate lymphadenectomy, receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy, decreased rate of prolonged length of stay, and similar 90-day mortality. There was no difference in median overall survival between RPD and OPD (25.6 months vs. 27.5 months, Log Rank p = 0.879). The 1-, 3- and 5-year overall survival rates for RPD were 83%, 36% and 22% and for OPD were 86%, 38% and 22%. After adjustment, the use of robotic surgery was associated with similar overall survival compared to the open approach (HR 1.011, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.776-1.316).

CONCLUSIONS

Following neoadjuvant chemotherapy, RPD is associated with similar short- and long-term mortality with the advantage of shorter length of stay, higher proportion of adequate lymphadenectomy and receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy.

The Miami International Evidence-based Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreas Resection

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to develop and externally validate the first evidence-based guidelines on minimally invasive pancreas resection (MIPR) before and during the International Evidence-based Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreas Resection (IG-MIPR) meeting in Miami (March 2019).

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

MIPR has seen rapid development in the past decade. Promising outcomes have been reported by early adopters from high-volume centers. Subsequently, multicenter series as well as randomized controlled trials were reported; however, guidelines for clinical practice were lacking.

METHODS

The Scottisch Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) methodology was used, incorporating these 4 items: systematic reviews using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases to answer clinical questions, whenever possible in PICO style, the GRADE approach for assessment of the quality of evidence, the Delphi method for establishing consensus on the developed recommendations, and the AGREE-II instrument for the assessment of guideline quality and external validation. The current guidelines are cosponsored by the International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the Americas Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the Asian-Pacific Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the European-African Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery, Pancreas Club, the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgery, the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

RESULTS

After screening 16,069 titles, 694 studies were reviewed, and 291 were included. The final 28 recommendations covered 6 topics; laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomy, central pancreatectomy, pancreatoduodenectomy, as well as patient selection, training, learning curve, and minimal annual center volume required to obtain optimal outcomes and patient safety.

CONCLUSION

The IG-MIPR using SIGN methodology give guidance to surgeons, hospital administrators, patients, and medical societies on the use and outcome of MIPR as well as the approach to be taken regarding this challenging type of surgery.

Robotic Pancreaticoduodenectomy Is Associated with Decreased Clinically Relevant Pancreatic Fistulas: a Propensity-Matched Analysis

BACKGROUND

Clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) after pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) is a major complication that adversely affects recovery. The robotic approach may decrease the incidence of this complication. This propensity-matched analysis evaluates the impact of robotic PD (RPD) on CR-POPF.

METHODS

Patients undergoing PD after the learning curve at a high-volume academic medical center were reviewed. CR-POPF outcomes after open PD (OPD) and RPD were compared. Logistic regression and propensity score matching (PSM) were used to define the independent effect of RPD on CR-POPF.

RESULTS

Of 865 PDs performed over the study period, 405 (46.8%) were OPD and 460 (53.2%) were RPD. RPD was associated with a similar overall POPF rate, but a lower incidence of CR-POPF (6.7% vs. 15.8%, p < 0.001). On multivariate analysis, RPD was an independent predictor of lower CR-POPF (OR 0.278, p < 0.001). Following propensity matching, RPD continued to be protective against the occurrence of CR-POPF (coefficient = - 0.113, p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This is the largest single-center PSM analysis to evaluate the impact of robotic approach on pancreatoduodenectomy and suggests that RPD can minimize the clinical impact of pancreatic leaks after PD.

Frailer Patients Undergoing Robotic Colectomies for Colon Cancer Experience Increased Complication Rates Compared With Open or Laparoscopic Approaches

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgical techniques are routinely promoted as alternatives to open surgery because of improved outcomes. However, the impact of robotic surgery on certain subsets of the population, such as frail patients, is poorly understood.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of our study was to examine the association between frailty and minimally invasive surgical approaches with colon cancer surgery.

DESIGN

This is a retrospective study of prospectively collected outcomes data. Thirty-day surgical outcomes were compared by frailty and surgical approach using doubly robust multivariable logistic regression with propensity score weighting, and testing for interaction effects between frailty and surgical approach.

SETTING

Patients undergoing an open, laparoscopic, or robotic colectomy for primary colon cancer, 2012 to 2016, were identified from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database.

PATIENTS

Patients undergoing a colectomy with an operative indication for primary colon cancer were selected.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcomes measured were 30-day postoperative complications.

RESULTS

After propensity score weighting of patients undergoing colectomy, 33.8% (n = 27,649) underwent an open approach versus 34.3% (n = 28,058) underwent laparoscopic surgery versus 31.9% (n = 26,096) underwent robotic surgery. Robotic (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.42-0.69, p < 0.001) and laparoscopic (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.52-0.66, p < 0.001) surgeries were independently associated with decreased rates of major complications. Frailer patients had increased complication rates (OR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.07-2.25, p = 0.018). When considering the interaction effects between surgical approach and frailty, frailer patients undergoing robotic surgery were more likely to develop a major complication (combined adjusted OR, 3.15; 95% CI, 1.34-7.45, p = 0.009) compared with patients undergoing open surgery.

LIMITATIONS

Use of the modified Frailty Index as an associative proxy for frailty was a limitation of this study.

CONCLUSIONS

Although minimally invasive surgical approaches have decreased postoperative complications, this effect may be reversed in frail patients. These findings challenge the belief that robotic surgery provides a favorable alternative to open surgery in frail patients. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B163. LOS PACIENTES MÁS FRÁGILES SOMETIDOS A COLECTOMÍA ROBÓTICA POR CÁNCER DE COLON EXPERIMENTAN MAYORES TASAS DE COMPLICACIONES EN COMPARACIÓN CON ABORDAJES LAPAROSCÓPICO O ABIERTO: Las técnicas quirúrgicas mínimamente invasivas estan frecuentement promovidas como alternativas a la cirugía abierta debido a sus mejores resultados. Sin embargo, el impacto de la cirugía robótica en ciertos subgrupos de población, como el caso de los pacientes endebles, es poco conocido.El propósito de nuestro estudio fue examinar la asociación entre la fragilidad de los pacientes y el aborgaje quirúrgico mínimamente invasivo para la cirugía de cáncer de colon.Estudio retrospectivo de datos de resultados recolectados prospectivamente. Los resultados quirúrgicos a 30 días se compararon entre fragilidad y abordaje quirúrgico utilizando la regresión logística multivariable doblemente robusta con ponderación de puntaje de propensión y pruebas de efectos de interacción entre fragilidad y abordaje quirúrgico.Los pacientes identificados en la base de datos del Programa Nacional de Mejora de la Calidad Quirúrgica del Colegio Estadounidense de Cirujanos, que fueron sometidos a una colectomía abierta, laparoscópica o robótica por cáncer de colon primario, de 2012 a 2016.Todos aquellos pacientes seleccionados con indicación quirúrgica de cáncer primario de colon que fueron sometidos a una colectomía.Las complicaciones postoperatorias a 30 días.Luego de ponderar el puntaje de propensión de los pacientes colectomizados, el 33.8% (n = 27,649) fué sometido a laparotomía versus el 34.3% (n = 28,058) operados por laparoscopía versus el 31.9% (n = 26,096) operados con tecnica robótica. Las cirugías robóticas (OR 0.53, IC 95% 0.42-0.69, p < 0.001) y laparoscópicas (OR 0.58, IC 95% 0.52-0.66, p < 0.001) se asociaron de forma independiente con una disminución de las tasas de complicaciones mayores. Los pacientes más delicados tenían mayores tasas de complicaciones (OR 1.56, IC 95% 1.07-2.25, p = 0.018). Al considerar los efectos de interacción entre el abordaje quirúrgico y la fragilidad, los pacientes más débiles sometidos a cirugía robótica tenían más probabilidades de desarrollar una complicación mayor (OR ajustado combinado 3.15, IC 95% 1.34-7.45, p = 0.009) en comparación con los pacientes sometidos a cirugía abierta.El uso del índice de fragilidad modificado como apoderado asociativo de la fragilidad.Si bien los abordajes quirúrgicos mínimamente invasivos han disminuido las complicaciones postoperatorias, este efecto puede revertirse en pacientes lábiles. Estos hallazgos desafían la creencia de que la cirugía robótica proporciona una alternativa favorable a la cirugía abierta en pacientes frágiles. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B163. (Traducción-Dr. Xavier Delgadillo).

Long-term oncologic outcomes of robotic and open pancreatectomy in a national cohort of pancreatic adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

Robotic pancreatectomy is gaining momentum; however, limited data exist on the long-term survival of this approach for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). The objective of this study is to compare the long-term oncologic outcomes of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) and robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) to open surgery in patients with PDAC.

STUDY DESIGN

Robotic and open pancreatectomy for stages I-III PDAC were obtained from the 2010 to 2016 National Cancer Database.

RESULTS

We identified 17 831 pancreaticoduodenectomies and 2718 distal pancreatectomies of which 626 (4%) and 332 (12%) were robotic, respectively. There was no difference in median overall survival between RPD (22.0 months) and open pancreatoduodenectomy (21.8 months; logrank P = .755). The adjusted hazard ratio [HR] was 1.014 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.903-1.139). The median overall survival for RDP (35.3 months) was higher than open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) (24.9 months; logrank P = .001). The adjusted HR suggests a benefit to RDP compared to ODP (HR, 0.744; 95% CI: 0.632-0.868) CONCLUSION: In a national cohort of resected pancreatic adenocarcinoma, the robotic platform was associated with similar long-term survival for pancreaticoduodenectomy, but improved survival for distal pancreatectomy.

How to train and evaluate minimally invasive pancreas surgery

Training for minimally invasive pancreas surgery is critical as an evolving body of literature supports its use with acceptable outcomes during training and improved short term outcomes following completion. Although case volume needed to achieve mastery remains unclear, improved outcomes for both laparoscopic and robotic pancreatectomy are demonstrated following a learning curve and inflection point. Therefore, dedicated training curricula for both laparoscopic and robotic pancreatectomy have been developed to mitigate this learning curve and improve outcomes.

Robotic-assisted versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for patients with benign and malignant periampullary disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of short-term outcomes

BACKGROUND

Although several non-randomized studies comparing robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) recently demonstrated that the two operative techniques could be equivalent in terms of safety outcomes and short-term oncologic efficacy, no definitive answer has arrived yet to the question as to whether robotic assistance can contribute to reducing the high rate of postoperative morbidity.

METHODS

Systematic literature search was performed using MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and EMBASE databases. Prospective and retrospective studies comparing RPD and OPD as surgical treatment for periampullary benign and malignant lesions were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis with no limits of language or year of publication.

RESULTS

18 non-randomized studies were included for quantitative synthesis with 13,639 patients allocated to RPD (n = 1593) or OPD (n = 12,046). RPD and OPD showed equivalent results in terms of mortality (3.3% vs 2.8%; P = 0.84), morbidity (64.4% vs 68.1%; P = 0.12), pancreatic fistula (17.9% vs 15.9%; P = 0.81), delayed gastric emptying (16.8% vs 16.1%; P = 0.98), hemorrhage (11% vs 14.6%; P = 0.43), and bile leak (5.1% vs 3.5%; P = 0.35). Estimated intra-operative blood loss was significantly lower in the RPD group (352.1 ± 174.1 vs 588.4 ± 219.4; P = 0.0003), whereas operative time was significantly longer for RPD compared to OPD (461.1 ± 84 vs 384.2 ± 73.8; P = 0.0004). RPD and OPD showed equivalent results in terms of retrieved lymph nodes (19.1 ± 9.9 vs 17.3 ± 9.9; P = 0.22) and positive margin status (13.3% vs 16.1%; P = 0.32).

CONCLUSIONS

RPD is safe and feasible as surgical treatment for malignant or benign disease of the pancreatic head and the periampullary region. Equivalency in terms of surgical radicality including R0 curative resection and number of harvested lymph nodes between the two groups confirmed the reliability of RPD from an oncologic point of view.

Predicting Selection Preference of Robotic Pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) in a Chinese Single Center Population: Development and Assessment of a New Predictive Nomogram

BACKGROUND Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) is a novel type of minimally invasive surgery to treat tumors located at the head of the pancreas. This study aimed to construct a novel prediction model for predicting selection preference for RPD in a Chinese single medical center population. MATERIAL AND METHODS The clinical data from 451 pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma patients were collected and analyzed from January 2013 to December 2016. Twenty-three items affecting clinical strategies were optimized by LASSO (least absolute shrinkage and selection operator) regression analysis and then were incorporated in multivariable logistic regression analysis. C-index was used for evaluating the discriminative ability. Decision curve was applied to determine clinical application of this model and the calibration of this nomogram was evaluated by calibration plot. The model was internally validated through bootstrapping validation. RESULTS Clinicopathological factors included in the model were age, history of diabetes mellitus, history of hypertension, history of heart, brain and kidney disease, history of abdominal surgery, symptoms (jaundice, accidental discovery and weight loss), anemia, elevated carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), smoking, alcohol intake, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scores, vascular invasion, overweight, preoperative lymph node metastasis and tumor size >3.5 cm. A C-index of 0.831 indicated good discrimination and calibration of this model. Interval validation generated an acceptable C-index of 0.787. When surgical approach was determined at the threshold of preference possibility less than 63%, decision curve analysis indicated that this model had good clinical application value in this range. CONCLUSIONS This new nomogram could be conveniently used to predict the selection preference of robotic surgery for patients with pancreatic head cancer.

Use of Video Review to Investigate Technical Factors That May Be Associated With Delayed Gastric Emptying After Pancreaticoduodenectomy

Importance

Technical proficiency at robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) and video assessment are promising tools for understanding postoperative outcomes. Delayed gastric emptying (DGE) remains a major driver of cost and morbidity after pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Objective

To determine if technical variables during RPD are associated with postoperative DGE.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A retrospective study was conducted of technical assessment performed in all available videos (n = 192) of consecutive RPDs performed at a single academic institution from October 3, 2008, through September 27, 2016.

Exposures

Video review of gastrojejunal anastomosis during RPD.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Delayed gastric emptying was classified according to International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery criteria. Video analysis reviewed technical variables specific in the construction of the gastrojejunal anastomosis. Using multivariate analysis, DGE was correlated with known patient variables and technical variables, individually and combined.

Results

Of 410 RPDs performed, video was available for 192 RPDs (80 women and 112 men; mean [SD] age, 65.7 [11.1] years). Delayed gastric emptying occurred in 41 patients (21.4%; grade A, 15; grade B, 14; and grade C, 12). Patient variables contributing to DGE on multivariate analysis were advanced age (odds ratio [OR] 1.11; 95% CI, 1.05-1.16; P < .001), small pancreatic duct size (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.72-0.98; P = .03), and postoperative pseudoaneurysm (OR, 17.29; 95% CI, 2.34-127.78; P = .005). However, technical variables contributing to decreased DGE on multivariate analysis included the flow angle (within 30° of vertical) between the stomach and efferent jejunal limb (OR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.08-0.79; P = .02), greater length of the gastrojejunal anastomosis (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.20-0.77; P = .006), and a robotic-sewn anastomosis (robotic suture vs stapler: OR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.09-0.95; P = .04).

Conclusions and Relevance

This study examines modifiable technical factors through the use of review of video obtained at the time of operation and suggests ways by which the surgical construction of the gastrojejunal anastomosis during RPD may reduce the incidence of DGE as a framework for prospective quality improvement.

International consensus statement on robotic pancreatic surgery

The robotic surgical system has been applied to various types of pancreatic surgery. However, controversies exist regarding a variety of factors including the safety, feasibility, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of robotic surgery. This study aimed to evaluate the current status of robotic pancreatic surgery and put forth experts' consensus and recommendations to promote its development. Based on the WHO Handbook for Guideline Development, a Consensus Steering Group* and a Consensus Development Group were established to determine the topics, prepare evidence-based documents, and generate recommendations. The GRADE Grid method and Delphi vote were used to formulate the recommendations. A total of 19 topics were analyzed. The first 16 recommendations were generated by GRADE using an evidence-based method (EBM) and focused on the safety, feasibility, indication, techniques, certification of the robotic surgeon, and cost-effectiveness of robotic pancreatic surgery. The remaining three recommendations were based on literature review and expert panel opinion due to insufficient EBM results. Since the current amount of evidence was low/meager as evaluated by the GRADE method, further randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are needed in the future to validate these recommendations.

Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy is associated with lower morbidity compared to open pancreatoduodenectomy: An updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and high-quality nonrandomized studies

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) is being increasingly performed as an alternative to open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) in selected patients. Our study aimed to present a meta-analysis of the high-quality studies conducted that compared MIPD to OPD performed for pancreatic head and periampullary diseases.

METHODS

A systematic review of the available literature was performed to identify those studies conducted that compared MIPD to OPD. Here, all randomized controlled trials identified were included, while the selection of high-quality, nonrandomized comparative studies were based on a validated tool (i.e., Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies). Intraoperative outcomes, postoperative recovery, oncologic clearance, and postoperative complications were also evaluated.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies matched the selection criteria, including a total of 3168 patients (32.1% MIPD, 67.9% OPD). The pooled data showed that MIPD was associated with a longer operative time (weighted mean difference [WMD] = 80.89 minutes, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 39.74-122.05, P < .01), less blood loss (WMD = -227.62 mL, 95% CI: -305.48 to -149.75, P < .01), shorter hospital stay (WMD = -4.68 days, 95% CI: -5.52 to -3.84, P < .01), and an increase in retrieved lymph nodes (WMD = 1.85, 95% CI: 1.33-2.37, P < .01). Furthermore, the overall morbidity was significantly lower in the MIPD group (OR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.54-0.82, P < .01), as were total postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) (OR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.63-0.99, P = .04), delayed gastric emptying (DGE) (OR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.52-0.96, P = .02), and wound infection (OR = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.39-0.79, P < .01). However, there were no statistically significant differences observed in major complications, clinically significant POPFs, reoperation rate, and mortality.

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests that MIPD is a safe alternative to OPD, as it is associated with less blood loss and better postoperative recovery in terms of the overall postoperative complications as well as POPF, DGE, and wound infection. Methodologic high-quality comparative studies are required for further evaluation.

Does robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy improve outcomes in patients with high risk morphometric features compared to the open approach

BACKGROUND

We sought to investigate whether robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) mitigates adverse outcomes in patients with high-risk morphometric features compared to the open approach (OPD).

METHODS

Morphometric parameters for RPD and OPDs were measured by two blinded radiologists. The morphometric parameter best correlating with adverse outcomes was identified and used in multivariable models to evaluate the impact of surgical approach (open vs. robotic) on outcomes of patients with high-risk morphometric features.

RESULTS

Of 282 PDs available for morphometric analysis, 134 (47.5%) underwent RPD. Average Psoas Density demonstrated the most frequent association with adverse outcomes, with correlations to prolonged LOS (ρ= -0.154, p=0.01), severe complications (ρ= -0.159, p=0.007), readmission (ρ= -0.16, p=0.007), and discharge to home (ρ= 0.2, p<0.001). On multivariable analysis of patients with high-risk morphometric features (defined as APD ≤ 50^th percentile), RPD was associated with a reduction in the likelihood of prolonged LOS (OR 0.27, p = 0.015) and a trend towards discharge home versus a rehab facility or nursing home (OR 2.26, p = 0.061).

CONCLUSION

This study confirms the association between morphometrics and outcomes following PD, and suggests that the robotic approach may be associated with improved outcomes in PD patients with high-risk morphometric features.

Surgical and oncological outcomes of our first 59 cases of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy

PURPOSE

Robotics has shown encouraging results for a number of technically demanding abdominal surgeries including pancreaticoduodenectomy, which has originally represented a relative contraindication to the application of the minimally-invasive technique. We aimed to investigate the perioperative, clinicopathologic, and oncological outcomes of robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy by assessing a consecutive series of totally robotic procedures.

METHODS

All consecutive patients who underwent robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy were included in the present analysis. Perioperative, clinicopathologic and oncological outcomes were examined. In order to investigate the role of the learning curve, surgical outcomes were also used to compare the early and the late phase of our experience.

RESULTS

A total of 59 patients underwent surgery. Median hospital stay was 9 days (5 - 110), with an overall morbidity and mortality of 37% and 3%, respectively. Of note, the rate of clinically relevant pancreatic fistula was 11.8%. R0 resections were achieved in 96% of patients and the 3-year disease-free and overall survivals were 37.2 and 61.9%, respectively. Overall, surgical outcomes did not vary significantly between the first and the late phase of the series.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy can be performed competently. It satisfies all features of oncological adequacy and may offer a number of advantages over standard procedures in terms of surgical results.

Evolution of a Novel Robotic Training Curriculum in a Complex General Surgical Oncology Fellowship

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery is increasingly being used for complex oncologic operations, although currently there is no standardized curriculum in place for surgical oncologists. We describe the evolution of a proficiency-based robotic training program implemented for surgical oncology fellows, and demonstrate the outcomes of the program.

METHODS

A 5-step robotic curriculum began integration in July 2013. Fellows from July 2013 to August 2017 were included. An education portfolio was created for each fellow, including pre-fellowship experience, fellowship experience with data from robotic curriculum and operative experience, and post-fellowship practice information.

RESULTS

Of 30 fellows, 20% completed a prior fellowship, 97% trained at an academic residency, 57% had prior robotic training (median 5 h), and 43% had performed robotic surgery (median 0 cases). In fellowship, on average, fellows spent 5 h on the virtual reality curriculum and performed 19 biotissue anastomoses. For total surgeries, fellows operating from the console increased over time (p = 0.005). For pancreas, the average percentage of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) steps completed increased (p < 0.011), as did the number of PDs in which the fellow completed the entire resection (p = 0.013). Fellows were 10 times more likely to complete the entire distal than PD from the console (p < 0.01). Post-fellowship, 83% of fellows obtained an academic position, 88% utilized robotics, and 91% performed pancreatic surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

With dedicated training, fellows can safely primarily perform complex gastrointestinal robotic surgeries and, after graduation, take jobs incorporating this skill set. In this era of scrutiny on cost and outcomes, specialized training programs offer a safe integration option for complex technical skills.