Mesopancreas level 3 dissection in robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy

Mesopancreas dissection level 3 for pancreatic head cancer in combined robotic/open pancreatoduodenectomy: a propensity score-matched study

BACKGROUND

Mesopancreas dissection (MPD) level 3 in combined robotic/open pancreatoduodenectomy (CR/OPD) is technique-demanding. This study aims to clarify the feasibility and justification of MPD level 3.

METHODS

Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was conducted for 208 patients with pancreatic head cancer undergoing CR/OPD with or without MPD level 3. The comparison focused on surgical and oncological outcomes.

RESULTS

After PSM, each group comprised 86 patients. Surgical outcomes were comparable between these two groups, except longer operation time for MPD level 3 (+), median: 10.5 vs. 9.5 h, p = 0.002. MPD level 3 (+) group exhibited higher lymph node yield, median: 20 vs. 17, p < 0.001, and curative (R0) resection rate, 89.5% vs. 69.8%, p = 0.001, compared to MPD level 3 (-) group. Among the entire cohort, no significant survival difference was observed between the MPD Level 3 (+) and (-) groups. Survival outcome for R0 resection after CR/OPD was notably better than those for R2 resection, 5-year survival: 34.0% vs. 0, p = 0.038. However, within the curative (R0) resection cohort, no survival difference was observed between the MPD level 3 (+) and MPD level 3 (-) groups.

CONCLUSION

MPD level 3 in CR/OPD is technically feasible without increasing the surgical risks but takes one hour extra operating time. Incorporation of MPD level 3 does not confer a survival advantage within the curative (R0) resection cohort. The primary focus should continue to be on achieving curative (R0) resection to maximize the survival benefits for pancreatic head cancer.

Combined robotic/open pancreaticoduodenectomy in the young aged < 50 years

Impact of age on surgical and survival outcomes after combined robotic/open pancreaticoduodenectomy (CR/OPD) has not been extensively studied. This study aimed to evaluate the surgical and survival outcomes of patients aged < 50 years who underwent CR/OPD. A comparative study was conducted on patients who underwent CR/OPD divided into two groups: the young (age < 50 years) and the old (age ≥ 50 years). A total of 555 patients were included in this study, with 53 (9.5%) in the young group and 502 (90.5%) in the old group. Periampullary adenocarcinomas were less common in the young group (32.1% vs. 76.5%), whereas solid and pseudopapillary tumors (9.4% vs. 1.0%) and neuroendocrine tumors (15.1% vs. 3.6%) were more common. Soft pancreatic parenchyma (77.4% vs. 76.5%) and non-dilated (≤ 3 mm) pancreatic ducts (77.4% vs. 62.5%) were more prevalent in the young group. The young group had a shorter length of stay (median, 16 vs. 20 days). No significant differences were observed in the other surgical outcomes and risks, including postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) (7.5% vs. 8.0%). Survival outcomes for overall periampullary adenocarcinoma favored the young group, with a 5-year survival rate of 76.4% vs. 46.7% in the old group. In conclusion, RPD in the young patients (< 50 years) is associated with comparable surgical outcomes and favorable survival outcomes for periampullary adenocarcinoma compared with the older patients (≥ 50 years). These findings highlight the feasibility and safety of RPD in the young population, although the prevalence of soft pancreatic parenchyma and non-dilated pancreatic ducts was higher in the young group.

Radicality and safety of total mesopancreatic excision in pancreatoduodenectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic head cancer patients who undergo pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) often experience disease recurrence, frequently associated with a positive margin status (R1). Total mesopancreas excision (TMpE) has emerged as a potential approach to increase surgical radicality and minimize locoregional recurrence. However, its effectiveness and safety remain under evaluation.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to synthesize current evidence on TMpE outcomes. A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases was conducted up to March 2024 to identify studies comparing TMpE with standard pancreatoduodenectomy (sPD). The risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) was pooled using a random effects model.

RESULTS

From 452 studies identified, 9 studies with a total of 738 patients were included, with 361 (49%) undergoing TMpE. TMpE significantly improved the R0 resection rate (RR 1.24; 95% CI 1.11-1.38; P < 0.05), reduced blood loss (MD -143.70 ml; 95% CI -247.92, -39.49; P < 0.05), and increased lymph node harvest (MD 7.27 nodes; 95% CI 4.81, 9.73; P < 0.05). No significant differences were observed in hospital stay, postoperative complications, or mortality between TMpE and sPD. TMpE also significantly reduced overall recurrence (RR 0.53; 95% CI 0.35-0.81; P < 0.05) and local recurrence (RR 0.39; 95% CI 0.24-0.63; P < 0.05). Additionally, the risk of pancreatic fistula was lower in the TMpE group (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.52-0.85; P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Total mesopancreas excision significantly increases the R0 resection rate and reduces locoregional recurrence while maintaining an acceptable safety profile when compared with standard pancreatoduodenectomy. Further prospective randomized studies are warranted to determine the optimal surgical approach for total mesopancreatic resection.

Introduction of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy following phase 2a IDEAL guidelines

BACKGROUND

Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) is a newly introduced procedure, which is still evolving and lacks standardization. An objective assessment is essential to investigate the feasibility of RPD. The current study aimed to assess our initial ten cases of RPD based on IDEAL (Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, and Long-term study) guidelines.

METHODS

This was a prospective phase 2a study following the IDEAL framework. Ten consecutive cases of RPD performed by two surgeons with expertise in open procedures at a single center were assigned to the study. With objective evaluation, each case was classified into four grades according to the achievements of the procedures. Errors observed in the previous case were used to inform the procedure in the next case. The surgical outcomes of the ten cases were reviewed.

RESULTS

The median total operation time was 634 min (interquartile range [IQR], 594-668) with a median resection time of 363 min (IQR, 323-428) and reconstruction time of 123 min (IQR, 107-131). The achievement of the whole procedure was graded as A, "successful", in two patients. In two patients, reconstruction was performed with a mini-laparotomy due to extensive pneumoperitoneum, probably caused by insertion of a liver retractor from the xyphoid. Major postoperative complications occurred in two patients. One patient, in whom the jejunal limb was elevated through the Treitz ligament, had a bowel obstruction and needed to undergo re-laparotomy.

CONCLUSIONS

RPD is feasible when performed by surgeons experienced in open procedures. Specific considerations are needed to safely introduce RPD.

Reappraisal of surgical and survival outcomes of 500 consecutive cases of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

The role of the robotic approach for pancreaticoduodenectomy has not been well established with robust data. This study aimed to reappraise feasibility and justification of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) over time.

METHODS

A total of 500 patients undergoing RPD were enrolled and divided into early (first 250 patients) and late (last 250 patients) groups for a comparative study.

RESULTS

The conversion rate was 8.8% overall and was significantly lower in the late group (5.6% vs. 12.0%; p = .012). The overall median intraoperative blood loss was 130 mL. Radicality of resection was similar between early and late groups. The overall surgical mortality after RPD was 1.3%. The overall surgical morbidity and major complication was 44.1% and 13.2%, respectively, and similar between early and late groups. Chyle leakage was the most common complication after RPD (25.0%), followed by postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF). The POPF rate was 8.6% overall, with 5.9% in the early group and 11.0% in the late group, p = .051. The overall delayed gastric emptying rate was 3.5%. The late group had better survival outcomes than those of the early group after RPD for ampullary adenocarcinoma (p = .027) but not for pancreatic head adenocarcinoma.

CONCLUSIONS

Reappraisal of this study has confirmed that RPD is not only technically feasible without increasing surgical risks but also oncologically justified without compromising survival outcomes for both pancreatic head and other periampullary cancers over time. Moreover, RPD is associated with the benefits of low surgical mortality, blood loss, and delayed gastric emptying.

Cell-free DNA as a prognostic and predictive biomarker in resectable distal common bile duct cancer

BACKGROUND

Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) as an oncological biomarker has drawn much attention in recent years, but very limited effort has been made to investigate the prognostic values of cfDNA in distal common bile duct (CBD) cancer.

METHODS

Plasma cfDNA was measured in 67 patients with resectable distal CBD cancer. Survival outcomes and the correlation of cfDNA with other conventional prognostic factors were determined.

RESULTS

cfDNA levels were significantly higher in female patients, and those with poor tumor differentiation, abnormal serum carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) level, and stage III cancer. The significant prognostic factors included a high cfDNA level (>8955 copies/mL), abnormal serum CEA level, stage III cancer, and positive resection margins. Compared with patients with high cfDNA level, those with lower cfDNA level (≤8955 copies/mL) had significantly better overall survival outcomes (74.4% vs 100% and 19.2% vs 52.6%, for 1- and 5-year survival rates, respectively, p = 0.001). The cfDNA level, perineural invasion, CEA level, and radicality were identified as independent prognostic factors for distal CBD cancer after multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSION

Circulating cfDNA levels play a significant role in predicting the prognosis and survival outcome for resectable distal CBD cancer. Furthermore, acting as a promising liquid biopsy, cfDNA could serve as a prognostic and predictive biomarker in combination with current conventional markers to improve diagnostic and prognostic efficacy.

Surgical Risks and Survival Outcomes in Robotic Pancreaticoduodenectomy for the Aged Over 80: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Aim

Whether to execute pancreaticoduodenectomy or not for older people could pose a dilemma. This study clarifies the safety and justification of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) for older individuals over 80.

Methods

A total of 500 patients undergoing RPD were divided into group O (≥ 80 y/o) and group Y (< 80 y/o) for comparison.

Results

There were 62 (12.4%) patients in group O. Surgical mortality was 1.6% for overall patients and higher in group O, 6.5% vs 0.9%; p = 0.001. The surgical complication was comparable between groups O and Y. Delayed gastric emptying and bile leakage were higher in group O, 9.7% vs 2.5%; p = 0.004, and 6.5% vs 0.9%; p = 0.001, respectively. Length of stay was also longer in group O, with a median of 26 vs 19 days; p = 0.001. Survival outcome after RPD was poorer in group O for overall periampullary adenocarcinomas, with a 5-year survival of 48.1% vs 51.2%; p = 0.025 and also for the subgroup of pancreatic head adenocarcinoma, with a 3-year survival of 27.4% vs 42.5%; p = 0.030.

Conclusion

RPD is safe and justified for the selected octogenarians and even nonagenarians, whoever is fit for a major operation. Nevertheless, pancreatic head cancer and higher mortality risk for the aged over 80 with advanced ASA score ≥ 3 should be informed as part of counselling in offering RPD.

Comparison of robotic and open central pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND

Central pancreatectomy (CP) is an ideal parenchyma-sparing procedure. The experience of r robotic central pancreatectomy (RCP) is very limited.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients undergoing CP were included. Comparisons were made between RCP and open central pancreatectomy (OCP) groups.

RESULTS

The most common lesion in patients undergoing CP was serous cystadenoma (35.5%). The median operation time was 4.2 h for RCP versus 5.5 h for OCP. The median blood loss was significantly lower in RCP, 20 c.c. versus 170 c.c., p = 0.001. Postoperative pancreatic fistula occurred in 19.4% of all patients, with 22.1% in RCP and 15.4% in OCP. There was no significant difference regarding other surgical complications between the RCP and OCP groups. Only one patient in the OCP group developed de novo diabetes mellitus (DM), and no steatorrhoea/diarrhoea occurred after either RCP or OCP.

CONCLUSIONS

RCP is feasible and safe without compromising surgical outcomes and pancreatic functions.

The Impact of Additional Para-aortic Dissection During Pancreaticoduodenectomy for Resectable Pancreatic Cancer

BACKGROUND

The short-term outcome and long-term survival of pancreaticoduodenectomy with additional para-aortic dissection (PAD) for patients with resectable pancreatic cancer remain obscure.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent radical pancreaticoduodenectomy for resectable pancreatic cancer in a single high-volume center during a 7-year period were included retrospectively. Both short- and long-term effects of PAD were compared between the PAD group and the no PAD group. Then, the PAD group was divided into the non-metastatic para-aortic lymph node (PALN-) group and the metastatic PALN (PALN+) group to further analyze the prognosis of PALN+.

RESULTS

Of the 909 included patients, 280 (30.8%) underwent PAD during pancreaticoduodenectomy. The PAD group had a higher rate of intra-abdominal infection compared with the no PAD group (28.6% vs. 20.7%, P = 0.009) but no differences were found in the incidence of other complications. The overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) were also comparable between the two groups. Subgroup analysis showed that patients with PALN+ had a worse OS than patients in the PALN- group (median of 14 vs. 20 months, P = 0.048). Multivariate Cox regression analysis further revealed that PALN+ was an independent adverse predictor of OS (hazard ratio: 1.70, P = 0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that the addition of PAD during pancreaticoduodenectomy does not improve the prognosis of patients with resectable pancreatic cancer and may lead to an increased risk of infection. However, the accurate preoperative assessment and appropriate treatment strategy for patients with PALN+ need further investigation due to the poor prognosis.

Risk factors for delayed gastric emptying in pancreaticoduodenectomy

The study of robotic pancreaticouodenectomy (RPD) focusing on delayed gastric emptying (DGE) is seldom reported. This study explored the incidence of DGE in RPD with extracorporeal hand-sewn gastrojejunostomy involving downward positioning of the stomach. Patients with periampullary lesions undergoing RPD or open pancreaticouodenectomy (OPD) were included for comparison. A variety of clinical factors were evaluated for the risk of developing DGE. There were 409 (68.2%) RPD and 191 (31.8%) OPD in this study. DGE occurred in 7.7% of patients after pancreaticoduodenectomy, with 4.4% in RPD and 14.7% in OPD, p < 0.001. Nausea/vomiting (12.6% vs. 6.3%) and jaundice (9.9% vs. 5.2%) were significant preoperative risk factors for DGE, while malignancy (8.7% vs. 2.2%) and lymph node involvement (9.8% vs. 5.6%) were significant pathological risk factors. Intraoperative blood loss > 200 c.c. was the other factor related to DGE (11.2% vs. 4.4% in those with blood loss ≤ 200 c.c.). None of the postoperative complications was significantly associated with DGE. Hospital stay was significantly longer in the group with DGE (median, 37 vs. 20 days in the group without DGE). After multivariate analysis by binary logistic regression, compared with OPD, RPD was the only independent factor associated with a lower incidence of DGE. RPD with extracorporeal hand-sewn antecolic, antiperistaltic, and inframesocolic gastrojejunostomy via a small umbilical wound involving careful downward positioning of the stomach was associated with a low incidence of DGE and presented as the most powerful independent predictor of this condition.

Feasibility of "cold" triangle robotic pancreatoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

Triangle pancreatoduodenectomy adds to the conventional procedure the en bloc removal of the retroperitoneal lympho-neural tissue included in the triangular area bounded by the common hepatic artery (CHA), the superior mesenteric artery (SMA), and the superior mesenteric vein/portal vein. We herein aim to show the feasibility of "cold" triangle robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (C-Tr-RPD) for pancreatic cancer (PDAC).

METHODS

Cold dissection corresponds to sharp arterial divestment performed using only the tips of robotic scissors. After division of the gastroduodenal artery, triangle dissection begins by lateral-to-medial divestment of the CHA and anterior-to-posterior clearance of the right side of the celiac trunk. Next, after a wide Kocher maneuver, the origin of the SMA, and the celiac trunk are identified. After mobilization of the first jejunal loop and attached mesentery, the SMA is identified at the level of the first jejunal vein and is divested along the right margin working in a distal-to-proximal direction. Vein resection and reconstruction can be performed as required. C-Tr-RPD was considered feasible if triangle dissection was successfully completed without conversion to open surgery or need to use energy devices. Postoperative complications and pathology results are presented in detail.

RESULTS

One hundred twenty-seven consecutive C-Tr-RPDs were successfully performed. There were three conversions to open surgery (2.3%), because of pneumoperitoneum intolerance (n = 2) and difficult digestive reconstruction. Thirty-four patients (26.7%) required associated vascular procedures. No pseudoaneurysm of the gastroduodenal artery was observed. Twenty-eight patients (22.0%) developed severe postoperative complications (≥ grade III). Overall 90-day mortality was 7.1%, declining to 2.3% after completion of the learning curve. The median number of examined lymph nodes was 42 (33-51). The rate of R1 resection (7 margins < 1 mm) was 44.1%.

CONCLUSION

C-Tr-RPD is feasible, carries a risk of surgical complications commensurate to the magnitude of the procedure, and improves staging of PDAC.

Complete Mesogastric Excisions Involving Anatomically Based Concepts and Embryological-Based Surgeries: Current Knowledge and Future Challenges

Surgeries for gastrointestinal tract malignancies are based on the paradigm that we should remove the tumour together with its lymphatic drainage in one block. This concept was initially proposed in rectal surgery and called a total mesorectal excision. This procedure gained much interest and has improved oncological results in rectal cancer surgery. The same idea for mesogastric and complete mesogastric excisions was proposed but, because of the complexity of the gastric mesentery, it has not become a standard technique. In this review, we analysed anatomical and embryological factors, proposed technical aspects of this operation and incorporated the available initial results of this concept. We also discussed analogies to other gastrointestinal organs, as well as challenges to this concept.

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.