Benchmarking of robotic and laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy by using two different methods

Robotic distal pancreatectomy using the Warshaw technique demonstrated superior short-term prognosis compared to the laparoscopic approach: propensity-matched cohort study

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (SPDP) presents technical challenges and remains a topic of debate. This study seeks to compare the splenic preservation techniques, especially the Kimura and Warshaw methods, with distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy (DPS) and to examine factors influencing short-term patient prognostic outcomes.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was undertaken of all consecutive cases of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy, both with and without spleen preservation, conducted at our center from January 2020 to May 2024. The study assessed the impact of demographic characteristics, operative variables, oncologic pathology review, and postoperative outcomes on patients' prognosis. Propensity score matching (PSM) was conducted at a 1:1 ratio. Both univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify risk factors affecting the preservation of the spleen and splenic vessels during distal pancreatectomy.

RESULTS

The research encompassed data from 490 consecutive patients who underwent minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy. Among the groups with planned spleen-preserving operations, after PSM, the incidence of Clavien-Dindo classification (CDC) ≥ III (6.3% vs. 0.7%, p = 0.010), postoperative pancreatic hemorrhage (4.2% vs. 0%, p = 0.039) and readmission within 90 days (4.2% vs. 0%, p = 0.039) was significantly higher in the Kimura group. Meanwhile, the Kimura group demonstrated a significantly lower incidence of splenic infarction (6.3% vs. 31.3%, p < 0.01) compared to the Warshaw group. Grouped by the minimally invasive methods, the robotic-SPDP (R-SPDP) group exhibited a lower rate of splenic infarction (7.6% vs. 27.5%, p < 0.01), as well as reduced operative time (145 vs. 175 min, p < 0.01) and postoperative hospital stay (6 vs. 8 days, p < 0.01), compared to the laparoscopic-SPDP (L-SPDP) group. An analysis of the minimally invasive technique revealed that the SPDP group experienced a lower rate of pleural effusion (5.6% vs. 16.8%, p = 0.009) than the DPS group after PSM analysis. Univariate analysis identified tumor diameter, operative time, Warshaw technique, and laparoscopic procedure as prognostic factors for the occurrence of splenic infarction. The Warshaw technique and laparoscopic approach were identified as independent prognostic factors for splenic infarction in multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Both techniques have demonstrated efficacy in minimally invasive SPDP. Our findings indicate that the robotic-assisted Warshaw approach may offer enhanced efficiency and safety.

Recommendations on Robotic Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery. The Paris Jury-Based Consensus Conference

OBJECTIVE

To establish the first consensus guidelines on the safety and indications of robotics in Hepato-Pancreatic-Biliary (HPB) surgery. The secondary aim was to identify priorities for future research.

BACKGROUND

HPB robotic surgery is reaching the IDEAL 2b exploration phase for innovative technology. An objective assessment endorsed by the HPB community is timely and needed.

METHODS

The ROBOT4HPB conference developed consensus guidelines using the Zurich-Danish model. An impartial and multidisciplinary jury produced unbiased guidelines based on the work of 10 expert panels answering predefined key questions and considering the best-quality evidence retrieved after a systematic review. The recommendations conformed with the GRADE and SIGN50 methodologies.

RESULTS

Sixty-four experts from 20 countries considered 285 studies, and the conference included an audience of 220 attendees. The jury (n=10) produced recommendations or statements covering 5 sections of robotic HPB surgery: technology, training and expertise, outcome assessment, and liver and pancreatic procedures. The recommendations supported the feasibility of robotics for most HPB procedures and its potential value in extending minimally invasive indications, emphasizing, however, the importance of expertise to ensure safety. The concept of expertise was defined broadly, encompassing requirements for credentialing HPB robotics at a given center. The jury prioritized relevant questions for future trials and emphasized the need for prospective registries, including validated outcome metrics for the forthcoming assessment of HPB robotics.

CONCLUSIONS

The ROBOT4HPB consensus represents a collaborative and multidisciplinary initiative, defining state-of-the-art expertise in HPB robotics procedures. It produced the first guidelines to encourage their safe use and promotion.

Risk factors and predictive model development for high blood loss in minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

High blood loss is an adverse event related to increased morbidity and poorer outcomes in pancreatic surgery patients. The aim of this study was to identify risk factors and establish a predictive model for high perioperative blood loss (HPBL) in minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP).

METHODS

We collected data from 353 patients who underwent MIDP at a university affiliated tertiary hospital between January 2016 and October 2023. Perioperative blood loss was calculated based on pre- and postoperative hemoglobin concentrations according to a combination of the formulas provided by Nadler and Gross. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed for the training cohort to identify the clinical factors independently associated with perioperative blood loss (PBL). A predictive nomogram based on these factors was established and validated.

RESULTS

Weight, imaging findings, serum albumin concentration, MIDP experience, spleen treatment, and operation time were independent predictors for HPBL. The established model for predicting HPBL showed that the area under the curve (AUC) was 0.799 (95% CI = 0.746-0.853) and 0.852 (95% CI = 0.760-0.943) for the training cohort and validation cohort, respectively. When utilized to predict blood transfusion, the AUC was 0.778 (95% CI = 0.691-0.865) in the training cohort and 0.818 (95% CI = 0.681-0.955) in the validation cohort. Patients with a high predicted risk had significantly higher incidences of postoperative pancreatic fistula, intra-abdominal infection, and longer hospital stays than patients with a low risk.

CONCLUSIONS

We established and validated a model for predicting HPBL in MIDP patients. This novel model may have future utility when generating surgical strategies.

Abdominal drainage after minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy: out of sight, out of mind?

BACKGROUNDS

The use of drains in pancreatic surgery remains controversial. The present study investigated postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) without intraperitoneal drain placement.

METHODS

Data of consecutive patients undergoing MIDP between 2013 and 2023 were prospectively collected. Patients were divided in drain group (DG), including patients with prophylactic abdominal drain placed, and no-drain group (NDG) including those without drain. The groups were compared in terms of postoperative outcomes, using a propensity score-matched analysis.

RESULTS

116 patients were selected. After matching, DG and NDG consisted of 29 patients each. The rates of POPF and abdominal collection were lower in NDG in comparison to DG (3.4% vs. 27.6%, p 0.025 and 3.4% vs. 31.0%, p 0.011, respectively). The length of stay was significantly shorter in the NDG (5 vs. 9 days, p < 0.001). No difference between the groups was found for other outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Drain omission was associated with lower rates of POPF and abdominal collections, as well as shorter hospital stays, not affecting the rate of severe complication, reoperation and readmission.

Benchmarking in pancreatic surgery: a systematic review of metric development and validation

Benchmarking in healthcare, particularly in the context of complex surgical procedures like pancreatic surgery, plays a pivotal role in comparing and evaluating the quality of care provided to patients. There is a growing body of evidence validating existent metrics and introducing new ones in the pursuit of safety and excellence in pancreatic surgery. A systematic review adhering to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines was conducted on metric development and validation across multiple databases, including PUBMED Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science, until February 2024. The extracted data were categorized into three domains according to the Donabedian model: structure, process, and outcomes. Thirty-four studies were deemed eligible for inclusion in this review. Among these articles, 20 contributed to metric development, while 14 studies validated them. A total of 234 metrics were identified across the 34 studies, of which 185 were included in the analysis. Thirty-three of these metrics were relative to structure, 79 to processes, and 73 to outcomes. The distribution of metric domains across the included studies revealed that structure, process, and outcome domains were reported in 12, 26, and 26 studies, respectively. In conclusion, this systematic review underscores the heterogeneity in metric development methodologies and the varying degrees of consensus among different quality indicators, despite the growing interest in benchmarking in pancreatic surgery. This review aims to inform future research efforts and contribute to the ongoing pursuit of excellence in pancreatic surgical care.

A critical analysis of surgical outcomes indicators in hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery: From crude mortality to composite outcomes

BACKGROUND

Indicators of surgical outcomes are designed to objectively evaluate surgical performance, enabling comparisons among surgeons and institutions. In recent years, there has been a surge in complex indicators of perioperative short-term and long-term outcomes. The aim of this narrative review is to provide an overview and a critical analysis of surgical outcomes indicators, with a special emphasis on hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) surgery.

METHODS

A narrative review of outcome measures was conducted using a combined text and MeSH search strategy to identify relevant articles focused on perioperative outcomes, specifically within HPB surgery.

RESULTS

The literature search yielded 624 records, and 94 studies were included in the analysis. Included papers were classified depending on whether they assessed intraoperative or postoperative specific or composite outcomes, and whether they assessed purely clinical or combined clinical and socio-economic indicators. Specific indicators included in composite outcomes were categorized into three main domains: intraoperative metrics, postoperative outcomes, and oncological outcomes. While postoperative mortality, complications, hospital stay and readmission were the indicators most frequently included in composite outcomes, oncological outcomes were rarely considered.

CONCLUSIONS

The evolution of surgical outcomes has shifted from the simplistic assessment of crude mortality rates to complex composite outcomes. Whether the recent explosion of publications on these topics has a clinical impact in real life is questionable. Outcomes from the patient perspective, integrating social and financial indicators, are not yet integrated into most of these composite analytical tools but should not be underestimated.

Benchmark Outcomes for Distal Pancreatectomy: A Multicenter Prospective Snapshot Study from the Spanish Distal Pancreatectomy Project (SPANDISPAN)

BACKGROUND

Improving the quality of care is a priority for health systems to obtain better care and reduce costs. One of the tools for measuring quality is benchmarking (BM). We presented a 1-country prospective study of distal pancreatectomies (DPs) and determined BM.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective, multicenter, observational snapshot study of DP carried out at Spanish hepatopancreatobiliary centers for a year (February 1, 2022, to January 31, 2023). Hepatopancreatobiliary centers were defined as high volume if they performed more than 10 DPs per year. Inclusion criteria include any scheduled DP for any diagnosis and age older than 18 years. The low-risk group was defined following the criteria given by Durin and colleagues and major complications as Clavien-Dindo ≥III.

RESULTS

A total of 313 patients from 42 centers and 46.6% from high-volume centers were included. Median DP by center was 7 (interquartile range 5 to 10), median age was 65 years (interquartile range 55 to 74), and 53.4% were female. The surgical approach was minimally invasive in 69.3%. Major complications were 21.1%. Postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C rate was 20.1%, and 90-day mortality was 1.6%. One hundred forty-three patients were in low-risk group (43.8%). Compared with previous BM data, an increasing MIS rate and fewer hospital stay were obtained.

CONCLUSIONS

We present the first determination of DP-BM in a prospective series, obtaining similar results to the previous ones, but our BM values include a shorter hospital stay and a higher percentage of minimally invasive surgery probably related to Enhanced Recovery after Surgery protocols and prospective data collection. BM is a multiparameter valuable tool for reporting outcomes, comparing centers, and identifying the points to improve surgical care.

Prophylactic abdominal drainage after distal pancreatectomy (PANDORINA): an international, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled, non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND

Prophylactic passive abdominal drainage is standard practice after distal pancreatectomy. This approach aims to mitigate the consequences of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) but its added value, especially in patients at low risk of POPF, is currently being debated. We aimed to assess the non-inferiority of a no-drain policy in patients after distal pancreatectomy.

METHODS

In this international, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled, non-inferiority trial, we recruited patients aged 18 years or older undergoing open or minimally invasive elective distal pancreatectomy for all indications in 12 centres in the Netherlands and Italy. We excluded patients with an American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) physical status of 4-5 or WHO performance status of 3-4, added by amendment following the death of a patient with ASA 4 due to a pre-existing cardiac condition. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) intraoperatively by permuted blocks (size four to eight) to either no drain or prophylactic passive drain placement, stratified by annual centre volume (<40 or ≥40 distal pancreatectomies) and low risk or high risk of grade B or C POPF. High-risk was defined as a pancreatic duct of more than 3 mm in diameter, a pancreatic thickness at the neck of more than 19 mm, or both, based on the Distal Pancreatectomy Fistula Risk Score. Other patients were considered low-risk. The primary outcome was the rate of major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo score ≥III), and the most relevant secondary outcome was grade B or C POPF, grading per the International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery. Outcomes were assessed up to 90 days postoperatively and analysed in the intention-to-treat population and per-protocol population, which only included patients who received the allocated treatment. A prespecified non-inferiority margin of 8% was compared with the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI (Wald) of unadjusted risk difference to assess non-inferiority. This trial is closed and registered in the Netherlands Trial Registry, NL9116.

FINDINGS

Between Oct 3, 2020, and April 28, 2023, 376 patients were screened for eligibility and 282 patients were randomly assigned to the no-drain group (n=138; 75 [54%] women and 63 [46%] men) or the drain group (n=144; 73 [51%] women and 71 [49%] men). Seven patients in the no-drain group received a drain intraoperatively; consequently, the per-protocol population included 131 patients in the no-drain group and 144 patients in the drain group. The rate of major morbidity was non-inferior in the no-drain group compared with the drain group in the intention-to-treat analysis (21 [15%] vs 29 [20%]; risk difference -4·9 percentage points [95% CI -13·8 to 4·0]; pnon-inferiority=0·0022) and the per-protocol analysis (21 [16%] vs 29 [20%]; risk difference -4·1 percentage points [-13·2 to 5·0]; pnon-inferiority=0·0045). Grade B or C POPF was observed in 16 (12%) patients in the no-drain group and in 39 (27%) patients in the drain group (risk difference -15·5 percentage points [95% CI -24·5 to -6·5]; pnon-inferiority<0·0001) in the intention-to-treat analysis. Three patients in the no-drain group died within 90 days; the cause of death in two was not considered related to the trial. The third death was a patient with an ASA score of 4 who died after sepsis and a watershed cerebral infarction at second admission, leading to multiple organ failure. No patients in the drain group died within 90 days.

INTERPRETATION

A no-drain policy is safe in terms of major morbidity and reduced the detection of grade B or C POPF, and should be the new standard approach in eligible patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy.

FUNDING

Ethicon UK (Johnson & Johnson Medical, Edinburgh, UK).

Global benchmarks in primary robotic bariatric surgery redefine quality standards for Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy

BACKGROUND

Whether the benefits of the robotic platform in bariatric surgery translate into superior surgical outcomes remains unclear. The aim of this retrospective study was to establish the 'best possible' outcomes for robotic bariatric surgery and compare them with the established laparoscopic benchmarks.

METHODS

Benchmark cut-offs were established for consecutive primary robotic bariatric surgery patients of 17 centres across four continents (13 expert centres and 4 learning phase centres) using the 75th percentile of the median outcome values until 90 days after surgery. The benchmark patients had no previous laparotomy, diabetes, sleep apnoea, cardiopathy, renal insufficiency, inflammatory bowel disease, immunosuppression, history of thromboembolic events, BMI greater than 50 kg/m2, or age greater than 65 years.

RESULTS

A total of 9097 patients were included, who were mainly female (75.5%) and who had a mean(s.d.) age of 44.7(11.5) years and a mean(s.d.) baseline BMI of 44.6(7.7) kg/m2. In expert centres, 13.74% of the 3020 patients who underwent primary robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and 5.9% of the 4078 patients who underwent primary robotic sleeve gastrectomy presented with greater than or equal to one complication within 90 postoperative days. No patient died and 1.1% of patients had adverse events related to the robotic platform. When compared with laparoscopic benchmarks, robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass had lower benchmark cut-offs for hospital stay, postoperative bleeding, and marginal ulceration, but the duration of the operation was 42 min longer. For most surgical outcomes, robotic sleeve gastrectomy outperformed laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy with a comparable duration of the operation. In robotic learning phase centres, outcomes were within the established benchmarks only for low-risk robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass.

CONCLUSION

The newly established benchmarks suggest that robotic bariatric surgery may enhance surgical safety compared with laparoscopic bariatric surgery; however, the duration of the operation for robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass is longer.

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

BACKGROUND

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

AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Benchmarking outcomes for distal pancreatectomy: critical evaluation of four multicenter studies

BACKGROUND

Benchmarking is a validated tool for outcome assessment and international comparison of best achievable surgical outcomes. The methodology is increasingly applied in pancreatic surgery and the aim of the review was to critically compare available benchmark studies evaluating distal pancreatectomy (DP).

METHODS

A literature search of English articles reporting on benchmarking DP was conducted of the electronic databases MEDLINE and Web of Science (until April 2023). Studies on open (ODP), laparoscopic (LDP), and robotic DP (RDP) were included.

RESULTS

Four retrospective multicenter studies were included. Studies reported on outcomes of minimally invasive DP only (n = 2), ODP and LDP (n = 1), and RDP only (n = 1). Either the Achievable Benchmark of Care™ method or the 75th percentile from the median was selected to define benchmark cutoffs. Robust and reproducible benchmark values were provided by the four studies for intra- and postoperative short-term outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Benchmarking DP is a valuable tool for obtaining internationally accepted reference outcomes for open and minimally invasive DP approaches with only minor variances in four international cohorts. Benchmark cutoffs allow for outcome comparisons between institutions, surgeons, and to monitor the introduction of novel minimally invasive DP techniques.

Identifying the preoperative factors predicting the surgical difficulty of robotic distal pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND

Few studies have evaluated the preoperative factors predicting the surgical difficulty of robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP). This study aims to explore such factors and provide guidance on the selection of suitable patients to aid surgeons lacking extensive experience in RDP.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted on consecutive patients who underwent RDP to identify preoperative factors predicting surgical difficulty. High surgical difficulty was defined by both operation time and intraoperative estimated blood loss exceeding their median, or by conversion to laparotomy.

RESULTS

A total of 161 patients were ultimately enrolled, including 51 patients with high levels of surgical difficulty. Multivariate analysis revealed that male sex [OR (95% CI): 4.07 (1.77,9.40), p = 0.001], body mass index (BMI) ≥ 25 kg/m² OR (95% CI): 2.27 (1.03,5.00), p = 0.042], tumors located at the neck of the pancreas [OR (95% CI): 4.15 (1.49,11.56), p = 0.006] and splenic artery type B [OR (95% CI): 3.28 (1.09,9.91), p = 0.035] were independent risk factors for surgical difficulty. Regarding postoperative complications, high surgical difficulty was associated with the risk of overall complications and pancreatic fistula (grade B/C) (49.0% vs. 22.7%, p < 0.001; 39.2% vs. 19.1%, p = 0.006).

CONCLUSION

Male sex, body mass index ≥ 25 kg/m2, tumor located at the neck of the pancreas and splenic artery type B are associated with a high RDP difficulty level. These factors can be used preoperatively to assess the difficulty level of surgery, to help surgeons choose patients suitable for them and ensure surgical safety.