Learning curves of resection and reconstruction procedures in robotic-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy by a single surgeon: a retrospective cohort study of 160 consecutive cases

Learning Curve on Lymph Nodes Retrieval and Postoperative Length of Hospital Stay in Robotic Rectal Cancer: A Retrospective, Observational Study

Background and Aims

Robotic rectal cancer surgery has been introduced to reduce the difficulty and complications of the procedure. This study aims to assess the learning curve for robotic rectal cancer of individual surgeons with extensive laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery through multidimensional analyses.

Methods

Data were retrospectively collected on 156 patients who underwent robotic rectal cancer surgery by a single surgeon between January 2018 and December 2023.

Results

The operative time required for LAR can be divided into three distinct phases: an early or learning phase (1-24 cases), an intermediate or proficient phase (25-55 cases), and a late or mastery phase (56-72 cases). The study found that the learning curve for LAR and protective operative time can be divided into three distinct phases: an early or learning phase (1 to 15 cases), an intermediate or proficient phase (16 to 40 cases), and a late or mastery stage (41 to 63 cases). Following the completion of 46 cases of surgery, the next stage of the learning curve for lymph nodes retrieval has been reached. The discrepancy between the mean number of lymph nodes retrieved in each of the three stages was marginal, with an difference of 0.5 between the lowest and highest values observed (14.1 vs. 13.6 vs. 13.7). The length of hospital stay for patients decreases as the surgeon gains more experience, reaching a mean of 10.3 days in 2023.

Conclusion

This study shows that robotic surgery for rectal cancer has a significant learning curve with multiple stages. Robotic surgery can remove more lymph nodes than recommended by guidelines even during the learning phase (recommend that at least 12 lymph nodes should be retrieved). As the learning curve progresses to the mastery phase, the length of postoperative hospital stays gradually decreases to a lower level.

Comparison of Short-Term Outcomes Between Robotic-Assisted and Open Pancreatoduodenectomy: A Retrospective Cohort Study With Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting (IPTW) Analysis

BACKGROUND

The advantages of robotic-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) in comparison with open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) have not been well-established. We aimed to compare their short-term outcomes by inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis.

METHODS

Patients who underwent RPD/OPD at our hospital were recruited. Stabilised IPTW were performed to adjust observed covariates. Short-term outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

After IPTW, the effective sample comprised 807 patients (199 RPD, 608 OPD) with balanced clinicopathological characteristics. RPD had a longer operation time, fewer intraoperative blood loss (IBL), and lower blood transfusion rate than OPD. RPD was associated with a lower incidence of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula and reoperation but did not reach statistical significance. In pancreatic adenocarcinoma, RPD had a significantly higher number of lymph nodes examined. There were no significant differences in postoperative morbidities and length-of-stay.

CONCLUSIONS

RPD was associated with fewer IBL and transfusion rates than OPD. RPD can be considered feasible and safe.

Postoperative complications and surgical outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a meta-analysis of propensity-score-matched studies

BACKGROUND

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) is used more commonly, but high-level evidence is still scarce. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the short-term outcomes between RPD and laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) using data collected from propensity score-matched (PSM) studies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science databases for PSM studies comparing RPD and LPD. Risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals were calculated.

RESULTS

Ten PSM studies were included, encompassing 8106 patients (RPD group: 3695 patients; LPD group: 4411 patients). Compared with LPD, RPD was associated with a lower conversion rate (RR, 0.56) and blood transfusion rate (RR, 0.49), as well as a higher number of harvested lymph nodes (MD, 2.15). There were no significant differences observed in 30-day readmission (RR, 1.02), 90-day mortality (RR, 1.01), overall morbidity (RR, 0.94), major complications (RR, 1.06), operative time (MD, -8.00 min), blood loss (MD, -19.37 mL), reoperation (RR, 0.95), bile leak (RR, 0.93), chylous leak (RR, 1.40), postoperative pancreatic fistula (RR, 1.06), delayed gastric emptying (RR, 0.92), wound infection (RR, 1.12), length of stay (MD, -0.32 days), and R0 resection (RR, 0.98) between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Although LPD and RPD had similar surgical outcomes, RPD had the perioperative advantage over LPD in decreasing conversion rates and blood transfusion rates and increasing the number of lymph nodes harvested. Further randomized controlled trials evaluating the potential advantages of RPD over LPD are warranted.

Comparison of short-term outcomes of robotic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and propensity-score-matched studies

BACKGROUND

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) is used more commonly, but this surge is mostly based on observational data. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the short-term outcomes between RPD and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) using data collected from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and propensity-score-matched (PSM) studies.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science databases for RCTs and PSM studies comparing RPD and OPD. Risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.

RESULTS

Twenty-four studies, encompassing two RCTs and 22 PSM studies, were included, with a total of 9393 patients (RPD group: 3919 patients; OPD group: 5474 patients). Although RPD was associated with a longer operative time (MD, 61.61 min), patients may benefit from reduced blood loss (MD, -154.05 ml), shorter length of stay (MD, -1.60 days), lower blood transfusion rate (RR, 0.85), and wound infection rate (RR, 0.61). There were no significant differences observed in 30-day readmission (RR, 0.99), 90-day mortality (RR, 0.97), overall morbidity (RR, 0.88), major complications (RR, 1.01), reoperation (RR, 1.08), bile leak (RR, 1.01), chylous leak (RR, 0.98), postoperative pancreatic fistula (RR, 0.97), post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage (RR, 1.15), delayed gastric emptying (RR, 0.88), number of harvested lymph nodes (MD, -0.12), and R0 resection (RR, 1.01) between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Although some short-term outcomes were similar between RPD and OPD, RPD exhibited reduced intraoperative blood loss, shorter hospital stays, lower wound infection, and blood transfusion rates. In the future, RPD may become a safe and effective alternative to OPD.

Robotic Pancreatoduodenectomy: Increasing Complexity and Decreasing Complications with Experience: Single-Center Results from 150 Consecutive Patients

BACKGROUND

This report describes the authors' experience with 150 consecutive robotic pancreatoduodenectomies.

METHODS

The study enrolled 150 consecutive patients who underwent robotic pancreatoduodenectomy between 2018 and 2023. Pre- and intraoperative variables such as age, gender, indication, operation time, diagnosis, and tumor size were analyzed. The patients were divided into two groups. Group 1 comprised the first 75 patients, and group 2 comprised the last 75 cases. The median age of the patients was 62.4 years and did not differ between the two groups.

RESULTS

Morbidity was lower in group 2. The mortality rate was 0.7% at 30 days and 1.3% at 90 days, and there was no difference between the groups. There was a significant reduction (p < 0.05) in operative time, resection time, reconstruction time, and conversion to open surgery in group 2. Partial resection of the portal vein was performed in 17 patients and more common in group 2 (p < 0.01). The number of resected lymph nodes was higher in group 2. The indication for pancreatoduodenectomy did not differ between the two groups. There was no difference in tumor size or clinical characteristics of the patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The robotic platform is useful for pancreatoduodenectomy, facilitates adequate lymphadenectomy, and is helpful for digestive tract reconstruction after resection. Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy is safe and feasible for selected patients. It should be performed in specialized centers by surgeons experienced in open and minimally invasive pancreatic surgery.

Robotic-assisted organ-preserving or parenchymal-sparing pancreatectomy in pancreatic benign or low-grade malignant tumors: a single institute's experience

AIM

Robotic-assisted pancreatectomy has been widely used. Organ-preserving pancreatectomy (OPP) and parenchymal-sparing pancreatectomy (PSP) has been gradually adopted for pancreatic benign or low-grade malignant tumors. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted OPP/PSP in our institute.

METHODS

Patients undergoing robotic-assisted OPS/PSP at First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University between July 2015 and October 2021 were included in this study. The short-term and long-term outcomes of patients were retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

Seventy-two patients were enrolled, including spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy, central pancreatectomy, duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resection, and enucleation. Patients included were more likely to be young female (female: 46/72, median age: 47 years old). The median intraoperative blood loss and operation time was 50 ml and 255 min, respectively. Clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula was 20.8% (grade B: 15/72, 20.8%; no grade C). The overall complication rate was 22.2% with the median postoperative length-of-stay of 8 days. At a median follow-up time of 28.5 months, the 5-year overall survival and recurrence-free survival rate were 100.0% and 100.0%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The short-term and long-term outcomes of patients receiving robotic-assisted OPP/PSP were acceptable. Robotic-assisted OPP/PSP was a feasible and safe technique for pancreatic benign or low-grade malignant lesions.

Learning curve of robotic-assisted splenic vessel-preserving spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy by one single surgeon: a retrospective cohort study

AIM

Splenic vessel-preserving spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (SVP-SPDP) has a lower risk of splenic infarction than the splenicvessel-sacrificing SPDP, but it is more technically demanding. Learning curve of robotic-assisted SVP-SPDP (RSVP-SPDP) remains unreported. This study sought to analyze the perioperative outcomes and learning curve of RSVP-SPDP by one single surgeon.

METHODS

Seventy-four patients who were intended to receive RSVP-SPDP at the First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University between May 2015 and January 2023 were included. The learning curve were retrospectively analyzed by using cumulative sum (CUSUM) analyses.

RESULTS

Sixty-two patients underwent RSVP-SPDP (spleen preservation rate: 83.8%). According to CUSUM curve, the operation time (median, 318 vs. 220 min; P < 0.001) and intraoperative blood loss (median, 50 vs. 50 mL; P = 0.012) was improved significantly after 16 cases. Blood transfusion rate (12.5% vs. 3.4%; P = 0.202), postoperative major morbidity rate (6.3% vs. 3.4%; P = 0.524), and postoperative length-of-stay (median, 10 vs. 8 days; P = 0.120) improved after 16 cases but did not reach statistical difference. None of the patients had splenic infarction or abscess postoperatively.

CONCLUSION

RSVP-SPDP was a safe and feasible approach for selected patients after learning curve. The improvement of operation time and intraoperative blood loss was achieved after 16 cases.