Robotic versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Spleen-Preserving Distal Pancreatectomies: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Postoperative outcomes and costs of laparoscopic versus robotic distal pancreatectomy: a propensity-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) has established advantages over the open approach. The costs associated with robotic DP (RDP) versus laparoscopic DP (LDP) make the robotic approach controversial. We sought to compare outcomes and cost of LDP and RDP using propensity matching analysis at our institution.

METHODS

Patients undergoing LDP or RDP between 2000 and 2021 were retrospectively identified. Patients were optimally matched using age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists status, body mass index, and tumor size. Between-group differences were analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test for continuous data, and the McNemar's test for categorical data. Outcomes included operative duration, conversion to open surgery, postoperative length of stay, pancreatic fistula rate, pseudocyst requiring intervention, and costs.

RESULTS

298 patients underwent MIDP, 180 (60%) were laparoscopic and 118 (40%) were robotic. All RDPs were matched 1:1 to a laparoscopic case with absolute standardized mean differences for all matching covariates below 0.10, except for tumor type (0.16). RDP had longer operative times (268 vs 178 min, p < 0.01), shorter length of stay (2 vs 4 days, p < 0.01), fewer biochemical pancreatic leaks (11.9% vs 34.7%, p < 0.01), and fewer interventional radiological drainage (0% vs 5.9%, p = 0.01). The number of pancreatic fistulas (11.9% vs 5.1%, p = 0.12), collections requiring antibiotics or intervention (11.9% vs 5.1%, p = 0.12), and conversion rates (3.4% vs 5.1%, p = 0.72) were comparable between the two groups. The total direct index admission costs for RDP were 1.01 times higher than for LDP for FY16-19 (p = 0.372), and 1.33 times higher for FY20-22 (p = 0.031).

CONCLUSIONS

Although RDP required longer operative times than LDP, postoperative stays were shorter. The procedure cost of RDP was modestly more expensive than LDP, though this was partially offset by reduced hospital stay and reintervention rate.

Robotic resection for splenic artery aneurysm associated with neurofibromatosis type 1: a case report

BACKGROUND

Neurofibromatosis type 1 is an autosomal-dominant disease characterized by café-au-lait spots and neurofibromas, as well as various other symptoms in the bones, eyes, and nervous system. Due to its connection with vascular fragility, neurofibromatosis type 1 has been reported to be associated with vascular lesions, such as aneurysms. However, there have been few reports of abdominal visceral aneurysms associated with neurofibromatosis type 1. Furthermore, there have been no reports of robotic treatment of aneurysms associated with neurofibromatosis type 1. In this report, we describe the case of a patient with neurofibromatosis type 1 with a splenic artery aneurysm who was successfully treated with robotic surgery.

CASE PRESENTATION

This report describes a 41-year-old Asian woman with a history of neurofibromatosis type 1 who was referred to our hospital for evaluation of a 28 mm splenic artery aneurysm observed on abdominal ultrasound. The aneurysm was in the splenic hilum, and transcatheter arterial embolization was attempted; however, this was difficult due to the tortuosity of the splenic artery. Thus, we suggested minimally invasive robotic surgery for treatment and resection of the splenic artery aneurysm with preservation of the spleen. The postoperative course was uneventful, and the patient was discharged on the eighth day after surgery. At 1 year of follow-up, the patient was doing well, with no evidence of recurrence.

CONCLUSION

We encountered a rare case of splenic artery aneurysm in a patient with neurofibromatosis type 1 who was successfully treated with robotic surgery. There is no consensus on treatment modalities for neurofibromatosis-related aneurysms, and endovascular treatment is considered safe and effective; however, surgery remains an important treatment modality. Especially in patients with stable hemodynamic status, robotic surgery may be considered as definitive treatment. To our knowledge, this is the first successfully treated case of a splenic artery aneurysm in a patient with neurofibromatosis type 1.

Study International Multicentric Pancreatic Left Resections (SIMPLR): Does Surgical Approach Matter?

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery is increasingly preferred for left-sided pancreatic resections. The SIMPLR study aims to compare open, laparoscopic, and robotic approaches using propensity score matching analysis.

METHODS

This study included 258 patients with tumors of the left side of the pancreas who underwent surgery between 2016 and 2020 at three high-volume centers. The patients were divided into three groups based on their surgical approach and matched in a 1:1 ratio.

RESULTS

The open group had significantly higher estimated blood loss (620 mL vs. 320 mL, p < 0.001), longer operative time (273 vs. 216 min, p = 0.003), and longer hospital stays (16.9 vs. 6.81 days, p < 0.001) compared to the laparoscopic group. There was no difference in lymph node yield or resection status. When comparing open and robotic groups, the robotic procedures yielded a higher number of lymph nodes (24.9 vs. 15.2, p = 0.011) without being significantly longer. The laparoscopic group had a shorter operative time (210 vs. 340 min, p < 0.001), shorter ICU stays (0.63 vs. 1.64 days, p < 0.001), and shorter hospital stays (6.61 vs. 11.8 days, p < 0.001) when compared to the robotic group. There was no difference in morbidity or mortality between the three techniques.

CONCLUSION

The laparoscopic approach exhibits short-term benefits. The three techniques are equivalent in terms of oncological safety, morbidity, and mortality.

International consensus guidelines on robotic pancreatic surgery in 2023

Background

With the rapid development of robotic surgery, especially for the abdominal surgery, robotic pancreatic surgery (RPS) has been applied increasingly around the world. However, evidence-based guidelines regarding its application, safety, and efficacy are still lacking. To harvest robust evidence and comprehensive clinical practice, this study aims to develop international guidelines on the use of RPS.

Methods

World Health Organization (WHO) Handbook for Guideline Development, GRADE Grid method, Delphi vote, and the AGREE-II instrument were used to establish the Guideline Steering Group, Guideline Development Group, and Guideline Secretary Group, formulate 19 clinical questions, develop the recommendations, and draft the guidelines. Three online meetings were held on 04/12/2020, 30/11/2021, and 25/01/2022 to vote on the recommendations and get advice and suggestions from all involved experts. All the experts focusing on minimally invasive surgery from America, Europe and Oceania made great contributions to this consensus guideline.

Results

After a systematic literature review 176 studies were included, 19 questions were addressed and 14 recommendations were developed through the expert assessment and comprehensive judgment of the quality and credibility of the evidence.

Conclusions

The international RPS guidelines can guide current practice for surgeons, patients, medical societies, hospital administrators, and related social communities. Further randomized trials are required to determine the added value of RPS as compared to open and laparoscopic surgery.

Prince and princesses: The current status of robotic surgery in surgical oncology

Robotic surgery has experienced a dramatic increase in utilization across general surgery over the last two decades, including in surgical oncology. Although urologists and gynecologists were the first to show that this technology could be utilized in cancer surgery, the robot is now a powerful tool in the treatment of gastrointestinal, hepato-pancreatico-biliary, colorectal, endocrine, and soft tissue malignancies. While long-term outcomes are still pending, short-term outcomes have showed promise for this technologic advancement of cancer surgery.

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.

Distal pancreatectomy with or without radical approach, vascular resections and splenectomy: Easier does not always mean easy

Because distal pancreatectomy (DP) has no reconstructive steps and less frequent vascular involvement, it is thought to be the easier counterpart of pancreaticoduodenectomy. This procedure has a high surgical risk and the overall incidences of perioperative morbidity (mainly pancreatic fistula), and mortality are still high, in addition to the challenges that accompany delayed access to adjuvant therapies (if any) and prolonged impairment of daily activities. Moreover, surgery to remove malignancy of the body or tail of the pancreas is associated with poor long-term oncological outcomes. From this perspective, new surgical approaches, and aggressive techniques, such as radical antegrade modular pancreato-splenectomy and DP with celiac axis resection, could lead to improved survival in those affected by more locally advanced tumors. Conversely, minimally invasive approaches such as laparoscopic and robotic surgeries and the avoidance of routine concomitant splenectomy have been developed to reduce the burden of surgical stress. The purpose of ongoing surgical research has been to achieve significant reductions in perioperative complications, length of hospital stays and the time between surgery and the beginning of adjuvant chemotherapy. Because a dedicated multidisciplinary team is crucial to pancreatic surgery, hospital and surgeon volumes have been confirmed to be associated with better outcomes in patients affected by benign, borderline, and malignant diseases of the pancreas. The purpose of this review is to examine the state of the art in distal pancreatectomies, with a special focus on minimally invasive approaches and oncological-directed techniques. The widespread reproducibility, cost-effectiveness and long-term results of each oncological procedure are also taken into deep consideration.

Preliminary experience with a new robotic technique to facilitate distal pancreatectomy with spleen preservation: left lateral approach in right lateral decubitus position

Spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (SP-DP), for patients with benign or small low-grade malignant tumors of the body or tail of the pancreas, is the ideal procedure although it is technically demanding. The robotic da Vinci system has been introduced to overcome these technical challenges and reduce operative risks. We report our experience of a new variation in surgical technique: the left lateral approach robotic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (RSP-DP) in right lateral decubitus position. We performed this new variant of SP-DP, in five patients, using the da Vinci Xi system. Technical and clinical feasibility are described. The mean age and body mass index were 53.4 years and 31.4 kg/m², respectively. The mean total operative time was 323 min. The estimated mean blood loss was 240 ml. In all patients, the spleen could be preserved. In four patients, the splenic vessels were also preserved. One patient required a Warshaw technique due to significant fibrosis attached to the splenic vein. The postoperative period of all patients was uneventful except the presence of biochemical leak (BL) in two patients that only required maintenance of the drainage at home. The mean length of hospital stay was 6 days after surgery. The left lateral approach robotic SP-DP in right lateral decubitus position is a feasible and safe procedure for distal benign or small low-grade malignant tumors of the left pancreas. The right lateral decubitus position associated to robotic surgery can facilitate this complex procedure, especially when splenic vessels preservation is indicated, with a lower risk of conversion and shortening of the learning curve.

Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis including patient subgroups

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RDP) has been suggested to hold some benefits over laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) but consensus and data on specific subgroups are lacking. This systematic review and meta-analysis reports the surgical and oncological outcome and costs between RDP and LDP including subgroups with intended spleen preservation and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).

METHODS

Studies comparing RDP and LDP were included from PubMed, Cochrane Central Register, and Embase (inception-July 2022). Primary outcomes were conversion and unplanned splenectomy. Secondary outcomes were R0 resection, lymph node yield, major morbidity, operative time, intraoperative blood loss, in-hospital mortality, operative costs, total costs and hospital stay.

RESULTS

Overall, 43 studies with 6757 patients were included, 2514 after RDP and 4243 after LDP. RDP was associated with a longer operative time (MD = 18.21, 95% CI 2.18-34.24), less blood loss (MD = 54.50, 95% CI - 84.49-24.50), and a lower conversion rate (OR = 0.44, 95% CI 0.36-0.55) compared to LDP. In spleen-preserving procedures, RDP was associated with more Kimura procedures (OR = 2.23, 95% CI 1.37-3.64) and a lower rate of unplanned splenectomies (OR = 0.32, 95% CI 0.24-0.42). In patients with PDAC, RDP was associated with a higher lymph node yield (MD = 3.95, 95% CI 1.67-6.23), but showed no difference in the rate of R0 resection (OR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.67-1.37). RDP was associated with higher total (MD = 3009.31, 95% CI 1776.37-4242.24) and operative costs (MD = 3390.40, 95% CI 1981.79-4799.00).

CONCLUSIONS

RDP was associated with a lower conversion rate, a higher spleen preservation rate and, in patients with PDAC, a higher lymph node yield and similar R0 resection rate, as compared to LDP. The potential benefits of RDP need to be weighed against the higher total and operative costs in future randomized trials.

ROBOTIC-ASSISTED VERSUS LAPAROSCOPIC INCISIONAL HERNIA REPAIR: DIFFERENCES IN DIRECT COSTS FROM A BRAZILIAN PUBLIC INSTITUTE PERSPECTIVE

BACKGROUND

Robotic-assisted surgery research has grown dramatically in the past two decades and the advantages over traditional videolaparoscopy have been extensively debated. For hernias, the robotic system can increase intraoperative strategies, especially in complex hernias or incisional hernias.

AIMS

This study aimed to compare the direct cost differences between robotic and laparoscopic hernia repair and determine each source of expenditure that may be related to the increased costs in a robotic program from the perspective of a Brazilian public institution.

METHODS

This study investigated the differences in direct costs from the data generated from a trial protocol (ReBEC: RBR-5s6mnrf). Patients with incisional hernia were randomly assigned to receive laparoscopic ventral incisional hernia repair (LVIHR) or robotic ventral incisional hernia repair (RVIHR). The direct medical costs of hernia treatment were described in the Brazilian currency (R$).

RESULTS

A total of 19 patients submitted to LVIHR were compared with 18 submitted to RVIHR. The amount spent on operation room time (RVIHR: 2,447.91±644.79; LVIHR: 1,989.67±763.00; p=0.030), inhaled medical gases in operating room (RVIHR: 270.57±211.51; LVIHR: 84.55±252.34; p=0.023), human resources in operating room (RVIHR: 3,164.43±894.97; LVIHR: 2,120.16±663.78; p<0.001), material resources (RVIHR: 3,204.32±351.55; LVIHR: 736.51±972.32; p<0.001), and medications (RVIHR: 823.40±175.47; LVIHR: 288.50±352.55; p<0.001) for RVIHR was higher than that for LVIHR, implying a higher total cost to RVIHR (RVIHR: 14,712.24±3,520.82; LVIHR: 10,295.95±3,453.59; p<0.001). No significant difference was noted in costs related to the hospital stay, human resources in intensive care unit and ward, diagnostic tests, and meshes.

CONCLUSION

Robotic system adds a significant overall cost to traditional laparoscopic hernia repair. The cost of the medical and robotic devices and longer operative times are the main factors driving the difference in costs.

Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy on perioperative outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Robotic surgery has become a promising surgical method in minimally invasive pancreatic surgery due to its three-dimensional visualization, tremor filtration, motion scaling, and better ergonomics. Numerous studies have explored the benefits of RDP over LDP in terms of perioperative safety and feasibility, but no consensus has been achieved yet. This article aimed to evaluate the benefits and drawbacks of RDP and LDP for perioperative outcomes. By June 2022, all studies comparing RDP to LDP in the PubMed, the Embase, and the Cochrane Library database were systematically reviewed. According to the heterogeneity, fix or random-effects models were used for the meta-analysis of perioperative outcomes. Odds ratio (OR), weighted mean differences (WMD), and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. A sensitivity analysis was performed to explore potential sources of high heterogeneity and a trim and fill analysis was used to evaluate the impact of publication bias on the pooled results. Thirty-four studies met the inclusion criteria. RDP provides greater benefit than LDP for higher spleen preservation (OR 3.52 95% CI 2.62-4.73, p < 0.0001) and Kimura method (OR 1.93, 95% CI 1.42-2.62, p < 0.0001) in benign and low-grade malignant tumors. RDP is associated with lower conversion to laparotomy (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.33-0.52, p < 0.00001), and shorter postoperative hospital stay (WMD - 0.57, 95% CI - 0.92 to - 0.21, p = 0.002), but it is more costly. In terms of postoperative complications, there was no difference between RDP and LDP except for 30-day mortality (RDP versus LDP, 0.1% versus 1.0%, p = 0.03). With the exception of its high cost, RDP appears to outperform LDP on perioperative outcomes and is technologically feasible and safe. High-quality prospective randomized controlled trials are advised for further confirmation as the quality of the evidence now is not high.

Implementation of a patient blood management in an Italian City Hospital: is it effective in reducing the use of red blood cells?

To evaluate the effect of patient blood management (PBM) since its introduction, we analyzed the need for transfusion and the outcomes in patients undergoing abdominal surgery for different types of tumor pre- and post-PBM. Patients undergoing elective gastric, liver, pancreatic, and colorectal surgery between 2017 and 2020 were included. The implementation of the PBM program was completed on May 1, 2018. The patients were grouped as follows: those who underwent surgery before the implementation of the program (pre-PBM) versus after the implementation (post-PBM). A total of 1302 patients were included in the analysis (445 pre-PBM vs. 857 post-PBM). The number of transfused patients per year decreased significantly after the introduction of PBM. A strong tendency for a decreased incidence of transfusion was evident in gastric and pancreatic surgery and a similar decrease was statistically significant in liver surgery. With regard to gastric surgery, a single-unit transfusion scheme was used more frequently in the post-PBM group (7.7% vs. 55% after PBM; p = 0.049); this was similar in liver surgery (17.6% vs. 58.3% after PBM; p = 0.04). Within the subgroup of patients undergoing liver surgery, a significant reduction in the use of blood transfusion (20.5% vs. 6.7%; p = 0.002) and a decrease in the Hb trigger for transfusion (8.5, 8.2-9.5 vs. 8.2, 7.7-8.4 g/dl; p = 0.039) was reported after the PBM introduction. After the implementation of a PBM protocol, a significant reduction in the number of patients receiving blood transfusion was demonstrated, with a strong tendency to minimize the use of blood products for most types of oncologic surgery.

Application of robots in general surgery

Background: Application of robotic surgery in the field of general surgery has been increasing. This paper is an overview of the current uses and future perspectives of robotic surgery in four major divisions—endocrine, upper gastrointestinal, hepato-biliary-pancreatic (HBP), and colorectal surgery.Current Concepts: In endocrine surgery, cosmetic advantage is the highest priority when selecting a surgical approach for thyroidectomy. Currently, the transaxillary route is the most common approach. The introduction of the single-port system could maximize the advantages of this technique. In upper gastrointestinal surgery, the use of robots has the advantage of better retrieval of lymph nodes, less bleeding, earlier discharge, and less complications than the laparoscopic approach. However, a more prospective comparative trial is required to confirm those findings. In the HBP field, the indications of robotic surgery have expanded, starting with cholecystectomy to more challenging procedures, such as donor hepatectomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy. Meticulous dissection using robots could provide benefits to patients. In colorectal surgery, robotic surgery is an excellent technical tool for minimally invasive surgeries for rectal cancers, especially in male patients with narrow, deep pelvises. However, further studies are required to confirm the impact of robotic surgery on rectal cancers.Discussion and Conclusion: Robots are used to provide optimal surgical outcomes. Investigating new technologies and innovative surgical procedures is the highly important for a surgeon in the era of minimally invasive surgery.