Risk of conversion to open surgery during robotic and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy and effect on outcomes: international propensity score-matched comparison study

Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy by junior surgeon: Initial experience of the next generation

BACKGROUND

Several guidelines exist for minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) regarding its prerequisites and learning curve. However, these guidelines are based on the experience of the pioneers of MIPD; minimal data exist on the experience of the next generation of surgeons. The aim of this study was to compare the two surgeon types (veteran and junior) for MIPD in terms of immediate postoperative outcomes.

METHODS

The postoperative outcomes of 22 patients who underwent robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy (RAPD) by a junior surgeon from July 2021 to December 2022 were retrospectively reviewed. The outcomes were compared with the initial postoperative outcomes and the contemporary postoperative outcomes of RAPD by a veteran surgeon.

RESULTS

In comparing the initial outcomes between the two surgeon types, the veteran surgeons showed a shorter operation time (junior surgeon vs. veteran surgeon: 606 ± 89 vs. 467 ± 77 min, p < 0.001). However, there was no significant difference in terms of postoperative outcomes, such as blood loss (300 [200-600] ml. vs. 200 [100-500] ml, p = 0.208), major complications (≥CDC IIIa: 4 (18.2%) vs. 4 (18.2%), p = 1.000), postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF; ≥ISGPF Grade B: 2 (9.1%) vs. 3 (13.6%), p > 0.999), and length of hospital stay (18.0 ± 8.9 days vs. 18.3 ± 7.9 days, p = 0.915), between the two surgeon types. In addition, in a comparison of the contemporary outcomes, there was no significant difference in terms of postoperative outcome (complications: 4 (18.2%) vs 11 (11.1%), p = 0.580; POPF: 2 (9.1%) vs. 3 (3.0%), p = 0.484; length of hospital stay: 18.0 ± 8.9 vs. 15.0 ± 6.5 days, p = 0.065).

CONCLUSION

The initial outcomes of MIPD by a well-trained junior surgeon were found to be comparable to those of MIPD by a veteran surgeon.

A propensity score-matched analysis of laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: Is there value to a laparoscopic approach?

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy has been found safe and associated with advantages over open pancreaticoduodenectomy in prior studies. We compared outcomes of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy at a single institution after applying technical aspects and perioperative care learned from laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy to the open pancreaticoduodenectomy practice.

METHODS

From January 2010 to December 2020, all patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy were identified, and information was collected in a prospective fashion. Open pancreaticoduodenectomy (n = 347) and laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (n = 242) were performed using the same selection criteria, operative technique, and recovery protocols at a single institution. Propensity score matching was performed, and then perioperative data and 90-day outcomes were compared, and statistical analysis was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 589 patients underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy, including open pancreaticoduodenectomy (n = 347) and laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (n = 242). After excluding those undergoing total pancreatectomy or major vascular or concomitant organ resection, there were 497 patients (open pancreaticoduodenectomy = 301 and laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy = 196). Propensity score matching was performed, and 187 open pancreaticoduodenectomy patients were matched to 187 laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy patients. Operative time (475 vs 280 minutes) was longer, and estimated blood loss (150 vs 212 mL) was less for laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy than open pancreaticoduodenectomy, respectively. Pancreatic fistula (18.8% vs 5.4%) and delayed gastric emptying (18.8% vs 9.7%) were higher for laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy than open pancreaticoduodenectomy, respectively. Postpancreatectomy hemorrhage, major morbidity, mortality, hospital stay, and readmissions were nonsignificantly higher for laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy than open pancreaticoduodenectomy. Intensive care use and overall costs were significantly higher for laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy than open pancreaticoduodenectomy.

CONCLUSION

In our experience, open pancreaticoduodenectomy offers similar to improved outcomes over laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy, with less use of perioperative resources, thereby offering better value to patients requiring pancreaticoduodenectomy.

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.

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.

The Feasibility, Proficiency, and Mastery Learning Curves in 635 Robotic Pancreatoduodenectomies Following a Multicenter Training Program: "Standing on the Shoulders of Giants"

OBJECTIVE

To assess the feasibility, proficiency, and mastery learning curves for robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) in "second-generation" RPD centers following a multicenter training program adhering to the IDEAL framework.

BACKGROUND

The long learning curves for RPD reported from "pioneering" expert centers may discourage centers interested in starting an RPD program. However, the feasibility, proficiency, and mastery learning curves may be shorter in "second-generation" centers that participated in dedicated RPD training programs, although data are lacking. We report on the learning curves for RPD in "second-generation" centers trained in a dedicated nationwide program.

METHODS

Post hoc analysis of all consecutive patients undergoing RPD in 7 centers that participated in the LAELAPS-3 training program, each with a minimum annual volume of 50 pancreatoduodenectomies, using the mandatory Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit (March 2016-December 2021). Cumulative sum analysis determined cutoffs for the 3 learning curves: operative time for the feasibility (1) risk-adjusted major complication (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III) for the proficiency, (2) and textbook outcome for the mastery, (3) learning curve. Outcomes before and after the cutoffs were compared for the proficiency and mastery learning curves. A survey was used to assess changes in practice and the most valued "lessons learned."

RESULTS

Overall, 635 RPD were performed by 17 trained surgeons, with a conversion rate of 6.6% (n=42). The median annual volume of RPD per center was 22.5±6.8. From 2016 to 2021, the nationwide annual use of RPD increased from 0% to 23% whereas the use of laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy decreased from 15% to 0%. The rate of major complications was 36.9% (n=234), surgical site infection 6.3% (n=40), postoperative pancreatic fistula (grade B/C) 26.9% (n=171), and 30-day/in-hospital mortality 3.5% (n=22). Cutoffs for the feasibility, proficiency, and mastery learning curves were reached at 15, 62, and 84 RPD. Major morbidity and 30-day/in-hospital mortality did not differ significantly before and after the cutoffs for the proficiency and mastery learning curves. Previous experience in laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy shortened the feasibility (-12 RPDs, -44%), proficiency (-32 RPDs, -34%), and mastery phase learning curve (-34 RPDs, -23%), but did not improve clinical outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

The feasibility, proficiency, and mastery learning curves for RPD at 15, 62, and 84 procedures in "second-generation" centers after a multicenter training program were considerably shorter than previously reported from "pioneering" expert centers. The learning curve cutoffs and prior laparoscopic experience did not impact major morbidity and mortality. These findings demonstrate the safety and value of a nationwide training program for RPD in centers with sufficient volume.

Impact of Unplanned Intra-Operative Conversions on Outcomes in Minimally Invasive Pancreatoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

Minimally-invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) is fraught with the risk of complication-related deaths (LEOPARD-2), a significant volume-outcome relationship and a long learning curve. With rates of conversion for MIPD approaching 40%, the impact of these on overall patient outcomes, especially, when unplanned, are yet to be fully elucidated. This study aimed to compare peri-operative outcomes of (unplanned) converted MIPD against both successfully completed MIPD and upfront open PD.

METHODS

A systematic review of major reference databases was undertaken. The primary outcome of interest was 30-day mortality. Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to judge the quality of the studies. Meta-analysis was performed using pooled estimates, derived using random effects model.

RESULTS

Six studies involving 20,267 patients were included in the review. Pooled analysis demonstrated (unplanned) converted MIPD were associated with an increased 30-day (RR 2.83, CI 1.62- 4.93, p = 0.0002, I2 = 0%) and 90-day (RR 1.81, CI 1.16- 2.82, p = 0.009, I2 = 28%) mortality and overall morbidity (RR 1.41, CI 1.09; 1.82, p = 0.0087, I2 = 82%) compared to successfully completed MIPD. Patients undergoing (unplanned) converted MIPD experienced significantly higher 30-day mortality (RR 3.97, CI 2.07; 7.65, p < 0.0001, I2 = 0%), pancreatic fistula (RR 1.65, CI 1.22- 2.23, p = 0.001, I2 = 0%) and re-exploration rates (RR 1.96, CI 1.17- 3.28, p = 0.01, I2 = 37%) compared upfront open PD.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient outcomes are significantly compromised following unplanned intraoperative conversions of MIPD when compared to successfully completed MIPD and upfront open PD. These findings stress the need for objective evidence-based guidelines for patient selection for MIPD.

Prospective minimally invasive pancreatic resections from the IGOMIPS registry: a snapshot of daily practice in Italy on 1191 between 2019 and 2022

This retrospective analysis of the prospective IGOMIPS registry reports on 1191 minimally invasive pancreatic resections (MIPR) performed in Italy between 2019 and 2022, including 668 distal pancreatectomies (DP) (55.7%), 435 pancreatoduodenectomies (PD) (36.3%), 44 total pancreatectomies (3.7%), 36 tumor enucleations (3.0%), and 8 central pancreatectomies (0.7%). Spleen-preserving DP was performed in 109 patients (16.3%). Overall incidence of severe complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3) was 17.6% with a 90-day mortality of 1.9%. This registry analysis provided some important information. First, robotic assistance was preferred for all MIPR but DP with splenectomy. Second, robotic assistance reduced conversion to open surgery and blood loss in comparison to laparoscopy. Robotic PD was also associated with lower incidence of severe postoperative complications and a trend toward lower mortality. Fourth, the annual cut-off of ≥ 20 MIPR and ≥ 20 MIPD improved selected outcome measures. Fifth, most MIPR were performed by a single surgeon. Sixth, only two-thirds of the centers performed spleen-preserving DP. Seventh, DP with splenectomy was associated with higher conversion rate when compared to spleen-preserving DP. Eighth, the use of pancreatojejunostomy was the prevalent reconstruction in PD. Ninth, final histology was similar for MIPR performed at high- and low-volume centers, but neoadjuvant chemotherapy was used more frequently at high-volume centers. Finally, this registry analysis raises important concerns about the reliability of R1 assessment underscoring the importance of standardized pathology of pancreatic specimens. In conclusion, MIPR can be safely implemented on a national scale. Further analyses are required to understand nuances of implementation of MIPR in Italy.

Initial 50 consecutive full-robotic pancreatoduodenectomies without conversion by a single surgeon: a learning curve analysis from a tertiary referral high-volume center

BACKGROUND

Several studies report on a learning curve for robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (R-PD) ranging between 20 and 80 operations, with conversion rates varying between 1.1 and 35%. However, as these publications mostly refer to initial robotic experiences and do not take into account the previous surgical background in pancreatic surgery (PS) and in robotic-assisted surgery (RAS), the center's volume, as well as the platform used, we aimed to perform a surgical outcomes analysis with a particular view to these aspects.

METHODS

Intraoperative and perioperative outcomes of the first 50 consecutive R-PD performed with the da Vinci Xi by the same surgeon, within a tertiary referral high-volume center, between January 2018 and March 2022, were analyzed. The surgeon was previously experienced in both PS and RAS. Shewhart control chart and cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis were used to evaluate the learning curve of R-PD.

RESULTS

All the operations were performed with a full-robotic technique, without any conversion to open surgery. Twenty of 50 patients (40%) had a BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2, while 24/50 (48%) had undergone previous abdominal surgery. Mean console time was 276.30 ± 31.16 min. The median post-operative length of hospital stay was 10 days, while 20/50 (40%) patients were discharged within post-operative day 8. Six patients (12%) had major complications (Clavien-Dindo grade 3 or above). There was no 30-day mortality. Shewhart control chart and CUSUM analysis did not show a significant learning curve during the study period.

CONCLUSIONS

An extensive prior experience in both PS and RAS, within a tertiary referral high-volume center with availability of the da Vinci Xi platform, can significantly flatten the learning curve and, therefore, enable safe performance of challenging operations, i.e., pancreatoduodenectomies with a minimally invasive approach, with very low risk of conversion to open surgery, even in the first 50 operations.

Safety and Feasibility of Laparoscopic Right or Extended Right Hemi Hepatectomy Following Modulation of the Future Liver Remnant in Patients with Colorectal Liver Metastases: A Systematic Review

Background: Major hepatectomies after future liver remnant (FLR) modulation are technically demanding procedures, especially when performed as minimally invasive surgery. The aim of this systematic review is to assess current evidence regarding the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic right or extended right hemihepatectomies after FLR modulation. Materials and Methods: The Medline, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases were searched for studies involving laparoscopic right or extended right hemihepatectomies after FLR modulation, from their inception to December 2021. Two reviewers independently selected eligible articles and assessed their quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS). Baseline characteristics and outcomes were extracted from the included studies and summarized. Results: Six studies were included. In these studies, the median length of stay after the second stage ranged from 4.5 to 15.5 days and postoperative complication rates between 4.5% and 42.8%. Overall, 7.4% of patients developed liver failure, and 90-day mortality occurred in 3.2% of patients. The R0 resection rate was 93.5%. Only one study reported long-term outcomes, describing comparable 3-year overall survival rates following laparoscopic and open surgery (80% versus 54%, P = .154). Conclusions: The current evidence is scarce, but it suggests that in experienced centers, laparoscopic right or extended right hemihepatectomy, following FLR modulation, is a safe and feasible procedure.

Discrepancies in survival after conversion to open in minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

The extent by which conversion to open (CTO) during minimally invasive procedures for pancreatic cancer impact survival outcomes is not fully understood.

METHODS

The 2010-2017 National Cancer Database identified 12,424 non-metastatic patients who underwent pancreatoduodenectomy for ductal adenocarcinoma. Patients were stratified into three cohorts: open (OPD), completed MIPD (cMIPD), and CTO. Subgroups were dichotomized by hospital MIPD volume.

RESULTS

Across the study period, 80.6% of patients underwent OPD, 19.4% MIPD, and 24% were CTO. Median overall survival was worse after CTO (21.8 months) than for OPD (23.6 months) or cMIPD (25.2 months) (p < 0.001). Although this effect persisted for <10 MIPD/year, CTO did comparably to OPD at hospitals performing ≥10MIPD/year (CTO = 26.8 months, OPD = 27.9 months; p = 0.128). Ninety-day mortality after CTO was worse at ≤ 10 MIPD/year hospitals (9.3% vs. 2.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

Short and long-term survival is impacted by CTO after MIPD, especially at lower surgical volumes, stressing careful adoption while ascending the learning curve.

The PD-ROBOSCORE: A difficulty score for robotic pancreatoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

Difficulty scoring systems are important for the safe, stepwise implementation of new procedures. We designed a retrospective observational study for building a difficulty score for robotic pancreatoduodenectomy.

METHODS

The difficulty score (PD-ROBOSCORE) aims at predicting severe postoperative complications after robotic pancreatoduodenectomy. The PD-ROBOSCORE was developed in a training cohort of 198 robotic pancreatoduodenectomies and was validated in an international multicenter cohort of 686 robotic pancreatoduodenectomies. Finally, all centers tested the model during the early learning curve (n = 300). Growing difficulty levels (low, intermediate, high) were defined using cut-off values set at the 33rd and 66th percentile (NCT04662346).

RESULTS

Factors included in the final multivariate model were a body mass index of ≥25 kg/m² for males and ≥30 kg/m² for females (odds ratio:2.39; P < .0001), borderline resectable tumor (odd ratio:1.98; P < .0001), uncinate process tumor (odds ratio:1.69; P < .0001), pancreatic duct size <4 mm (odds ratio:1.59; P < .0001), American Society of Anesthesiologists class ≥3 (odds ratio:1.59; P < .0001), and hepatic artery originating from the superior mesenteric artery (odds ratio:1.43; P < .0001). In the training cohort, the absolute score value (odds ratio = 1.13; P = .0089) and difficulty groups (odds ratio = 2.35; P = .041) predicted severe postoperative complications. In the multicenter validation cohort, the absolute score value predicted severe postoperative complications (odds ratio = 1.16, P < .001), whereas the difficulty groups did not (odds ratio = 1.94, P = .082). In the learning curve cohort, both absolute score value (odds ratio:1.078, P = .04) and difficulty groups (odds ratio: 2.25, P = .017) predicted severe postoperative complications. Across all cohorts, a PD-ROBOSCORE of ≥12.51 doubled the risk of severe postoperative complications. The PD-ROBOSCORE score also predicted operative time, estimated blood loss, and vein resection. The PD-ROBOSCORE predicted postoperative pancreatic fistula, delayed gastric emptying, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage, and postoperative mortality in the learning curve cohort.

CONCLUSION

The PD-ROBOSCORE predicts severe postoperative complications after robotic pancreatoduodenectomy. The score is readily available via www.pancreascalculator.com.

Robot-Assisted Versus Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy in Patients with Resectable Pancreatic Cancer: An International, Retrospective, Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RDP) is increasingly used as an alternative to laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer but comparative multicenter studies confirming the safety and efficacy of RDP are lacking.

METHODS

An international, multicenter, retrospective, cohort study, including consecutive patients undergoing RDP and LDP for resectable pancreatic cancer in 33 experienced centers from 11 countries (2010-2019). The primary outcome was R0-resection. Secondary outcomes included lymph node yield, major complications, conversion rate, and overall survival.

RESULTS

In total, 542 patients after minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy were included: 103 RDP (19%) and 439 LDP (81%). The R0-resection rate was comparable (75.7% RDP vs. 69.3% LDP, p = 0.404). RDP was associated with longer operative time (290 vs. 240 min, p < 0.001), more vascular resections (7.6% vs. 2.7%, p = 0.030), lower conversion rate (4.9% vs. 17.3%, p = 0.001), more major complications (26.2% vs. 16.3%, p = 0.019), improved lymph node yield (18 vs. 16, p = 0.021), and longer hospital stay (10 vs. 8 days, p = 0.001). The 90-day mortality (1.9% vs. 0.7%, p = 0.268) and overall survival (median 28 vs. 31 months, p = 0.599) did not differ significantly between RDP and LDP, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In selected patients with resectable pancreatic cancer, RDP and LDP provide a comparable R0-resection rate and overall survival in experienced centers. Although the lymph node yield and conversion rate appeared favorable after RDP, LDP was associated with shorter operating time, less major complications, and shorter hospital stay. The specific benefits associated with each approach should be confirmed by multicenter, randomized trials.

Pure robotic major hepatectomy with biliary reconstruction for hepatobiliary malignancies: first European results

BACKGROUND

Combined liver and bile duct resection with biliary reconstruction for hepatobiliary malignancies are defined as highly complex surgical procedures. The robotic platform may overcome some major limitations of conventional laparoscopic surgery for these complex cases but its precise role is however still to be defined.

METHODS

In our institution, patients requiring major hepatectomy with biliary reconstruction for malignancies were consecutively selected for minimally invasive robotic surgery from September 2020. All surgeries were undertaken using the da Vinci Xi Surgical System® (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA). Intra-operative technique and postoperative outcome were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total number of 10 patients (3 males and 7 females, median age 72 years) underwent robotic major hepatectomy and bile duct resection for hepatobiliary malignancies between September 2020 and March 2022. The indication for surgery was perihilar cholangiocarcinoma in 5 of 10 patients. Median operative time was 338 min and median blood loss was 110 mL. Postoperative length of stay was between 3 and 16 days (median: 9 days). There was no postoperative 90-day mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

A robotic approach for hepatobiliary malignancies requiring combined major hepatectomy and bile duct resection seems feasible and safe in experienced hands.

Robotic biliary surgery for benign and malignant bile duct obstruction: a case series

The majority of patients with benign or malignant biliary obstruction require surgical treatment with a bilio-enteric anastomosis. This requires fine dissection and advanced suturing. Robotic surgery may overcome some major limitations of conventional laparoscopic surgery. The precise role of robotic biliary surgery is, however, still to be defined. In our institution, patients requiring complex bile duct surgery were consecutively selected for minimally invasive robotic surgery from September 2020. All surgeries were undertaken using the da Vinci Xi Surgical System^® (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA). Intra-operative technique and postoperative outcome were analyzed. A total number of 14 patients underwent robotic biliary surgery for a variety of benign and malignant indications between September 2020 and May 2021. Six of fourteen patients (43%) had previous open abdominal surgery. Median blood loss was 25 mL (range 10-120 mL). There were no intra-operative complications and no conversions. Length of stay was between 3 and 11 days without major postoperative morbidity. Robotic surgery for benign and malignant bile duct obstruction is efficient and safe in experienced hands. Referral to a high-volume expert center is, however, advised.

Tips and tricks for robotic pancreatoduodenectomy with superior mesenteric/portal vein resection and reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Open pancreatoduodenectomy with vein resection (OPD-VR) is now standard of care in patients who responded to neoadjuvant therapies. Feasibility of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) with vein resection (RPD-VR) was shown, but no study provided a detailed description of the technical challenges associated with this formidable operation. Herein, we describe the trips and tricks for technically successful RPD-VR.

METHODS

The vascular techniques used in RPD-VR were borrowed from OPD-VR, as well as from our experience with robotic transplantation of both kidney and pancreas. Vein resection was classified into 4 types according to the international study group of pancreatic surgery. Each type of vein resection was described in detail and shown in a video.

RESULTS

Between October 2008 and November 2021, a total of 783 pancreatoduodenectomies were performed, including 233 OPDs-VR (29.7%). RPD was performed in 256 patients (32.6%), and RPDs-VR in 36 patients (4.5% of all pancreatoduodenectomies; 15.4% of all pancreatoduodenectomies with vein resection; 14.0% of all RPDs). In RPD-VR vein resections were: 4 type 1 (11.1%), 10 type 2 (27.8%), 12 type 3 (33.3%) and 10 type 4 (27.8%). Vascular patches used in type 2 resections were made of peritoneum (n = 8), greater saphenous vein (n = 1), and deceased donor aorta (n = 1). Interposition grafts used in type 4 resections were internal left jugular vein (n = 8), venous graft from deceased donor (n = 1) and spiral saphenous vein graft (n = 1). There was one conversion to open surgery (2.8%). Ninety-day mortality was 8.3%. There was one (2.8%) partial vein thrombosis, treated with heparin infusion.

CONCLUSIONS

We have reported 36 technically successful RPDs-VR. We hope that the tips and tricks provided herein can contribute to safer implementation of RPD-VR. Based on our experience, and according to data from the literature, we strongly advise that RPD-VR is performed by expert surgeons at high volume centers.

Application of Clavien-Dindo classfication-grade in evaluating overall efficacy of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy

Background

The Clavien-Dindo classification (CDC) has been widely accepted and applied in clinical practice. We investigated its effectiveness in prediction of major complications (LPPC) after laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) and associated risk factors.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was conducted covering clinical data of 793 patients undergoing LPD from April 2015 to November 2021. CDC was utilized to grade postoperative complications and analyze the differences. Risk factors of LPPC were identified according to univariate and multivariate analyses.

Resluts

For the 793 patients undergoing laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy in the northeast of China, LPPC was reported in 260 (32.8%) patients, pancreatic fistula in 169 (21.3%), biliary fistula in 44 (5.5%), delayed gastric emptying in 17(2.1%), post pancreatectomy hemorrhage in 55 (6.9%), intestinal fistula in 7 (0.8%), abdominal infections in 59 (7.4%) and pulmonary complication in 28 (3.5%). All complications were classified into five levels with the C-D classification (Grade I-V), with 83 (31.9%) patients as grade I, 91 (35.0%) as grade II, 38 (14.6%) as grade IIIa, 24 (9.2%) as grade IIIb, 9 (3.5%) as grade IV and 15 (5.8%) as grade V. 86 (10.8%) patients experienced major complications (grade III-V).The results of univariate and multivariate analysis revealed the independent risk factors for laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy complications to be preoperative total bilirubin (P = 0.029, OR = 1.523), soft pancreas texture (P < 0.001, OR = 1.399), male (P = 0.038, OR = 1.396) and intraoperative transfusion (P = 0.033, OR = 1.517). Preoperative total bilirubin (P = 0.036, OR = 1.906) and intraoperative transfusions (P = 0.004, OR = 2.123) were independently associated with major postoperative complications. The influence of different bilirubin levels on C-D grade of complications was statistically significant (P = 0.036, OR = 1.906).

Conclusions

The Clavien-Dindo classification (CDC) may serve as a valid tool to predict major postoperative complications and contribute to perioperative management and comparison of surgical techniques in different medical centers.

Outcomes in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) undergoing robotic (RPD) or open pancreaticoduodenectomies (OPD): a propensity score-weighted survival analysis

The purpose of this study was to compare the survival, recurrence, and complication rates in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) who underwent robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) or open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) and who received adjuvant therapy. The study was a single-center retrospective analysis of consecutive PDAC patients who underwent RPD/OPD. Patient characteristics, tumor findings, neoadjuvant therapy, adjuvant therapies, overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) were compared between the OPD and RPD cohorts. Cox proportional hazard regression with and without propensity score matching was used to establish the association between predictors and outcomes. One hundred PDAC patients underwent OPD (n = 36) or RPD (n = 64) from 2013 to 2019. Cox proportional hazard models showed that baseline bilirubin (HR 1.6, p = 0.0006) and operative characteristics such as the number of positive lymph nodes (HR 1.1, p = 0.002), lymph node ratio (HR 1.6, p = 0.001), tumor grade (HR 1.7, p = 0.02), and TNM classification (HR 2.3, p = 0.01) were associated with OS. The independent predictors post-intervention associated with mortality were adjuvant therapy (HR 0.4, p = 0.0003), ISGPS complications (HR 2.8, p = 0.02), and 90-day readmission (HR 2, p = 0.004). After adjustment for these predictors, adjuvant therapy, baseline bilirubin, lymph node ratio, and tumor grade remained the main predictors of mortality. Baseline bilirubin, adjuvant therapy, lymph node ratio, and tumor grade were the main determinants of mortality after OPD or RPD. There was no significant difference in OS and RFS after RPD or OPD in PC patients who received adjuvant therapy.

A comparative study of robotics and laparoscopic in minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy: A single-center experience

Objective

To retrospectively compare the short-term benefits of robotic surgery and laparoscopic in the perioperative period of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD).

Methods

This retrospective analysis evaluated patients who underwent laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) or robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) from March 2018 to January 2022 in the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University (Zhengzhou, China). Perioperative data, including operating time, complications, morbidity and mortality, estimated blood loss (EBL), and postoperative length of stay, were analysed.

Result

A total of 190 cases of MIPD were included, of which 114 were LPD and 76 were RPD. There was no significant difference between the two groups in gender, age, previous history of upper abdominal operation, jaundice (>150 µmol/L), or diabetes (P > 0.05). The conversion rate to laparotomy was similar in the LPD and RPD groups (5.3% vs. 6.6%, P = 0.969). A total of 179 cases of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy were successfully performed, including 108 cases of LPD and 71 cases of RPD. There were significant differences between the laparoscopic and robotic groups in operation time [mean, 5.97 h vs. 5.42 h, P < 0.05] and postoperative length of stay [mean, 15.3 vs. 14.6 day, P < 0.05]. No significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of EBL, intraoperative transfusion, complication rate, mortality rate, or reoperation rate (P > 0.05). There were no significant differences in pathological type, number of lymph nodes harvested, or positive lymph node rate (P > 0.05).

Conclusion

RPD had an advantage compared to LPD in reduced operation time and postoperative length of stay, technical feasibility, and safety.

What Is the Current Role and What Are the Prospects of the Robotic Approach in Liver Surgery?

Simple Summary

Robotic liver surgery is being applied with increasing frequency. Comparable, and in specific settings superior, perioperative outcomes compared to laparoscopic liver surgery have been reported. In its current form, the most commonly mentioned advantage of robotic surgery is improved dexterity. Important obstacles to its wider implementation in daily clinical practice are the associated costs, technical difficulties, and a scarce amount of evidence. Robotic liver surgery will likely continue to evolve in parallel with technological developments that enhance the robots’ abilities.

Abstract

In parallel with the historical development of minimally invasive surgery, the laparoscopic and robotic approaches are now frequently utilized to perform major abdominal surgical procedures. Nevertheless, the role of the robotic approach in liver surgery is still controversial, and a standardized, safe technique has not been defined yet. This review aims to summarize the currently available evidence and prospects of robotic liver surgery. Minimally invasive liver surgery has been extensively associated with benefits, in terms of less blood loss, and lower complication rates, including liver-specific complications such as clinically relevant bile leakage and post hepatectomy liver failure, when compared to open liver surgery. Furthermore, comparable R0 resection rates to open liver surgery have been reported, thus, demonstrating the safety and oncological efficiency of the minimally invasive approach. However, whether robotic liver surgery has merits over laparoscopic liver surgery is still a matter of debate. In the current literature, robotic liver surgery has mainly been associated with non-inferior outcomes compared to laparoscopy, although it is suggested that the robotic approach has a shorter learning curve, lower conversion rates, and less intraoperative blood loss. Robotic surgical systems offer a more realistic image with integrated 3D systems. In addition, the improved dexterity offered by robotic surgical systems can lead to improved intra and postoperative outcomes. In the future, integrated and improved haptic feedback mechanisms, artificial intelligence, and the introduction of more liver-specific dissectors will likely be implemented, further enhancing the robots’ abilities.

State of the art of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy

Current evidence shows that robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) is feasible with a safety profile equivalent to either open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) or laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD). However, major intraoperative bleeding can occur and emergency conversion to OPD may be required. RPD reduces the risk of emergency conversion when compared to LPD. The learning curve of RPD ranges from 20 to 40 procedures, but proficiency is reached only after 250 operations. Once proficiency is achieved, the results of RPD may be superior to those of OPD. As for now, RPD is at least equivalent to OPD and LPD with respect to incidence and severity of POPF, incidence and severity of post-operative complications, and post-operative mortality. A minimal annual number of 20 procedures per center is recommended. In pancreatic cancer (versus OPD), RPD is associated with similar rates of R0 resections, but higher number of examined lymph nodes, lower blood loss, and lower need of blood transfusions. Multivariable analysis shows that RPD could improve patient survival. Data from selected centers show that vein resection and reconstruction is feasible during RPD, but at the price of high conversion rates and frequent use of small tangential resections. The true Achilles heel of RPD is higher operative costs that limit wider implementation of the procedure and accumulation of a large experience at most single centers. In conclusion, when proficiency is achieved, RPD may be superior to OPD with respect to CR-POPF and oncologic outcomes. Achievement of proficiency requires commitment, dedication, and truly high volumes.