Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Resection: Is It Really the Future?

Transition from open to robotic distal pancreatectomy in a low volume pancreatic surgery country: a single Australian centre experience

BACKGROUND

Advances in technology and techniques have allowed for robotic distal pancreatectomies to be readily performed in patients at high volume centres. This study describes the experience of a single surgeon during the learning curve and transition from open to robotic distal pancreatectomy in Australia, a traditionally low volume pancreatic surgery country.

METHODS

All patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy at an Australian-based tertiary referral centre between 2010 and 2021 were reviewed retrospectively. Demographic, clinicopathologic and survival data were analysed to compare perioperative and oncological outcomes between patients who underwent open, laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomies.

RESULTS

A total of 178 distal pancreatectomies were identified for analysis during the study period. Ninety-one open distal pancreatectomies (ODP), 48 laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies (LDP), and 39 robotic distal pancreatectomies (RDP) were performed. Robotic distal pancreatectomy was non-inferior with respect to perioperative outcomes and yielded statistically non-significant advantages over LDP and ODP.

CONCLUSION

RDP is feasible and can be performed safely in well-selected patients during the learning phase at large pancreatic centres in a traditionally low-volume country like Australia. Referral to large pancreatic centres where access to the robotic platform and surgeon experience is not a barrier, and where a robust multidisciplinary team meeting can take place, remains pivotal in the introduction and transition toward the robotic approach for management of patients with pancreatic body or tail lesions.

Intraoperative navigation system with a multi-modality fusion of 3D virtual model and laparoscopic real-time images in laparoscopic pancreatic surgery: a preclinical study

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy is widely used in pancreatic surgeries nowadays. The efficient and correct judgment of the location of the anatomical structures is crucial for a safe laparoscopic pancreatic surgery. The technologies of 3-dimensional(3D) virtual model and image fusion are widely used for preoperative planning and intraoperative navigation in the medical field, but not in laparoscopic pancreatic surgery up to now. We aimed to develop an intraoperative navigation system with an accurate multi-modality fusion of 3D virtual model and laparoscopic real-time images for laparoscopic pancreatic surgery.

METHODS

The software for the navigation system was developed ad hoc. The preclinical study included tests with the laparoscopic simulator and pilot cases. The 3D virtual models were built using preoperative Computed Tomography (CT) Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) data. Manual and automatic real-time image fusions were tested. The practicality of the navigation system was evaluated by the operators using the National Aeronautics and Space Administration-Task Load Index (NASA-TLX) method.

RESULTS

The 3D virtual models were successfully built using the navigation system. The 3D model was correctly fused with the real-time laparoscopic images both manually and automatically optical orientation in the preclinical tests. The statistical comparative tests showed no statistically significant differences between the scores of the rigid model and those of the phantom model(P > 0.05). There was statistically significant difference between the total scores of automatic fusion function and those of manual fusion function (P = 0.026). In pilot cases, the 3D model was correctly fused with the real-time laparoscopic images manually. The Intraoperative navigation system was easy to use. The automatic fusion function brought more convenience to the user.

CONCLUSIONS

The intraoperative navigation system applied in laparoscopic pancreatic surgery clearly and correctly showed the covered anatomical structures. It has the potentiality of helping achieve a more safe and efficient laparoscopic pancreatic surgery.

Systematic review and updated network meta-analysis comparing open, laparoscopic, and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy

The treatment of periampullary and pancreatic head neoplasms is evolving. While minimally invasive Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) has gained worldwide interest, there has been a debate on its related outcomes. The purpose of this paper was to provide an updated evidence comparing short-term surgical and oncologic outcomes within Open Pancreaticoduodenectomy (OpenPD), Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy (LapPD), and Robotic Pancreaticoduodenectomy (RobPD). MEDLINE, Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane Central Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were referred for systematic search. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was executed. Forty-one articles (56,440 patients) were included; 48,382 (85.7%) underwent OpenPD, 5570 (9.8%) LapPD, and 2488 (4.5%) RobPD. Compared to OpenPD, LapPD and RobPD had similar postoperative mortality [Risk Ratio (RR) = 1.26; 95%CrI 0.91–1.61 and RR = 0.78; 95%CrI 0.54–1.12)], clinically relevant (grade B/C) postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) (RR = 1.12; 95%CrI 0.82–1.43 and RR = 0.87; 95%CrI 0.64–1.14, respectively), and severe (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3) postoperative complications (RR = 1.03; 95%CrI 0.80–1.46 and RR = 0.93; 95%CrI 0.65–1.14, respectively). Compared to OpenPD, both LapPD and RobPD had significantly reduced hospital length-of-stay, estimated blood loss, infectious, pulmonary, overall complications, postoperative bleeding, and hospital readmission. No differences were found in the number of retrieved lymph nodes and R0. OpenPD, LapPD, and RobPD seem to be comparable across clinically relevant POPF, severe complications, postoperative mortality, retrieved lymphnodes, and R0. LapPD and RobPD appears to be safer in terms of infectious, pulmonary, and overall complications with reduced hospital readmission We advocate surgeons to choose their preferred surgical approach according to their expertise, however, the adoption of minimally invasive techniques may possibly improve patients’ outcomes.

Surgical and oncological outcomes of our first 59 cases of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy

PURPOSE

Robotics has shown encouraging results for a number of technically demanding abdominal surgeries including pancreaticoduodenectomy, which has originally represented a relative contraindication to the application of the minimally-invasive technique. We aimed to investigate the perioperative, clinicopathologic, and oncological outcomes of robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy by assessing a consecutive series of totally robotic procedures.

METHODS

All consecutive patients who underwent robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy were included in the present analysis. Perioperative, clinicopathologic and oncological outcomes were examined. In order to investigate the role of the learning curve, surgical outcomes were also used to compare the early and the late phase of our experience.

RESULTS

A total of 59 patients underwent surgery. Median hospital stay was 9 days (5 - 110), with an overall morbidity and mortality of 37% and 3%, respectively. Of note, the rate of clinically relevant pancreatic fistula was 11.8%. R0 resections were achieved in 96% of patients and the 3-year disease-free and overall survivals were 37.2 and 61.9%, respectively. Overall, surgical outcomes did not vary significantly between the first and the late phase of the series.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy can be performed competently. It satisfies all features of oncological adequacy and may offer a number of advantages over standard procedures in terms of surgical results.

Surgical resection of neuroendocrine tumors of the pancreas (pNETs) by minimally invasive surgery: the laparoscopic approach

Neuroendocrine tumors of the pancreas (pNETs) are a rare group of neoplasms that originate from the endocrine portion of the pancreas. Tumors that either secrete or do not secrete compounds, resulting in symptoms, can be classified as functioning and non-functioning pNETs, respectively. The prevalence of such tumors has recently increased due to the use of more sensitive imaging techniques, such as multidetector computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging and endoscopic ultrasound. The biological behavior of pNETs varies widely from indolent, well-differentiated tumors to those that are far more aggressive. The most effective and radical treatment for pNETs is surgical resection. Over the last decade, minimally invasive surgery has been increasingly used in pancreatectomy, with laparoscopic pancreatic surgery (LPS) emerging as an alternative to open pancreatic surgery (OPS) in patients with pNETs. Non-comparative studies have shown that LPS is safe and effective. In well-selected groups of patients with pancreatic lesions, LPS was found to results in good perioperative outcomes, including reduced intraoperative blood loss, postoperative pain, time to recovery, and length of hospital stay. Despite the encouraging results of studies from highly specialized centers with extensive experience, no randomized trials to date have conclusively validated these findings. Indications for minimally invasive LPS for patients with pNETs remain unclear. This review presents the current state of LPS for pNETs.

Role of robotic-assisted pancreatic surgery: lessons learned from our initial experience

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery has achieved worldwide acceptance in various fields, however, pancreatic surgery remains one of the most challenging abdominal procedures. In fact, the indication for robotic surgery in pancreatic disease has been controversial. The present study aimed to assess the safety and feasibility of robotic pancreatic resection.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed our experience of robotic pancreatic resection done in Sanchinarro University Hospital. Clinicopathologic characteristics, and perioperative and postoperative outcomes were recorded and analyzed.

RESULTS

From October 2010 to April 2016, 50 patients underwent robotic-assisted surgery for different pancreatic pathologies. All procedures were performed using the da Vinci robotic system. Of the 50 patients, 26 were male and 24 female. The average age of all patients was 62 years. Operative time was 370 minutes. Among the procedures performed were 16 pancreaticoduodenectomies (PD), 23 distal pan-createctomies (DP), 11 tumor enucleations (TE). The mean hospital stay was 17.6 days in PD group, 9.0 days in DP group and 8.4 days in TE group. Pancreatic fistula occurred in 10 cases (20%), 2 after PD, 3 after DP, and 5 after TE. Four patients had postoperative transfusion in PD group and one in DP group. Conversion to open laparotomy occurred in four patients (8%). No serious intraoperative complications were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

From our early experience, robotic pancreatic surgery is a safe and feasible procedure. Further experience and follow-up are required to confirm the role of robotic approach in pancreatic surgery.

Simultaneous laparoscopic resection of distal pancreas and liver nodule for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) with or without splenic preservation is increasingly performed for benign or border-line neoplasms of the body and tail of the pancreas. Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors appear as an excellent indication for laparoscopic resection and this procedure is becoming the gold standard for the surgical treatment of such neoplasms. The safety and advantage of laparoscopic resection over open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) have been proven. In this video, we present a LDP with splenectomy for a neuroendocrine tumor of distal pancreas, with associated wedge resection of a liver nodule. Technical considerations were also discussed.

Analysis of the Cost Effectiveness of Laparoscopic Pancreatoduodenectomy

OBJECTIVE

We sought to determine if laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) is a cost-effective alternative to open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD).

METHODS

Hospital cost data, discharge disposition, readmission rates, and readmission costs from periampullary cancer patient cohorts of LPD and OPD were compared. The surgical cohorts over a 40-month period were clinically similar, consisting of 52 and 50 patients in the LPD and OPD groups, respectively.

RESULTS

The total operating room costs were higher in the LPD group as compared to the OPD group (median US$12,290 vs US$11,299; P = 0.05) due to increased costs for laparoscopic equipment and regional nerve blocks (P ≤ 0.0001). Although hospital length of stay was shorter in the LPD group (median 7 vs 8 days; P = 0.025), the average hospital cost was not significantly decreased compared to the OPD group (median $28,496 vs $28,623). Surgery-related readmission rates and associated costs did not differ between groups. Compared to OPD patients, significantly more LPD patients were discharged directly home rather than to other healthcare facilities (88% vs 72%; P = 0.047).

CONCLUSION

For the index hospitalization, the cost of LPD is equivalent to OPD. Total episode-of-care costs may favor LPD via reduced post-hospital needs for skilled nursing and rehabilitation.

Robotic Pancreaticoduodenectomy: Technical Considerations

Robotic surgery can help to overcome some technical limitations of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy thanks to EndoWrist instrumentations and the 3D view. Despite the potential benefits, its employment is still low and controversial. We focused on some important technical details crucial for a safe robotic pancreatectomy. After performing 52 robotic pancreatic resections that included 10 pancreatoduodenectomies, the authors describe their technique. The review of literature on robotic and laparoscopic duodenopancreatectomy is also performed in order to evaluate possible benefits of the robotic platform. We describe the step-by-step surgical procedure, analyzing all possible troubleshooting occurring in an initial center experience. The estimated blood loss as well as the length of stay was reduced by the robotic approach. We did not observe any significant increase of pancreatic fistula rate and all other postoperative complications despite our initial learning curve. Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy is a technically advanced procedure that requires important laparoscopic and robotic skills but it shows to be safe, feasible with some clear advantages in the bleeding control and in the reconstructive phase of the procedure.

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: many meta-analyses, few certainties

In recent years, an increasing of the level of evidence occurred with a significant number of meta-analyses. A question remains open: can LDP be considered the "new gold standard" for benign and malignant body-tail pancreatic disease? A systematic literature search was conducted to identify all meta-analyses published up to 2016. The primary endpoint was to evaluate the clinical safety of LDP. The secondary endpoints were to evaluate: the length of hospital stay (LOS), readmission rate, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), overall postoperative morbidity and oncologic safety. Nine studies were found to be suitable for the analysis. Data regarding clinical safety were extractable in all meta-analyses but a "between study" homogeneity was available only in 7. The safety of LDP was sustained by six meta-analyses in benign/low grade of malignancy body-tail pancreatic lesions, by one in ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). LDP has a shorter LOS compared to open distal pancreatectomy (ODP), demonstrated by three meta-analyses. Readmission rate in LDP procedures was lower than in ODP; these data are sustained by one meta-analysis. LDP is not inferior to ODP regarding the occurrence of POPF (seven meta-analyses); overall morbidity rate was lower in LDP than ODP for benign or low-grade malignant tumor. The use of the LDP in PDAC is sustained from one study. In conclusion, LDP can be considered a safe alternative to ODP. LDP could have some advantages but the data do not permit to define this procedure as the first choice or as the new gold standard.