|
1
|
Mallick S, Chervu NL, Balian J, Charland N, Valenzuela AR, Sakowitz S, Benharash P. Association of hospital volume and operative approach with clinical and financial outcomes of elective esophagectomy in the United States. PLoS One 2024; 19:e0303586. [PMID: 38875301 PMCID: PMC11178205 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0303586] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/27/2023] [Accepted: 04/16/2024] [Indexed: 06/16/2024] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Literature regarding the impact of esophagectomy approach on hospitalizations costs and short-term outcomes is limited. Moreover, few have examined how institutional MIS experience affects costs. We thus examined utilization trends, costs, and short-term outcomes of open and minimally invasive (MIS) esophagectomy as well as assessing the relationship between institutional MIS volume and hospitalization costs. METHODS All adults undergoing elective esophagectomy were identified from the 2016-2020 Nationwide Readmissions Database. Multiple regression models were used to assess approach with costs, in-hospital mortality, and major complications. Additionally, annual hospital MIS esophagectomy volume was modeled as a restricted cubic spline against costs. Institutions performing > 16 cases/year corresponding with the inflection point were categorized as high-volume hospitals (HVH). We subsequently examined the association of HVH status with costs, in-hospital mortality, and major complications in patients undergoing minimally invasive esophagectomy. RESULTS Of an estimated 29,116 patients meeting inclusion, 10,876 (37.4%) underwent MIS esophagectomy. MIS approaches were associated with $10,600 in increased incremental costs (95% CI 8,800-12,500), but lower odds of in-hospital mortality (AOR 0.76; 95% CI 0.61-0.96) or major complications (AOR 0.68; 95% CI 0.60, 0.77). Moreover, HVH status was associated with decreased adjusted costs, as well as lower odds of postoperative complications for patients undergoing MIS operations. CONCLUSION In this nationwide study, MIS esophagectomy was associated with increased hospitalization costs, but improved short-term outcomes. In MIS operations, cost differences were mitigated by volume, as HVH status was linked with decreased costs in the setting of decreased odds of complications. Centralization of care to HVH centers should be considered as MIS approaches are increasingly utilized.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Saad Mallick
- Cardiovascular Outcomes Research Laboratories (CORELAB), David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, United States of America
| | - Nikhil L Chervu
- Cardiovascular Outcomes Research Laboratories (CORELAB), David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, United States of America
- Department of Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, United States of America
| | - Jeffrey Balian
- Cardiovascular Outcomes Research Laboratories (CORELAB), David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, United States of America
| | - Nicole Charland
- Cardiovascular Outcomes Research Laboratories (CORELAB), David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, United States of America
| | - Alberto R Valenzuela
- Cardiovascular Outcomes Research Laboratories (CORELAB), David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, United States of America
| | - Sara Sakowitz
- Cardiovascular Outcomes Research Laboratories (CORELAB), David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, United States of America
| | - Peyman Benharash
- Cardiovascular Outcomes Research Laboratories (CORELAB), David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, United States of America
- Department of Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, United States of America
| |
Collapse
|
|
2
|
Koh YX, Zhao Y, Tan IEH, Tan HL, Chua DW, Loh WL, Tan EK, Teo JY, Au MKH, Goh BKP. Evaluating the economic efficiency of open, laparoscopic, and robotic distal pancreatectomy: an updated systematic review and network meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 2024; 38:3035-3051. [PMID: 38777892 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-024-10889-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/24/2023] [Accepted: 04/29/2024] [Indexed: 05/25/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND This study compared the cost-effectiveness of open (ODP), laparoscopic (LDP), and robotic (RDP) distal pancreatectomy (DP). METHODS Studies reporting the costs of DP were included in a literature search until August 2023. Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted, and surface under cumulative ranking area (SUCRA) values, mean difference (MD), odds ratio (OR), and 95% credible intervals (CrIs) were calculated for outcomes of interest. Cluster analysis was performed to examine the similarity and classification of DP approaches into homogeneous clusters. A decision model-based cost-utility analysis was conducted for the cost-effectiveness analysis of DP strategies. RESULTS Twenty-six studies with 29,164 patients were included in the analysis. Among the three groups, LDP had the lowest overall costs, while ODP had the highest overall costs (LDP vs. ODP: MD - 3521.36, 95% CrI - 6172.91 to - 1228.59). RDP had the highest procedural costs (ODP vs. RDP: MD - 4311.15, 95% CrI - 6005.40 to - 2599.16; LDP vs. RDP: MD - 3772.25, 95% CrI - 4989.50 to - 2535.16), but incurred the lowest hospitalization costs. Both LDP (MD - 3663.82, 95% CrI - 6906.52 to - 747.69) and RDP (MD - 6678.42, 95% CrI - 11,434.30 to - 2972.89) had significantly reduced hospitalization costs compared to ODP. LDP and RDP demonstrated a superior profile regarding costs-morbidity, costs-mortality, costs-efficacy, and costs-utility compared to ODP. Compared to ODP, LDP and RDP cost $3110 and $817 less per patient, resulting in 0.03 and 0.05 additional quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), respectively, with positive incremental net monetary benefit (NMB). RDP costs $2293 more than LDP with a negative incremental NMB but generates 0.02 additional QALYs with improved postoperative morbidity and spleen preservation. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggests that LDP and RDP are more cost-effective options compared to ODP at various willingness-to-pay thresholds. CONCLUSION LDP and RDP are more cost-effective than ODP, with LDP exhibiting better cost savings and RDP demonstrating superior surgical outcomes and improved QALYs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ye Xin Koh
- Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Transplant Surgery, Singapore General Hospital and National Cancer Centre Singapore, Academia, 20 College Road, Singapore, 169856, Singapore.
- Duke-National University of Singapore Medical School, Singapore, Singapore.
- Liver Transplant Service, SingHealth Duke-National University of Singapore Transplant Centre, Singapore, Singapore.
| | - Yun Zhao
- Group Finance Analytics, Singapore Health Services, Singapore, 168582, Singapore
| | - Ivan En-Howe Tan
- Group Finance Analytics, Singapore Health Services, Singapore, 168582, Singapore
| | - Hwee Leong Tan
- Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Transplant Surgery, Singapore General Hospital and National Cancer Centre Singapore, Academia, 20 College Road, Singapore, 169856, Singapore
- Duke-National University of Singapore Medical School, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Darren Weiquan Chua
- Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Transplant Surgery, Singapore General Hospital and National Cancer Centre Singapore, Academia, 20 College Road, Singapore, 169856, Singapore
- Duke-National University of Singapore Medical School, Singapore, Singapore
- Liver Transplant Service, SingHealth Duke-National University of Singapore Transplant Centre, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Wei-Liang Loh
- Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Transplant Surgery, Singapore General Hospital and National Cancer Centre Singapore, Academia, 20 College Road, Singapore, 169856, Singapore
- Duke-National University of Singapore Medical School, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Ek Khoon Tan
- Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Transplant Surgery, Singapore General Hospital and National Cancer Centre Singapore, Academia, 20 College Road, Singapore, 169856, Singapore
- Duke-National University of Singapore Medical School, Singapore, Singapore
- Liver Transplant Service, SingHealth Duke-National University of Singapore Transplant Centre, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Jin Yao Teo
- Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Transplant Surgery, Singapore General Hospital and National Cancer Centre Singapore, Academia, 20 College Road, Singapore, 169856, Singapore
- Duke-National University of Singapore Medical School, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Marianne Kit Har Au
- Group Finance Analytics, Singapore Health Services, Singapore, 168582, Singapore
- Finance, SingHealth Community Hospitals, Singapore, 168582, Singapore
- Finance, Regional Health System & Strategic Finance, Singapore Health Services, Singapore, 168582, Singapore
| | - Brian Kim Poh Goh
- Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Transplant Surgery, Singapore General Hospital and National Cancer Centre Singapore, Academia, 20 College Road, Singapore, 169856, Singapore
- Duke-National University of Singapore Medical School, Singapore, Singapore
- Liver Transplant Service, SingHealth Duke-National University of Singapore Transplant Centre, Singapore, Singapore
| |
Collapse
|
|
3
|
Timmerhuis HC, Jensen CW, Ngongoni RF, Baiocchi M, DeLong JC, Ohkuma R, Dua MM, Norton JA, Poultsides GA, Worth PJ, Visser BC. Postoperative outcomes and costs of laparoscopic versus robotic distal pancreatectomy: a propensity-matched analysis. Surg Endosc 2024; 38:2095-2105. [PMID: 38438677 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-024-10728-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/09/2023] [Accepted: 01/28/2024] [Indexed: 03/06/2024]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hester C Timmerhuis
- Department of Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Christopher W Jensen
- Department of Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Rejoice F Ngongoni
- Department of Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Michael Baiocchi
- Stanford Prevention Research Center and Departments of Statistics and Health Research and Policy, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Jonathan C DeLong
- Department of Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Rika Ohkuma
- Department of Quality, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Monica M Dua
- Department of Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Jeffrey A Norton
- Department of Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - George A Poultsides
- Department of Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Patrick J Worth
- Department of Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Brendan C Visser
- Department of Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
- Department of Surgery, Stanford Health Care & Stanford University School of Medicine, 300 Pasteur Drive, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
|
4
|
Zhou E, Li X, Zhao C, Cui B. Comparison of perioperative and oncologic outcomes after open, laparoscopic, and robotic distal pancreatectomy: a single-center retrospective study. Updates Surg 2024; 76:471-478. [PMID: 37812318 DOI: 10.1007/s13304-023-01658-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/31/2023] [Accepted: 09/23/2023] [Indexed: 10/10/2023]
Abstract
As minimally invasive surgery gains grounds, surgeons are switching more towards laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) and robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) as opposed to open distal pancreatectomy (ODP). Through this study, we aimed at exploring the differences in perioperative and oncologic outcomes among the three surgical methods. We retrospectively collected data from 303 patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy (DP) at a single high-volume institution between June 2015 and December 2021. We equally compared the perioperative and oncologic outcomes in patients who underwent ODP, LDP, and RDP by analyzing clinicopathologic and survival data. We consecutively included 303 cases in the study: open = 147 (48.5%), laparoscopic = 50 (16.5%), and robotic = 106 (35.0%). The median tumor size was significantly larger in the ODP group (P < 0.001) compared to the others. Cases in the RDP group experienced a longer duration of surgery (P < 0.001), smaller amount of blood loss (P < 0.001), smaller amount of blood transfusion (P = 0.042), and a shorter duration of hospital stay (p = 0.040) compared to cases in the ODP group. There was no significant difference observed when comparing other postoperative outcomes across the groups. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were similar across the significant differences among the three groups. The short-term postoperative and oncologic outcomes observed in the RDP and LDP groups were not inferior to those in the ODP group. The RDP has some perioperative advantages over the ODP. Therefore, RDP and LDP can safely and feasibly be performed in selected pancreatic tumors by experienced pancreatic surgeons.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Enliang Zhou
- Department of Pancreatobiliary Surgery, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, 651 Dongfengdong Road, Guangzhou, 510060, People's Republic of China
| | - Xiaohui Li
- Department of Pancreatobiliary Surgery, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, 651 Dongfengdong Road, Guangzhou, 510060, People's Republic of China
| | - Chongyu Zhao
- Department of Pancreatobiliary Surgery, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, 651 Dongfengdong Road, Guangzhou, 510060, People's Republic of China
| | - Bokang Cui
- Department of Pancreatobiliary Surgery, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, 651 Dongfengdong Road, Guangzhou, 510060, People's Republic of China.
| |
Collapse
|
|
5
|
Jureidini R, Namur GN, Ribeiro TC, Bacchella T, Stolzemburg L, Jukemura J, Ribeiro Junior U, Cecconello I. ROBOTIC ASSISTED VERSUS LAPAROSCOPIC DISTAL PANCREATECTOMY: A RETROSPECTIVE STUDY. ARQUIVOS BRASILEIROS DE CIRURGIA DIGESTIVA : ABCD = BRAZILIAN ARCHIVES OF DIGESTIVE SURGERY 2023; 36:e1783. [PMID: 38088728 PMCID: PMC10712921 DOI: 10.1590/0102-672020230065e1783] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/02/2023] [Accepted: 09/22/2023] [Indexed: 12/17/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) is associated with less blood loss and faster functional recovery. However, the benefits of robotic assisted distal pancreatectomy (RDP) over laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) are unknown. AIMS To compare RDP versus LDP for surgical treatment of benign lesions, pre-malignant and borderline malignant pancreatic neoplasias. METHODS This is a retrospective study comparing LDP with RDP. Main outcomes were overall morbidity and overall costs. Secondary outcomes were pancreatic fistula (PF), infectious complications, readmission, operative time (OT) and length of hospital stay (LOS). RESULTS Thirty patients submitted to LDP and 29 submitted to RDP were included in the study. There was no difference regarding preoperative characteristics. There was no difference regarding overall complications (RDP - 72,4% versus LDP - 80%, p=0,49). Costs were superior for patients submitted to RDP (RDP=US$ 6,688 versus LDP=US$ 6,149, p=0,02), mostly due to higher costs of surgical materials (RDP=US$ 2,364 versus LDP=1,421, p=0,00005). Twenty-one patients submitted to RDP and 24 to LDP developed pancreatic fistula (PF), but only 4 RDP and 7 LDP experienced infectious complications associated with PF. OT (RDP=224 min. versus LDP=213 min., p=0.36) was similar, as well as conversion to open procedure (1 RDP and 2 LDP). CONCLUSIONS The postoperative morbidity of robotic distal pancreatectomy is comparable to laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. However, the costs of robotic distal pancreatectomy are slightly higher.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ricardo Jureidini
- Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo State Cancer Institute, Department of Gastroenterology - São Paulo (SP), Brazil
| | - Guilherme Naccache Namur
- Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo State Cancer Institute, Department of Gastroenterology - São Paulo (SP), Brazil
| | - Thiago Costa Ribeiro
- Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo State Cancer Institute, Department of Gastroenterology - São Paulo (SP), Brazil
| | - Telesforo Bacchella
- Univesidade de São Paulo, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Gastroenterology - São Paulo (SP), Brazil
| | - Lucas Stolzemburg
- Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo State Cancer Institute, Department of Gastroenterology - São Paulo (SP), Brazil
| | - José Jukemura
- Univesidade de São Paulo, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Gastroenterology - São Paulo (SP), Brazil
| | - Ulysses Ribeiro Junior
- Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo State Cancer Institute, Department of Gastroenterology - São Paulo (SP), Brazil
- Univesidade de São Paulo, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Gastroenterology - São Paulo (SP), Brazil
| | - Ivan Cecconello
- Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo State Cancer Institute, Department of Gastroenterology - São Paulo (SP), Brazil
- Univesidade de São Paulo, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Gastroenterology - São Paulo (SP), Brazil
| |
Collapse
|
|
6
|
Liu J, Yao J, Zhang J, Wang Y, Shu G, Lou C, Zhi D. A Comparison of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy for Benign or Malignant Lesions: A Meta-Analysis. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2023; 33:1146-1153. [PMID: 37948547 DOI: 10.1089/lap.2023.0231] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/12/2023] Open
Abstract
Background: The momentum of robotic surgery is increasing, and it has great prospects in pancreatic surgery. It has been widely accepted and expanding to more and more centers. Robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) is the most recent advanced minimally invasive approach for pancreatic lesions and malignancies. However, laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) also showed good efficacy. We compared the effect of RDP with LDP using a meta-analysis. Methods: From January 2010 to June 2023, clinical trials of RDP versus LDP were determined by searching PubMed, Medline, and EMBASE. A meta-analysis was conducted to compare the effect of RDP with LDP. This meta-analysis evaluated the R0 resection rate, lymph node metastasis rate, conversion to open surgery rate, spleen preservation rate, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative pancreatic fistula, postoperative hospital stay, 90-day mortality rate, surgical cost, and total cost. Results: This meta-analysis included 38 studies. Conversion to open surgery, blood loss, and 90-day mortality in the RDP group were all significantly less than that in the LDP group (P < .05). There was no difference in lymph node resection rate, R0 resection rate, or postoperative pancreatic fistula between the two groups (P > .05). Spleen preservation rate in the LDP group was higher than that in the RDP group (P < .05). Operation cost and total cost in the RDP group were both more than that in the LDP group (P < .05). It is uncertain which group has an advantage in postoperative hospital stay. Conclusions: To some degree, RDP and LDP were indeed worth comparing in clinical practice. However, it may be difficult to determine which is absolute advantage according to current data. Large sample randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm which is better treatment. PROSPERO ID: CRD4202345576.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Junguo Liu
- The Third Central Hospital of Tianjin, Tianjin Key Laboratory of Extracorporeal Life Support for Critical Diseases, Tianjin Institute of Hepatobiliary Disease, Artificial Cell Engineering Technology Research Center, Tianjin, China
| | - Junchao Yao
- The Third Central Hospital of Tianjin, Tianjin Key Laboratory of Extracorporeal Life Support for Critical Diseases, Tianjin Institute of Hepatobiliary Disease, Artificial Cell Engineering Technology Research Center, Tianjin, China
| | - Jinjuan Zhang
- The Third Central Hospital of Tianjin, Tianjin Key Laboratory of Extracorporeal Life Support for Critical Diseases, Tianjin Institute of Hepatobiliary Disease, Artificial Cell Engineering Technology Research Center, Tianjin, China
| | - Yijun Wang
- The Third Central Hospital of Tianjin, Tianjin Key Laboratory of Extracorporeal Life Support for Critical Diseases, Tianjin Institute of Hepatobiliary Disease, Artificial Cell Engineering Technology Research Center, Tianjin, China
| | - Guiming Shu
- The Third Central Hospital of Tianjin, Tianjin Key Laboratory of Extracorporeal Life Support for Critical Diseases, Tianjin Institute of Hepatobiliary Disease, Artificial Cell Engineering Technology Research Center, Tianjin, China
| | - Cheng Lou
- The Third Central Hospital of Tianjin, Tianjin Key Laboratory of Extracorporeal Life Support for Critical Diseases, Tianjin Institute of Hepatobiliary Disease, Artificial Cell Engineering Technology Research Center, Tianjin, China
| | - Du Zhi
- The Third Central Hospital of Tianjin, Tianjin Key Laboratory of Extracorporeal Life Support for Critical Diseases, Tianjin Institute of Hepatobiliary Disease, Artificial Cell Engineering Technology Research Center, Tianjin, China
| |
Collapse
|
|
7
|
McCarron FN, Vrochides D, Martinie JB. Current progress in robotic hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery at a high-volume center. Ann Gastroenterol Surg 2023; 7:863-870. [PMID: 37927925 PMCID: PMC10623982 DOI: 10.1002/ags3.12737] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/24/2023] [Revised: 07/18/2023] [Accepted: 08/19/2023] [Indexed: 11/07/2023] Open
Abstract
There has been steady growth in the adoption of robotic HPB procedures world-wide over the past 20 years, but most of this increase has occurred only recently. Not surprisingly, the vast majority of robotics has been in the United States, with very few, select centers of adoption in Italy, South Korea, and Brazil, to name a few. We began our robotic HPB program in 2008, well before almost all other centers in the world, with the most notable exception of Giullianotti and colleagues. Our program began gradually, with smaller cases carefully selected to optimize the strengths of the original robotic platform and included complex biliary and pancreatic resections. We performed the first reported series of choledochojejunostomy for benign biliary strictures and first series of completion cholecystectomies. We began performing robotic distal pancreatectomies and longitudinal pancreaticojejunostomies, reporting our early experience for each of these procedures. Over time we progressed to robotic pancreaticoduodenectomies. Initially, these were performed with planned conversions until we were able to optimize efficiency. Now we have performed over 200 robotic whipples, reaching a 100% robotic completion rate by 2020. Finally, we have added robotic major hepatectomies, including resections for hilar cholangiocarcinoma to our repertoire. Since the program began, we have performed over 1600 robotic HPB cases. Outcomes from our program have shown superior lymph node harvest, lower DGE rates, shorter hospitalizations, and fewer rehab admissions with similar overall complications to open and laparoscopic procedures, signifying that over time a robotic HPB program is not only feasible but advantageous as well.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Frances N. McCarron
- Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreas SurgeryCarolinas Medical CenterCharlotteNorth CarolinaUSA
| | - Dionisios Vrochides
- Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreas SurgeryCarolinas Medical CenterCharlotteNorth CarolinaUSA
| | - John B. Martinie
- Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreas SurgeryCarolinas Medical CenterCharlotteNorth CarolinaUSA
| |
Collapse
|
|
8
|
Abu Hilal M, Carvalho L, van Ramshorst TME, Ramera M. Minimally invasive vessel-preservation spleen preserving distal pancreatectomy-how I do it, tips and tricks and clinical results. Surg Endosc 2023; 37:7024-7038. [PMID: 37351643 PMCID: PMC10462519 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-023-10173-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/13/2022] [Accepted: 05/16/2023] [Indexed: 06/24/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Minimally invasive spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (SPDP) has emerged as a parenchyma-preserving approach and has become the standard treatment for pancreatic benign and low-grade malignant lesions. Nevertheless, minimally invasive SPDP is still technically challenging, especially when vessel preservation is intended. This study aims to describe the technique and outcomes of laparoscopic (LSPDP) and robot-assisted spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (RSPDP) with intended vessel preservation, highlighting the important tips and tricks to overcome technical obstacles and optimize surgical outcomes. METHODS A retrospective observational study of consecutive patients undergoing LSPDP and RSPDP with intended vessel preservation by a single surgeon in two different centers. A video demonstrating both surgical techniques is attached. RESULTS A total of 50 patients who underwent minimally invasive SPDP were included of which 88% underwent LSPDP and 12% RSPDP. Splenic vessels were preserved in 37 patients (74%) while a salvage vessel-resecting technique was performed in 13 patients (26%). The average surgery time was 178 ± 74 min for the vessel-preserving and 188 ± 57 for the vessel-resecting technique (p = 0.706) with an estimated blood loss of 100 mL in both groups (p = 0.663). The overall complication rate was 46% (n = 23) with major complications (Clavien Dindo ≥ III) observed in 14% (n = 7) of the patients. No conversions occurred. The median length of hospital stay was 4 days. CONCLUSION This study presented the results after minimally invasive SPDP with intended vessel preservation by a highly experienced pancreatic surgeon. It provided tips and tricks to successfully accomplish a minimally invasive SPDP, which can contribute to quick patient rehabilitation and optimal postoperative results.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mohammad Abu Hilal
- Department of General Surgery, Istituto Ospedaliero Fondazione Poliambulanza, Brescia, Italy
| | - Lúcia Carvalho
- Department of Surgery, Centro Hospitalar de Entre O Douro E Vouga, Santa Maria da Feira, Portugal
| | - Tess M. E. van Ramshorst
- Department of General Surgery, Istituto Ospedaliero Fondazione Poliambulanza, Brescia, Italy
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Marco Ramera
- Department of General Surgery, Istituto Ospedaliero Fondazione Poliambulanza, Brescia, Italy
- Department of Clinical and Experimental Sciences, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
|
9
|
Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis including patient subgroups. Surg Endosc 2023:10.1007/s00464-023-09894-y. [PMID: 36781467 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-023-09894-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/04/2022] [Accepted: 01/15/2023] [Indexed: 02/15/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
|
|
10
|
Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy on perioperative outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Updates Surg 2023; 75:7-21. [PMID: 36378464 PMCID: PMC9834369 DOI: 10.1007/s13304-022-01413-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/13/2022] [Accepted: 10/26/2022] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
|
|
11
|
Masuda H, Kotecha K, Gall T, Gill AJ, Mittal A, Samra JS. Transition from open to robotic distal pancreatectomy in a low volume pancreatic surgery country: a single Australian centre experience. ANZ J Surg 2023; 93:151-159. [PMID: 36511144 DOI: 10.1111/ans.18199] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/18/2022] [Revised: 10/14/2022] [Accepted: 12/01/2022] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hiro Masuda
- Department of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery, Royal North Shore Hospital, St Leonards, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Krishna Kotecha
- Department of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery, Royal North Shore Hospital, St Leonards, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Tamara Gall
- Department of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery, Royal North Shore Hospital, St Leonards, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Anthony J Gill
- Northern Clinical School, University of Sydney, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia.,NSW Health Pathology, Department of Anatomical Pathology, Royal North Shore Hospital, St Leonards, New South Wales, Australia.,Cancer Diagnosis and Pathology Group, Kolling Institute of Medical Research, Royal North Shore Hospital, St Leonards, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Anubhav Mittal
- Department of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery, Royal North Shore Hospital, St Leonards, New South Wales, Australia.,Northern Clinical School, University of Sydney, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia.,School of Medicine, University of Notre Dame, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Jaswinder S Samra
- Department of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery, Royal North Shore Hospital, St Leonards, New South Wales, Australia.,Northern Clinical School, University of Sydney, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
|
12
|
Perfetti DC, Kisinde S, Rogers-LaVanne MP, Satin AM, Lieberman IH. Robotic Spine Surgery: Past, Present, and Future. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2022; 47:909-921. [PMID: 35472043 DOI: 10.1097/brs.0000000000004357] [Citation(s) in RCA: 35] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/11/2022] [Accepted: 03/14/2022] [Indexed: 02/01/2023]
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN Systematic review. OBJECTIVE The aim of this review is to present an overview of robotic spine surgery (RSS) including its history, applications, limitations, and future directions. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA The first RSS platform received United States Food and Drug Administration approval in 2004. Since then, robotic-assisted placement of thoracolumbar pedicle screws has been extensively studied. More recently, expanded applications of RSS have been introduced and evaluated. METHODS A systematic search of the Cochrane, OVID-MEDLINE, and PubMed databases was performed for articles relevant to robotic spine surgery. Institutional review board approval was not needed. RESULTS The placement of thoracolumbar pedicle screws using RSS is safe and accurate and results in reduced radiation exposure for the surgeon and surgical team. Barriers to utilization exist including learning curve and large capital costs. Additional applications involving minimally invasive techniques, cervical pedicle screws, and deformity correction have emerged. CONCLUSION Interest in RSS continues to grow as the applications advance in parallel with image guidance systems and minimally invasive techniques. IRB APPROVAL N/A.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dean C Perfetti
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, New Hyde Park, NY
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
|
13
|
Hong SS, Cha SW, Hwang HK, Lee WJ, Kang CM. A Prognostic Impact of Splenectomy in Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy on Benign/Borderline Pancreatic Tumors: A Change of the Era. Yonsei Med J 2022; 63:564-569. [PMID: 35619580 PMCID: PMC9171669 DOI: 10.3349/ymj.2022.63.6.564] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/23/2021] [Revised: 02/10/2022] [Accepted: 03/17/2022] [Indexed: 11/27/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE In the past, spleen preservation during distal pancreatectomy (DP) was preferred; however, more recent studies reported comparable results between splenectomy and spleen preserving. We retrospectively reviewed patients in a single center who underwent laparoscopic DP with/without splenectomy, and evaluated the chronologic changes of surgical outcomes of the two procedures. MATERIALS AND METHODS Patients who underwent laparoscopic DP with or without splenectomy due to benign/borderline tumor from 2005 to 2019 were included in this study. We divided this period into Era 1 (2005-2012) and Era 2 (2013-2019), and compared the chronological evolution of surgical outcomes of laparoscopic distal pancreatosplenectomy (LDPS) to those of laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (LSpDP), including the long-term postoperative immunologic profiles. RESULTS A total of 198 cases were included (LSpDP: 80 cases; LDPS: 118 cases). As the period changed from Era 1 to Era 2, the ratio of LSpDP decreased and the surgical outcomes of LDPS improved. In Era 1, LSpDP group showed superior results compared to LDPS group in terms of hospital days and postoperative pancreatic fistula ratio; however, in Era 2, the surgical outcomes showed no statistical differences. No significant differences were observed in all of the immunologic markers. CONCLUSION We carefully conclude that during laparoscopic DP, combined splenectomy can be equivalent to spleen preserving in surgical and immunological outcomes, and inevitable splenectomy can be safely conducted.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Seung Soo Hong
- Division of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
- Pancreatobiliary Cancer Center, Yonsei Cancer Center, Severance Hospital, Seoul, Korea
| | - Sung Whan Cha
- Department of Surgery, Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine, Wonju, Korea
| | - Ho Kyoung Hwang
- Division of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
- Pancreatobiliary Cancer Center, Yonsei Cancer Center, Severance Hospital, Seoul, Korea
| | - Woo Jung Lee
- Division of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
- Pancreatobiliary Cancer Center, Yonsei Cancer Center, Severance Hospital, Seoul, Korea
| | - Chang Moo Kang
- Division of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
- Pancreatobiliary Cancer Center, Yonsei Cancer Center, Severance Hospital, Seoul, Korea.
| |
Collapse
|
|
14
|
Comparative Efficacy of Robot-Assisted and Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy: A Single-Center Comparative Study. JOURNAL OF HEALTHCARE ENGINEERING 2022; 2022:7302222. [PMID: 35024102 PMCID: PMC8747902 DOI: 10.1155/2022/7302222] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/03/2021] [Revised: 11/25/2021] [Accepted: 12/01/2021] [Indexed: 01/08/2023]
Abstract
Background Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) has become a routine procedure in pancreatic surgery. Although robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) has not been popularized yet, it has shown new advantages in some aspects, and exploring its learning curve is of great significance for guiding clinical practice. Methods 149 patients who received RDP and LDP in our surgical team were enrolled in this retrospective study. Patients were divided into two groups including LDP group and RDP group. The perioperative outcomes, histopathologic results, long-term postoperative complications, and economic cost were collected and compared between the two groups. The cumulative summation (CUSUM) analysis was used to explore the learning curve of RDP. Results The hospital stay, postoperative first exhaust time, and first feeding time in the RDP group were better than those in the LDP group (P < 0.05). The rate of spleen preservation in patients with benign and low-grade tumors in the RDP group was significantly higher than that of the LDP group (P=0.002), though the cost of operation and hospitalization was significantly higher (P < 0.001). The learning curve of RDP in our center declined significantly with completing 32 cases. The average operation time, the hospital stay, and the time of gastrointestinal recovery were shorter after the learning curve node than before. Conclusion RDP provides better postoperative recovery and is not difficult to replicate, but the high cost was still a major disadvantage of RDP.
Collapse
|
|
15
|
Benzing C, Timmermann L, Winklmann T, Haiden LM, Hillebrandt KH, Winter A, Maurer MM, Felsenstein M, Krenzien F, Schmelzle M, Pratschke J, Malinka T. Robotic versus open pancreatic surgery: a propensity score-matched cost-effectiveness analysis. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2022; 407:1923-1933. [PMID: 35312854 PMCID: PMC9399018 DOI: 10.1007/s00423-022-02471-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/05/2021] [Accepted: 02/14/2022] [Indexed: 12/21/2022]
Abstract
Background Robotic pancreatic surgery (RPS) is associated with high intraoperative costs compared to open pancreatic surgery (OPS). However, it remains unclear whether several advantages of RPS such as reduced surgical trauma and a shorter postoperative recovery time could lead to a reduction in total costs outweighing the intraoperative costs. The study aimed to compare patients undergoing OPS and RPS with regards to cost-effectiveness in a propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis. Methods Patients undergoing OPS and RPS between 2017 and 2019 were included in this monocentric, retrospective analysis. The controlling department provided financial data (costs and revenues, net loss/profit). A propensity score-matched analysis was performed or OPS and RPS (matching criteria: age, American society of anesthesiologists (ASA) score, gender, body mass index (BMI), and type of pancreatic resection) with a caliper 0.2. Results In total, 272 eligible OPS cases were identified, of which 252 met all inclusion criteria and were thus included in the further analysis. The RPS group contained 92 patients. The matched cohorts contained 41 patients in each group. Length of hospital stay (LOS) was significantly shorter in the RPS group (12 vs. 19 days, p = 0.003). Major postoperative morbidity (Dindo/Clavien ≥ 3a) and 90-day mortality did not differ significantly between OPS and RPS (p > 0.05). Intraoperative costs were significantly higher in the RPS group than in the OPS group (7334€ vs. 5115€, p < 0.001). This was, however, balanced by other financial categories. The overall cost-effectiveness tended to be better when comparing RPS to OPS (net profit—RPS: 57€ vs. OPS: − 2894€, p = 0.328). Binary logistic regression analysis revealed major postoperative complications, longer hospital stay, and ASA scores < 3 were linked to the risk of net loss (i.e., costs > revenue). Conclusions Surgical outcomes of RPS were similar to those of OPS. Higher intraoperative costs of RPS are outweighed by advantages in other categories of cost-effectiveness such as decreased lengths of hospital stay.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christian Benzing
- Department of Surgery, Campus Charité Mitte, Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Experimental Surgery and Regenerative Medicine, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany.
| | - Lea Timmermann
- Department of Surgery, Campus Charité Mitte, Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Experimental Surgery and Regenerative Medicine, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany
| | - Thomas Winklmann
- Department of Surgery, Campus Charité Mitte, Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Experimental Surgery and Regenerative Medicine, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany
| | - Lena Marie Haiden
- Department of Surgery, Campus Charité Mitte, Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Experimental Surgery and Regenerative Medicine, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany
| | - Karl Herbert Hillebrandt
- Department of Surgery, Campus Charité Mitte, Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Experimental Surgery and Regenerative Medicine, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany
| | - Axel Winter
- Department of Surgery, Campus Charité Mitte, Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Experimental Surgery and Regenerative Medicine, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany
| | - Max Magnus Maurer
- Department of Surgery, Campus Charité Mitte, Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Experimental Surgery and Regenerative Medicine, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany
| | - Matthäus Felsenstein
- Department of Surgery, Campus Charité Mitte, Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Experimental Surgery and Regenerative Medicine, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany
| | - Felix Krenzien
- Department of Surgery, Campus Charité Mitte, Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Experimental Surgery and Regenerative Medicine, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany
| | - Moritz Schmelzle
- Department of Surgery, Campus Charité Mitte, Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Experimental Surgery and Regenerative Medicine, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany
| | - Johann Pratschke
- Department of Surgery, Campus Charité Mitte, Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Experimental Surgery and Regenerative Medicine, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany
| | - Thomas Malinka
- Department of Surgery, Campus Charité Mitte, Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Experimental Surgery and Regenerative Medicine, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
|
16
|
Kamarajah SK, Sutandi N, Sen G, Hammond J, Manas DM, French JJ, White SA. Comparative analysis of open, laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatic resection: The United Kingdom's first single-centre experience. J Minim Access Surg 2022; 18:77-83. [PMID: 35017396 PMCID: PMC8830579 DOI: 10.4103/jmas.jmas_163_20] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/03/2020] [Revised: 10/20/2020] [Accepted: 11/30/2020] [Indexed: 11/15/2022] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) has potential advantages over its open equivalent open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) for pancreatic disease in the neck, body and tail. Within the United Kingdom (UK), there has been no previous experience describing the role of robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP). This study evaluated differences between ODP, LDP and RDP. METHODS Patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy performed in the Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery at the Freeman Hospital between September 2007 and December 2018 were included from a prospectively maintained database. The primary outcome measure was length of hospital stay, and the secondary outcome measures were complication rates graded according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. RESULTS Of the 125 patients, the median age was 61 years and 46% were male. Patients undergoing RDP (n = 40) had higher American Society of Anesthesiologists grading III compared to ODP (n = 38) and LDP (n = 47) (57% vs. 37% vs. 38%, P = 0.02). RDP had a slightly lower but not significant conversion rate (10% vs. 13%, P = 0.084), less blood loss (median: 0 vs. 250 ml, P < 0.001) and a higher rate of splenic preservation (30% vs. 2%, P < 0.001) and shorter operative time, once docking time excluded (284 vs. 300 min, P < 0.001) compared to LDP. RDP had a higher R0 resection rate than ODP and LDP (79% vs. 47% vs. 71%, P = 0.078) for neoplasms. RDP was associated with significantly shorter hospital stay than LDP and ODP (8 vs. 9 vs. 10 days, P = 0.001). While there was no significant different in overall complications across the groups, RDP was associated with lower rates of Grade C pancreatic fistula than ODP and LDP (2% vs. 5% vs. 6%, P = 0.194). CONCLUSION Minimally invasive pancreatic resection offers potential advantages over ODP, with a trend showing RDP to be marginally superior when compared to conventional LDP, but it is accepted that that this is likely to be at greater expense compared to the other current techniques.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sivesh Kathir Kamarajah
- Department of Hepatobiliary, Pancreatic and Transplant Surgery, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle Upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear, UK
- Department of Surgery, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle Upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear, UK
- Institute of Cellular Medicine, University of Newcastle, Newcastle upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear, UK
| | - Nathania Sutandi
- Department of Hepatobiliary, Pancreatic and Transplant Surgery, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle Upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear, UK
- Department of Surgery, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle Upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear, UK
| | - Gourab Sen
- Department of Hepatobiliary, Pancreatic and Transplant Surgery, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle Upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear, UK
- Department of Surgery, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle Upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear, UK
| | - John Hammond
- Department of Hepatobiliary, Pancreatic and Transplant Surgery, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle Upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear, UK
- Department of Surgery, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle Upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear, UK
| | - Derek M Manas
- Department of Hepatobiliary, Pancreatic and Transplant Surgery, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle Upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear, UK
- Department of Surgery, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle Upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear, UK
| | - Jeremy J French
- Department of Hepatobiliary, Pancreatic and Transplant Surgery, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle Upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear, UK
- Department of Surgery, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle Upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear, UK
| | - Steven A White
- Department of Hepatobiliary, Pancreatic and Transplant Surgery, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle Upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear, UK
- Department of Surgery, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle Upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear, UK
| |
Collapse
|
|
17
|
Karunakaran M, Barreto SG. Surgery for pancreatic cancer: current controversies and challenges. Future Oncol 2021; 17:5135-5162. [PMID: 34747183 DOI: 10.2217/fon-2021-0533] [Citation(s) in RCA: 28] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/29/2021] [Accepted: 09/17/2021] [Indexed: 02/07/2023] Open
Abstract
Two areas that remain the focus of improvement in pancreatic cancer include high post-operative morbidity and inability to uniformly translate surgical success into long-term survival. This narrative review addresses specific aspects of pancreatic cancer surgery, including neoadjuvant therapy, vascular resections, extended pancreatectomy, extent of lymphadenectomy and current status of minimally invasive surgery. R0 resection confers longer disease-free survival and overall survival. Vascular and adjacent organ resections should be undertaken after neoadjuvant therapy, only if R0 resection can be ensured based on high-quality preoperative imaging, and that too, with acceptable post-operative morbidity. Extended lymphadenectomy does not offer any advantage over standard lymphadenectomy. Although minimally invasive distal pancreatectomies offers some short-term benefits over open distal pancreatectomy, safety remains a concern with minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy. Strict adherence to principles and judicious utilization of surgery within a multimodality framework is the way forward.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Monish Karunakaran
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Gastrointestinal Oncology & Bariatric Surgery, Medanta Institute of Digestive & Hepatobiliary Sciences, Medanta-The Medicity, Gurugram 122001, India
- Department of Liver Transplantation & Regenerative Medicine, Medanta-The Medicity, Gurugram 122001, India
| | - Savio George Barreto
- College of Medicine & Public Health, Flinders University, South Australia, Australia
- Division of Surgery & Perioperative Medicine, Flinders Medical Center, Bedford Park, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
|
18
|
Kwon J, Lee JH, Park SY, Park Y, Lee W, Song KB, Hwang DW, Kim SC. A comparison of robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: Propensity score matching analysis. Int J Med Robot 2021; 18:e2347. [PMID: 34726827 DOI: 10.1002/rcs.2347] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/14/2021] [Revised: 10/27/2021] [Accepted: 11/01/2021] [Indexed: 01/08/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The aim of this study was to assess the perioperative and pathologic outcomes of robotic distal pancreatectomy compared with a laparoscopic approach. METHODS A total of 121 robotic distal pancreatectomies and 992 laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies were retrospectively evaluated, comparing the demographic, perioperative and pathologic outcomes. After 1:2 propensity score matching (PSM) with 11 demographic variables, the factors were analysed again. RESULTS Following PSM, 104 robotic distal pancreatectomy patients were compared with 208 laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy patients. The operation time and proportion of spleen preservation were not different between the groups. The rates of open conversion were lower, whereas the hospital costs were higher in the robotic group. Other perioperative outcomes and pathologic factors did not differ between the groups. CONCLUSIONS Although robotic distal pancreatectomy is more expensive, this operation is feasible, with a higher probability of proceeding with the planned operation and with low open conversion rate.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jaewoo Kwon
- Department of Surgery, Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Jae Hoon Lee
- Division of Hepato-biliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Ulsan College of Medicine and Asan Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Seo Young Park
- Department of Statistics and Data Science, Korea National Open University, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Yejong Park
- Division of Hepato-biliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Ulsan College of Medicine and Asan Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Woohyung Lee
- Division of Hepato-biliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Ulsan College of Medicine and Asan Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Ki Byung Song
- Division of Hepato-biliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Ulsan College of Medicine and Asan Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Dae Wook Hwang
- Division of Hepato-biliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Ulsan College of Medicine and Asan Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Song Cheol Kim
- Division of Hepato-biliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Ulsan College of Medicine and Asan Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea
| |
Collapse
|
|
19
|
Khachfe HH, Habib JR, Harthi SA, Suhool A, Hallal AH, Jamali FR. Robotic pancreas surgery: an overview of history and update on technique, outcomes, and financials. J Robot Surg 2021; 16:483-494. [PMID: 34357526 DOI: 10.1007/s11701-021-01289-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/16/2021] [Accepted: 07/31/2021] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
Abstract
The use robotics in surgery is gaining momentum. This approach holds substantial promise in pancreas surgery. Robotic surgery for pancreatic lesions and malignancies has become well accepted and is expanding to more and more center annually. The number of centers using robotics in pancreatic surgery is rapidly increasing. The most studied robotic pancreas surgeries are pancreaticoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy. Most studies are in their early phases, but they report that robotic pancreas surgery is safe feasible. Robotic pancreas surgery offers several advantages over open and laparoscopic techniques. Data regarding costs of robotics versus conventional techniques is still lacking. Robotic pancreas surgery is still in its early stages. It holds promise to become the new surgical standard for pancreatic resections in the future, however, more research is still needed to establish its safety, cost effectiveness and efficacy in providing the best outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hussein H Khachfe
- Department of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. .,Division of GI Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, UPMC Pancreatic Cancer Center, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, UPMC Cancer Pavilion, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
| | - Joseph R Habib
- Division of General Surgery, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| | - Salem Al Harthi
- Department of Surgery, Sheikh Shakhbout Medical City, Abu Dhabi, UAE
| | - Amal Suhool
- Department of Surgery, Sheikh Shakhbout Medical City, Abu Dhabi, UAE
| | - Ali H Hallal
- Department of Surgery, Sheikh Shakhbout Medical City, Abu Dhabi, UAE
| | - Faek R Jamali
- Department of Surgery, Sheikh Shakhbout Medical City, Abu Dhabi, UAE
| |
Collapse
|
|
20
|
Di Martino M, Caruso R, D'Ovidio A, Núñez-Alfonsel J, Burdió Pinilla F, Quijano Collazo Y, Vicente E, Ielpo B. Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies: A systematic review and meta-analysis on costs and perioperative outcome. Int J Med Robot 2021; 17:e2295. [PMID: 34085371 DOI: 10.1002/rcs.2295] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/13/2021] [Revised: 05/28/2021] [Accepted: 05/31/2021] [Indexed: 12/17/2022]
Abstract
AIM The aim of this meta-analysis is to compare perioperative outcomes and costs of robotic and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (RDP and LDP). MATERIAL AND METHODS In accordance with the PRISMA guidelines, we searched Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane and Web of Science for reports published before December 2020. RESULTS The literature search identified 11 papers (1 187 patients). RDP showed a lower conversion rate (odds ratio: 2.56, 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 1.31 to 5.00) with no significant differences in bleeding and operative time, complications ≥ Clavien-Dindo grade III, pancreatic fistulas and length of stay. Despite RDP presenting higher costs in all included studies, none of these differences were significant. However, RDP showed higher total costs than LDP (standardized mean differences [SMD]: -1.18, 95% CI: -1.97 to -0.39). A subgroup analysis according to the continent of origin showed that studies coming from Asian research groups kept showing significant differences (SMD: -2.62, 95% CI: -3.38 to -1.85), while Western groups did not confirm these findings. CONCLUSION Based on low-quality evidence, despite some potential technical advantages, RDP still seems to be costlier than LDP.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marcello Di Martino
- HPB Unit, Department of General and Digestive Surgery, Hospital Universitario de la Princesa, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Princesa (IIS-IP), Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (UAM), Madrid, Spain
| | - Riccardo Caruso
- General Surgery Department, Hospital Universitario HM Sanchinarro, HM Hospitales, Universidad CEU San Pablo, Madrid, Spain
| | - Angelo D'Ovidio
- General Surgery Department, Hospital Universitario HM Sanchinarro, HM Hospitales, Universidad CEU San Pablo, Madrid, Spain
| | - Javier Núñez-Alfonsel
- Instituto de Validación de la Eficiencia Clínica (IVEC), Fundación de Investigación HM Hospitales, Madrid, Spain.,Cátedra Medicina Basada en la Eficiencia, Fundación de Investigación HM Hospitales, Madrid, Spain
| | | | - Yolanda Quijano Collazo
- General Surgery Department, Hospital Universitario HM Sanchinarro, HM Hospitales, Universidad CEU San Pablo, Madrid, Spain
| | - Emilio Vicente
- General Surgery Department, Hospital Universitario HM Sanchinarro, HM Hospitales, Universidad CEU San Pablo, Madrid, Spain
| | - Benedetto Ielpo
- HPB Unit, University Parc Salut Mar Hospital, Barcelona, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
|
21
|
Rompianesi G, Montalti R, Ambrosio L, Troisi RI. Robotic versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Spleen-Preserving Distal Pancreatectomies: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Pers Med 2021; 11:552. [PMID: 34199314 PMCID: PMC8231987 DOI: 10.3390/jpm11060552] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/29/2021] [Revised: 06/03/2021] [Accepted: 06/09/2021] [Indexed: 12/29/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND When oncologically feasible, avoiding unnecessary splenectomies prevents patients who are undergoing distal pancreatectomy (DP) from facing significant thromboembolic and infective risks. METHODS A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, and Web Of Science identified 11 studies reporting outcomes of 323 patients undergoing intended spleen-preserving minimally invasive robotic DP (SP-RADP) and 362 laparoscopic DP (SP-LADP) in order to compare the spleen preservation rates of the two techniques. The risk of bias was evaluated according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS SP-RADP showed superior results over the laparoscopic approach, with an inferior spleen preservation failure risk difference (RD) of 0.24 (95% CI 0.15, 0.33), reduced open conversion rate (RD of -0.05 (95% CI -0.09, -0.01)), reduced blood loss (mean difference of -138 mL (95% CI -205, -71)), and mean difference in hospital length of stay of -1.5 days (95% CI -2.8, -0.2), with similar operative time, clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (ISGPS grade B/C), and Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3 postoperative complications. CONCLUSION Both SP-RADP and SP-LADP proved to be safe and effective procedures, with minimal perioperative mortality and low postoperative morbidity. The robotic approach proved to be superior to the laparoscopic approach in terms of spleen preservation rate, intraoperative blood loss, and hospital length of stay.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Roberto Montalti
- Division of Hepato-Bilio-Pancreatic, Minimally Invasive and Robotic Surgery, Department of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, Federico II University Hospital, Via S.Pansini 5, 80131 Naples, Italy; (G.R.); (L.A.); (R.I.T.)
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
|
22
|
Partelli S, Ricci C, Cinelli L, Montorsi RM, Ingaldi C, Andreasi V, Crippa S, Alberici L, Casadei R, Falconi M. Evaluation of cost-effectiveness among open, laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Surg 2021; 222:513-520. [PMID: 33853724 DOI: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2021.03.066] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/14/2021] [Revised: 03/20/2021] [Accepted: 03/30/2021] [Indexed: 12/16/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) is still a matter of debate. This study compares the cost-effectiveness of open (ODP), laparoscopic (LDP) and robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP). METHODS Pubmed, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases were searched. Studies comparing cost-effectiveness of ODP and MIDP were included. RESULTS A total of 1052 titles were screened and 16 articles were included in the study, 2431 patients in total. LDP resulted the most cost-efficient procedure, with a mean total cost of 14,682 ± 5665 € and the lowest readmission rates. ODP had lower surgical procedure costs, 3867 ± 768 €. RDP was the safest approach regarding hospital stay costs (5239 ± 1741 €), length of hospital stay, morbidity, clinically relevant pancreatic fistula and reoperations. CONCLUSION In this meta-analysis MIDP resulted as the most cost-effective approach. LDP seems to be protective against high costs, but RDP seems to be safer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stefano Partelli
- Pancreatic Surgery Unit, Pancreas Translational & Clinical Research Center, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy; Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
| | - Claudio Ricci
- Department of Internal Medicine and Surgery (DIMEC), Alma Mater Studorium, University of Bologna, S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, Bologna, Italy; Division of Pancreatic Surgery, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - Lorenzo Cinelli
- Pancreatic Surgery Unit, Pancreas Translational & Clinical Research Center, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
| | - Roberto Maria Montorsi
- Pancreatic Surgery Unit, Pancreas Translational & Clinical Research Center, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
| | - Carlo Ingaldi
- Department of Internal Medicine and Surgery (DIMEC), Alma Mater Studorium, University of Bologna, S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, Bologna, Italy; Division of Pancreatic Surgery, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - Valentina Andreasi
- Pancreatic Surgery Unit, Pancreas Translational & Clinical Research Center, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy; Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
| | - Stefano Crippa
- Pancreatic Surgery Unit, Pancreas Translational & Clinical Research Center, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy; Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
| | - Laura Alberici
- Department of Internal Medicine and Surgery (DIMEC), Alma Mater Studorium, University of Bologna, S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, Bologna, Italy; Division of Pancreatic Surgery, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - Riccardo Casadei
- Department of Internal Medicine and Surgery (DIMEC), Alma Mater Studorium, University of Bologna, S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, Bologna, Italy; Division of Pancreatic Surgery, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - Massimo Falconi
- Pancreatic Surgery Unit, Pancreas Translational & Clinical Research Center, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy; Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy.
| |
Collapse
|
|
23
|
Dittrich L, Biebl M, Malinka T, Knoop M, Pratschke J. Minimally invasive pancreatic surgery—will robotic surgery be the future? Eur Surg 2021. [DOI: 10.1007/s10353-020-00689-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/23/2022]
Abstract
SummaryDue to the complexity of the procedures and the texture of the organ itself, pancreatic surgery remains a challenge in the field of visceral surgery. During the past decade, a minimally invasive approach to pancreatic surgery has gained distribution in clinical routine, extending from left-sided procedures to pancreatic head resections. While a laparoscopic approach has proven beneficial for many patients with left-sided pancreatic pathologies, the complex reconstruction in pancreas head resections remains worrisome with the laparoscopic approach. The robotic technique was established to overcome such technical constraints while preserving the advantages of the laparoscopic approach. Even though robotic systems are still in development, especially in pancreatoduodenectomy, the current literature demonstrates the feasibility of this approach and stable clinical and oncological outcomes compared to the open technique, albeit only under the condition of such operations being performed by specialist teams in a high-volume setting (>20 robotic pancreaticoduodenectomies per year). The aim of this review is to analyze the current evidence regarding a minimally invasive approach to pancreatic surgery and to review the potential of a robotic approach. Presently, there is still a scarcity of sound evidence and long-term oncological data regarding the role of minimally invasive and robotic pancreatic surgery in the literature, especially in the setting of pancreaticoduodenectomy.
Collapse
|
|
24
|
Bari H, Wadhwani S, Dasari BVM. Role of artificial intelligence in hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery. World J Gastrointest Surg 2021; 13:7-18. [PMID: 33552391 PMCID: PMC7830072 DOI: 10.4240/wjgs.v13.i1.7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 24] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/28/2020] [Revised: 12/08/2020] [Accepted: 12/17/2020] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
Over the past decade, enhanced preoperative imaging and visualization, improved delineation of the complex anatomical structures of the liver and pancreas, and intra-operative technological advances have helped deliver the liver and pancreatic surgery with increased safety and better postoperative outcomes. Artificial intelligence (AI) has a major role to play in 3D visualization, virtual simulation, augmented reality that helps in the training of surgeons and the future delivery of conventional, laparoscopic, and robotic hepatobiliary and pancreatic (HPB) surgery; artificial neural networks and machine learning has the potential to revolutionize individualized patient care during the preoperative imaging, and postoperative surveillance. In this paper, we reviewed the existing evidence and outlined the potential for applying AI in the perioperative care of patients undergoing HPB surgery.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hassaan Bari
- Department of HPB and Liver Transplantation Surgery, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham B15 2TH, United Kingdom
| | - Sharan Wadhwani
- Department of Radiology, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham B15 2TH, United Kingdom
| | - Bobby V M Dasari
- Department of HPB and Liver Transplantation Surgery, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham B15 2TH, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
|
25
|
Lin X, Lin R, Lu F, Yang Y, Wang C, Fang H, Huang H. "Kimura-first" strategy for robotic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy: experiences from 61 consecutive cases in a single institution. Gland Surg 2021; 10:186-200. [PMID: 33633975 PMCID: PMC7882308 DOI: 10.21037/gs-20-576] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/22/2020] [Accepted: 09/30/2020] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Robotic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (RSPDP) is an ideal procedure for benign and low-grade malignant tumors in the distal pancreas, and two splenic preservation techniques (the Kimura and Warshaw techniques) can be used for RSPDP. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of the "Kimura-first" strategy for RSPDP and to investigate the risk factors affecting the preservation of the spleen and splenic vessels. METHODS The electronic medical records of patients who underwent robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) between October 2016 and December 2019 at our institution were retrospectively reviewed. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to identify the risk factors influencing preservation of the spleen and splenic vessels during RDP. RESULTS Sixty-one patients scheduled for RSPDP who received RDP were included in this study [Kimura technique, 41 patients; Warshaw technique, 11 patients; and robotic distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy (RDPS), 9 patients]. The overall splenic preservation rate with RDP was 85.2% (52/61). The preservation rate of splenic vessels with the Kimura technique with RSPDP was 78.8% (41/52). The RSPDP group had remarkably less estimated blood loss (EBL; median 50 vs. 300 mL, P=0.000) and a lower morbidity rate (13.5% vs. 44.4%, P=0.047) than the RDPS group. The logistic regression models showed that obvious splenic vessel compression by the tumor was an independent risk factor for splenic vessel preservation with RSPDP (OR 0.021, 95% CI: 0.002-0.271, P=0.003) and RDP (OR 0.019, 95% CI: 0.002-0.176, P=0.000). CONCLUSIONS The "Kimura-first" strategy is feasible and safe for RSPDP, with high rates of splenic and splenic vessel preservation. Obvious splenic vessel compression by the tumor can be used as a predictor of splenic vessel preservation with planned RDP.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Xianchao Lin
- Department of General Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, Fujian, China
| | - Ronggui Lin
- Department of General Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, Fujian, China
| | - Fengchun Lu
- Department of General Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, Fujian, China
| | - Yuanyuan Yang
- Department of General Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, Fujian, China
| | - Congfei Wang
- Department of General Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, Fujian, China
| | - Haizong Fang
- Department of General Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, Fujian, China
| | - Heguang Huang
- Department of General Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, Fujian, China
| |
Collapse
|
|
26
|
Comparison of 3 Minimally Invasive Methods Versus Open Distal Pancreatectomy: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 2020; 31:104-112. [PMID: 32890249 PMCID: PMC8096312 DOI: 10.1097/sle.0000000000000846] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/28/2020] [Accepted: 07/06/2020] [Indexed: 01/22/2023]
Abstract
Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text. The efficacy and safety of open distal pancreatectomy (DP), laparoscopic DP, robot-assisted laparoscopic DP, and robotic DP have not been established. The authors aimed to comprehensively compare these 4 surgical methods using a network meta-analysis.
Collapse
|
|
27
|
Park G, Choi SH, Lee JH, Lim JH, Lee H, Lee JH, Kang CM. Safety and Feasibility of Robotic Reduced-Port Distal Pancreatectomy: a Multicenter Experience of a Novel Technique. J Gastrointest Surg 2020; 24:2015-2020. [PMID: 31388883 DOI: 10.1007/s11605-019-04330-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/23/2018] [Accepted: 07/12/2019] [Indexed: 01/31/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND A reduced-port approach including single-site surgery has been used for distal pancreatectomy. However, triangulation is difficult in reduced-port laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy, and instrument crowding, and collision may occur, so this approach has not been widely used. Recently, an innovative technique for distal pancreatectomy using a robotic single-site surgical system was introduced. Herein, we evaluate the safety and feasibility of this technique. METHODS Twenty-seven patients with a pancreatic tail mass underwent robotic single-site plus one-port distal pancreatectomy at six centers. We collected clinicopathologic data and evaluated the short-term perioperative outcomes of robotic single-site plus one-port distal pancreatectomy. RESULTS We evaluated 26 patients who underwent robotic single-site plus one-port distal pancreatectomy excluding one patient who needed more ports because of fatty abdomen. The mean age and body mass index were 47.3 years (range 21-74) and 22.6 kg/m2 (range 15.8-28.8), respectively. The most common pathologic diagnosis was solid papillary neoplasm followed by a neuroendocrine tumor. The mean operating time was 201 min. The mean length of hospital stay after surgery was 7 days (range 4-10). The rate of spleen preservation was 34.6% (9/26). Six patients had postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) grade A, and no patients had POPF grade B or C. Only one patient had class II morbidity. CONCLUSION Robotic single-site plus one-port distal pancreatectomy is safe and feasible in terms of short-term outcomes. This technique could be performed in select cases to expand the surgical boundaries of the robotic single-site platform. Further studies are needed with more cases to investigate long-term outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Guisuk Park
- Division of Hepatobiliary and Pancreas Surgery, Department of Surgery, Asan Medical Center, 88, Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul, 05505, Republic of Korea
| | - Sung Hoon Choi
- Division of HBP Surgery, Department of Surgery, Cha Bundang Medical Center, Bundang, South Korea
| | - Jin Ho Lee
- Department of Surgery, National Health Insurance Service Ilsan Hospital, Goyang, South Korea
| | - Jin Hong Lim
- Division of HBP Surgery, Department of Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, 41, Yeondaedongmun-gil, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, 03721, South Korea
| | - Huisong Lee
- Department of Surgery, Ewha Womans University School of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Jae Hoon Lee
- Division of Hepatobiliary and Pancreas Surgery, Department of Surgery, Asan Medical Center, 88, Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul, 05505, Republic of Korea.
| | - Chang Moo Kang
- Division of HBP Surgery, Department of Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, 41, Yeondaedongmun-gil, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, 03721, South Korea.
| |
Collapse
|
|
28
|
Rosemurgy AS, Luberice K, Krill E, Castro M, Espineira GR, Sucandy I, Ross S. 100 Robotic Distal Pancreatectomies: The Future at Hand. Am Surg 2020; 86:958-964. [PMID: 32779475 DOI: 10.1177/0003134820942181] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/23/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION This study was undertaken to examine 100 consecutive robotic distal pancreatectomies with splenectomies, and to compare our outcomes to predicted outcomes as calculated using the American college of surgeons national surgical quality improvement program (ACS NSQIP) Surgical Risk Calculator and to the outcomes contained within NSQIP. METHODS Outcomes were compared with predicted outcomes, calculated using the ACS NSQIP Surgical Risk Calculator, and with outcomes documented in NSQIP for distal pancreatectomy. For illustrative purposes, data are presented as median (mean ± SD). RESULTS Patients who underwent robotic distal pancreatectomy were of age 67 (63 ± 13.4) years with a BMI of 29 (29 ± 6.3) kg/m2, with 49% being women. Operative duration was 242 (265 ± 112.2) minutes and estimated blood loss was 110 (211 ± 233.9) mL. Predicted outcomes were similar to those reported in NSQIP. Our actual outcomes were significantly superior to the predicted outcomes for serious complication, any complication, surgical site infection, sepsis, and length of stay. Compared to NSQIP outcomes, our actual outcomes for serious complication, any complication, surgical site infection, sepsis, and delayed gastric emptying were significantly superior. Twelve percent of operations were converted to "open." There were 3 deaths within 30 days, similar to predicted outcomes. Deaths were due to sepsis (2) and respiratory failure (1). CONCLUSION Our patients' predicted outcomes were the same as national outcomes; our patients were not a select group. However, their actual outcomes were like or significantly superior than those predicted by NSQIP or reported in NSQIP. We believe that the robot has the future of distal pancreatectomy with or without splenectomy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Emily Krill
- AdvenHealth Tampa, Digestive Health Institute, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Miguel Castro
- AdvenHealth Tampa, Digestive Health Institute, Tampa, FL, USA
| | | | - Iswanto Sucandy
- AdvenHealth Tampa, Digestive Health Institute, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Sharona Ross
- AdvenHealth Tampa, Digestive Health Institute, Tampa, FL, USA
| |
Collapse
|
|
29
|
Robotic-assisted versus open distal pancreatectomy for benign and low-grade malignant pancreatic tumors: a propensity score-matched study. Surg Endosc 2020; 35:2255-2264. [PMID: 32458287 PMCID: PMC8057962 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-020-07639-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/17/2020] [Accepted: 05/13/2020] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND This study aimed to compare the short-term outcomes of open and robotic-assisted distal pancreatectomy (ODP and RDP) for benign and low-grade malignant tumors. METHODS The patients who underwent RDP and ODP for benign or low-grade malignant pancreatic tumors at our center were included. After PSM at a 1:1 ratio, the perioperative variations in the two cohorts were compared. RESULTS After 1:1 PSM, 219 cases of RDP and ODP were recorded. The RDP cohort showed advantages in the operative duration [120 (90-150) min vs 175 (130-210) min, P < 0.001], estimated blood loss [50 (30-175) ml vs 200 (100-300) ml, P < 0.001], spleen preservation rate (63.5% vs 26.5%, P < 0.001), infection rate (4.6% vs 12.3%, P = 0.006), and gastrointestinal function recovery [3 (2-4) vs. 3 (3-5), P = 0.019]. There were no significant differences in postoperative pancreatic fistula, postoperative hemorrhage, and delayed gastric emptying. Multivariate analysis showed that RDP (HR 0.24; 95% CI 0.16-0.36, P < 0.001), age (HR 1.02; 95% CI 1.00-1.03, P = 0.033), tumor size (HR 1.28; 95% CI 1.17-1.40, P < 0.001), pathological inflammatory neoplasm type (HR 5.12; 95% CI 2.22-11.81, P < 0.001), and estimated blood loss (HR 1.003; 95% CI 1.001-1.004, P < 0.001) were independent predictors of spleen preservation; RDP (HR 0.27; 95% CI 0.17-0.43, P < 0.001), age (HR 1.02; 95% CI 1.00-1.03, P = 0.022), elevated CA 19-9 level (HR 2.55; 95% CI 1.02-6.39, P = 0.046), tumor size (HR 1.44; 95% CI 1.29-1.61, P < 0.001), pathological inflammatory neoplasm type (HR 4.48; 95% CI 1.69-11.85, P = 0.003), and estimated blood loss (HR 1.003; 95% CI 1.001-1.004, P < 0.001) were independent predictors of spleen preservation with the Kimura technique. CONCLUSION RDP has advantages in the operative time, blood loss, spleen preservation, infection rate, and gastrointestinal function recovery over ODP in treating benign and low-grade malignant pancreatic tumors. The robotic-assisted approach was an independent predictor of spleen preservation and use of the Kimura technique.
Collapse
|
|
30
|
Goh BKP, Teo RY. Current Status of Laparoscopic and Robotic Pancreatic Surgery and Its
Adoption in Singapore. ANNALS ACADEMY OF MEDICINE SINGAPORE 2020. [DOI: 10.47102/annals-acadmedsg.202063] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/14/2022]
Abstract
Despite the potential clinical advantages offered by laparoscopic pancreatic surgery (LPS), the main obstacle to its widespread adoption is the technically demanding nature of the procedure and its steep learning curve. LPS and robotic pancreatic surgery (RPS) have been proven to result in superior short-term perioperative outcomes and equivalent long-term oncological outcomes compared to the conventional open approach, with the caveat that they are performed by expert surgeons who have been trained to perform such procedures. The primary challenge faced by most pancreatic surgeons is the steep learning curve associated with these complex procedures and the need to undergo surgical training, especially with regards to laparoscopic and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. Current evidence suggests that RPS may help to shorten the lengthy learning curve required for LPS. More robust evidence—in the form of large randomised controlled trials—is needed to determine whether LPS and RPS can be safely adopted universally.
Ann Acad Med Singapore 2020;49:377–83
Key words: Laparoscopic pancreatectomy, Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy, Minimally invasive pancreatic surgery, Robotic pancreatectomy, Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy
Collapse
|
|
31
|
Schlake A, Dell'Oglio P, Devriendt N, Stammeleer L, Binetti A, Bauwens K, Terriere N, Saunders J, Mottrie A, de Rooster H. First robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in a client-owned Bernese mountain dog with prostatic adenocarcinoma. Vet Surg 2020; 49:1458-1466. [PMID: 32885840 DOI: 10.1111/vsu.13448] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/08/2019] [Revised: 03/30/2020] [Accepted: 05/02/2020] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To describe robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and report the short-term outcome of a dog with prostatic cancer treated with RARP. STUDY DESIGN Case report ANIMALS: Client-owned 6-year-old male-neutered Bernese mountain dog. METHODS Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy was performed with a daVinci Si Surgical System through a transperitoneal approach. An interfascial nerve-sparing approach was used to preserve the neurovascular bundles and increase the likelihood of postoperative urinary continence. Urinary continence was assessed by placing white cloth bedding in the kennel during hospitalization and by owners' observation at home. RESULTS The console time was 120 minutes, and the estimated intraoperative blood loss was 30 mL. No intraoperative complications were observed. The urinary catheter was removed after 7 days, at which point the dog urinated normally. Peritoneal carcinomatosis was diagnosed 43 days after surgery, and the dog was euthanized. CONCLUSION Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy was successfully completed in a dog with prostatic neoplasia and led to postoperative urinary continence. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE This single-case report provides evidence to justify further evaluation of RARP in dogs with prostatic neoplasms.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alexander Schlake
- Small Animal Department, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Merelbeke, Belgium
| | - Paolo Dell'Oglio
- ORSI Academy, Melle, Belgium.,Department of Urology, Onze Lieve Vrouw Hospital, Aalst, Belgium
| | - Nausikaa Devriendt
- Small Animal Department, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Merelbeke, Belgium
| | - Lisa Stammeleer
- Small Animal Department, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Merelbeke, Belgium
| | - Anna Binetti
- Small Animal Department, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Merelbeke, Belgium
| | | | | | - Jimmy Saunders
- Department for Medical Imaging of Animals and Orthopedics of Small Animals, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Merelbeke, Belgium
| | - Alexandre Mottrie
- ORSI Academy, Melle, Belgium.,Department of Urology, Onze Lieve Vrouw Hospital, Aalst, Belgium
| | - Hilde de Rooster
- Small Animal Department, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Merelbeke, Belgium.,Cancer Research Institute Ghent, University Hospital Ghent, Ghent, Belgium
| |
Collapse
|
|
32
|
Zhou J, Lv Z, Zou H, Xiong L, Liu Z, Chen W, Wen Y. Up-to-date comparison of robotic-assisted versus open distal pancreatectomy: A PRISMA-compliant meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 2020; 99:e20435. [PMID: 32501990 PMCID: PMC7306371 DOI: 10.1097/md.0000000000020435] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/14/2019] [Revised: 03/27/2020] [Accepted: 04/25/2020] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Although robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RADP) has been successfully performed since 2003, its advantages over open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) are still uncertain. The objective of this meta-analysis is to compare the clinical and oncologic safety and efficacy of RADP vs ODP. METHODS Multiple databases (PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library) were searched to identify studies that compare the outcomes of RADP and ODP (up to February, 2020). Fixed and random effects models were applied according to different conditions. RESULTS A total of 7 studies from high-volume robotic surgery centers comprising 2264 patients were included finally. Compared with ODP, RADP was associated with lower estimated blood loss, lower blood transfusion rate, lower postoperative mortality rate, and shorter length of hospital stay. No significant difference was observed in operating time, the number of lymph nodes harvested, positive margin rate, spleen preservation rate, rate of severe morbidity, incidence of postoperative pancreatic fistula, and severe postoperative pancreatic fistula (grade B and C) between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS With regard to perioperative outcomes, RADP is a safe and feasible alternative to ODP in centers with expertise in robotic surgery. However, the evidence is limited and more randomized controlled trials are needed to further clearly define this role.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jiangjiao Zhou
- Department of General Surgery, The Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, No. 139 Middle Renmin Road, Changsha
| | - Zhuo Lv
- Department of General Surgery, Chengbu County People's Hospital, Shaoyang, Hunan Province, China
| | - Heng Zou
- Department of General Surgery, The Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, No. 139 Middle Renmin Road, Changsha
| | - Li Xiong
- Department of General Surgery, The Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, No. 139 Middle Renmin Road, Changsha
| | - Zhongtao Liu
- Department of General Surgery, The Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, No. 139 Middle Renmin Road, Changsha
| | - Wenhao Chen
- Department of General Surgery, The Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, No. 139 Middle Renmin Road, Changsha
| | - Yu Wen
- Department of General Surgery, The Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, No. 139 Middle Renmin Road, Changsha
| |
Collapse
|
|
33
|
Vicente E, Núñez‐Alfonsel J, Ielpo B, Ferri V, Caruso R, Duran H, Diaz E, Malave L, Fabra I, Pinna E, Isernia R, Hidalgo A, Quijano Y. A cost‐effectiveness analysis of robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. Int J Med Robot 2020; 16:e2080. [DOI: 10.1002/rcs.2080] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/21/2019] [Revised: 12/13/2019] [Accepted: 01/14/2020] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Emilio Vicente
- Department of General SurgeryHospital Universitario HM Sanchinarro, HM Hospitales Madrid Spain
| | - Javier Núñez‐Alfonsel
- Instituto de Validación de la Eficiencia Clínica (IVEC)Fundación de Investigación HM Hospitales Madrid Spain
| | - Benedetto Ielpo
- Department of General SurgeryHospital Universitario HM Sanchinarro, HM Hospitales Madrid Spain
| | - Valentina Ferri
- Department of General SurgeryHospital Universitario HM Sanchinarro, HM Hospitales Madrid Spain
| | - Riccardo Caruso
- Department of General SurgeryHospital Universitario HM Sanchinarro, HM Hospitales Madrid Spain
| | - Hipolito Duran
- Department of General SurgeryHospital Universitario HM Sanchinarro, HM Hospitales Madrid Spain
| | - Eduardo Diaz
- Department of General SurgeryHospital Universitario HM Sanchinarro, HM Hospitales Madrid Spain
| | - Luis Malave
- Department of General SurgeryHospital Universitario HM Sanchinarro, HM Hospitales Madrid Spain
| | - Isabel Fabra
- Department of General SurgeryHospital Universitario HM Sanchinarro, HM Hospitales Madrid Spain
| | - Eva Pinna
- Department of General SurgeryHospital Universitario HM Sanchinarro, HM Hospitales Madrid Spain
| | - Roberta Isernia
- Department of General SurgeryHospital Universitario HM Sanchinarro, HM Hospitales Madrid Spain
| | - Alvaro Hidalgo
- Department of Economic Analysis and FinancesUniversity of Castilla‐La Mancha Toledo Spain
| | - Yolanda Quijano
- Department of General SurgeryHospital Universitario HM Sanchinarro, HM Hospitales Madrid Spain
| |
Collapse
|
|
34
|
Esposito A, Casetti L, De Pastena M, Ramera M, Montagnini G, Landoni L, Bassi C, Salvia R. Robotic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy: the Verona experience. Updates Surg 2020; 73:923-928. [PMID: 32162271 DOI: 10.1007/s13304-020-00731-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/25/2019] [Accepted: 02/21/2020] [Indexed: 12/19/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The minimally invasive approach in spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy has currently been emphasized in benign and pre-malignant pancreatic diseases. The study aims to demonstrate the safety and feasibility of our technique of robotic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (RSPDP) by a stepwise approach. METHODS The data of consecutive patients presented for RSPDP from 2014 to 2019 at Verona University were retrieved from a prospectively maintained database. The patients were divided into two groups based on the surgical procedure performed, such as Kimura's (KG) or Warshaw's (WG) technique, and then compared. RESULTS In the study period, 32 patients underwent RSPDP. Twenty-three patients presented for the Kimura procedure (72%), while nine patients underwent the Warshaw procedure (28%). A higher body mass index was found in the KG (26 ± 4 vs. 22 ± 3, p = 0.037). Regarding the pathological data, the WG group differed in the tumor dimension, and the lymph nodes harvested (30 ± 2 vs. 17 ± 10, 9 ± 5 vs. 3 ± 4, p = 0.0028, and p = 0.005, respectively). Notably, no conversions and mortality were recorded. The overall morbidity was 25% ( eight patients) with no difference between the groups (p = 0.820). The mean length of stay was 8 days, and was similar between the groups (p = 0.350). CONCLUSIONS The present study suggests that RSPDP is a valid option for the treatment of benign or pre-malignant pancreatic diseases of the distal pancreas, with comparable morbidity with the standard treatment and no mortality. Further research is needed to standardize the technique and to assess the immunological, surgical, and financial benefits of the procedure.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- A Esposito
- Department of General and Pancreatic Surgery, The Pancreas Institute, University of Verona Hospital Trust, P.le Scuro 10, 37134, Verona, Italy
| | - L Casetti
- Department of General and Pancreatic Surgery, The Pancreas Institute, University of Verona Hospital Trust, P.le Scuro 10, 37134, Verona, Italy
| | - M De Pastena
- Department of General and Pancreatic Surgery, The Pancreas Institute, University of Verona Hospital Trust, P.le Scuro 10, 37134, Verona, Italy
| | - M Ramera
- Department of General and Pancreatic Surgery, The Pancreas Institute, University of Verona Hospital Trust, P.le Scuro 10, 37134, Verona, Italy
| | - G Montagnini
- Department of General and Pancreatic Surgery, The Pancreas Institute, University of Verona Hospital Trust, P.le Scuro 10, 37134, Verona, Italy
| | - L Landoni
- Department of General and Pancreatic Surgery, The Pancreas Institute, University of Verona Hospital Trust, P.le Scuro 10, 37134, Verona, Italy
| | - C Bassi
- Department of General and Pancreatic Surgery, The Pancreas Institute, University of Verona Hospital Trust, P.le Scuro 10, 37134, Verona, Italy
| | - R Salvia
- Department of General and Pancreatic Surgery, The Pancreas Institute, University of Verona Hospital Trust, P.le Scuro 10, 37134, Verona, Italy.
| |
Collapse
|
|
35
|
Yang SJ, Hwang HK, Kang CM, Lee WJ. Revisiting the potential advantage of robotic surgical system in spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy over conventional laparoscopic approach. ANNALS OF TRANSLATIONAL MEDICINE 2020; 8:188. [PMID: 32309335 PMCID: PMC7154491 DOI: 10.21037/atm.2020.01.80] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/14/2019] [Accepted: 01/10/2020] [Indexed: 12/18/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND This study aimed to compare success rate of spleen preservation between robotic and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (DP). METHODS Between November 2007 and March 2018, forty-one patients underwent the conventional laparoscopic DP (Lap group) and the other 37 patients underwent robotic DP (Robot group). The perioperative clinicopathologic variables were compared. RESULTS The robotic procedure was chosen by younger patients compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery (42.9±14.0 vs. 51.3±14.6 years, P=0.016). The mean operation time was longer (313 vs. 246 min, P=0.000), but the mean tumor size was smaller in Robot group (2.7±1.2 vs. 4.2±3.3 cm, P=0.018). The overall spleen-preserving rate was higher in the Robot group (91.9% vs. 68.3%, P=0.012). However, with accumulating laparoscopic experiences (after 16th case), the statistical differences in spleen preservation rate between the Robot and Lap groups had diminished (P=0.428). CONCLUSIONS The present results suggest a robot can be helpful to save the spleen during DP for benign and borderline malignancy. However, a surgeon highly experienced in the laparoscopic approach can also produce a high success rate of spleen preservation, similar to that shown with the robotic approach.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Seok Jeong Yang
- Department of Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Yongin Severance Hospital, Gyeonggi, Korea
| | - Ho Kyoung Hwang
- Division of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Yonsei Cancer Center, Severance Hospital, Seoul, Korea
- Pancreatobiliary Cancer Center, Yonsei Cancer Center, Severance Hospital, Seoul, Korea
| | - Chang Moo Kang
- Division of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Yonsei Cancer Center, Severance Hospital, Seoul, Korea
- Pancreatobiliary Cancer Center, Yonsei Cancer Center, Severance Hospital, Seoul, Korea
| | - Woo Jung Lee
- Department of Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Yongin Severance Hospital, Gyeonggi, Korea
| |
Collapse
|
|
36
|
Najafi N, Mintziras I, Wiese D, Albers MB, Maurer E, Bartsch DK. A retrospective comparison of robotic versus laparoscopic distal resection and enucleation for potentially benign pancreatic neoplasms. Surg Today 2020; 50:872-880. [PMID: 32016613 DOI: 10.1007/s00595-020-01966-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/06/2019] [Accepted: 01/05/2020] [Indexed: 02/08/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE The present study aimed to compare robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic distal pancreatic resection and enucleation for potentially benign pancreatic neoplasms. METHODS Patients were retrieved from a prospectively maintained database. Demographic data, tumor types, and the perioperative outcomes were retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS In a 10-year period, 75 patients (female, n = 44; male, n = 31; median age, 53 years [range, 9-84 years]) were identified. The majority of patients had pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (n = 39, 52%) and cystic neoplasms (n = 23, 31%) with a median tumor size of 17 (3-60) mm. Nineteen (25.3%) patients underwent enucleation (robotic, n = 11; laparoscopic, n = 8) and 56 (74.7%) patients underwent distal pancreatic resection (robotic, n = 24; laparoscopic, n = 32), of those 48 (85%) underwent spleen-preserving procedures. Eight (10.7%) procedures had to be converted to open surgery. The rate of vessel preservation in distal pancreatectomy was significantly higher in robotic-assisted procedures (62.5% vs. 12.5%, p = 0.01). Twenty-six (34.6%) patients experienced postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo grade > 3). Twenty (26.7%) patients developed a pancreatic fistula type B. There was no mortality. After a median follow-up period of 58 months (range 2-120 months), one patient (1.3%) developed local recurrence (glucagonoma) after enucleation, which was treated with a Whipple procedure. CONCLUSION The robotic approach is comparably safe, but increases the rate of splenic vessel preservation and reduces the risk of conversion to open surgery.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nawid Najafi
- Department of Visceral-, Thoracic- and Vascular Surgery, Philipps-University Marburg, Baldingerstrasse, 35043, Marburg, Germany.
| | - I Mintziras
- Department of Visceral-, Thoracic- and Vascular Surgery, Philipps-University Marburg, Baldingerstrasse, 35043, Marburg, Germany
| | - D Wiese
- Department of Visceral-, Thoracic- and Vascular Surgery, Philipps-University Marburg, Baldingerstrasse, 35043, Marburg, Germany
| | - M B Albers
- Department of Visceral-, Thoracic- and Vascular Surgery, Philipps-University Marburg, Baldingerstrasse, 35043, Marburg, Germany
| | - E Maurer
- Department of Visceral-, Thoracic- and Vascular Surgery, Philipps-University Marburg, Baldingerstrasse, 35043, Marburg, Germany
| | - D K Bartsch
- Department of Visceral-, Thoracic- and Vascular Surgery, Philipps-University Marburg, Baldingerstrasse, 35043, Marburg, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
|
37
|
Alfieri S, Boggi U, Butturini G, Pietrabissa A, Morelli L, Di Sebastiano P, Vistoli F, Damoli I, Peri A, Lapergola A, Fiorillo C, Panaccio P, Pugliese L, Ramera M, De Lio N, Di Franco G, Rosa F, Menghi R, Doglietto GB, Quero G. Full Robotic Distal Pancreatectomy: Safety and Feasibility Analysis of a Multicenter Cohort of 236 Patients. Surg Innov 2020; 27:11-18. [PMID: 31394981 DOI: 10.1177/1553350619868112] [Citation(s) in RCA: 27] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/05/2023]
Abstract
Introduction. Despite the widespread use of the robotic technology, only a few studies with small sample sizes report its application to pancreatic diseases treatment. Our aim is to present the results of a multicenter study on the safety and feasibility of robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RDP). Materials and Methods. All RDPs for benign, borderline, and malignant diseases performed in 5 referral centers from 2008 to 2016 were included. Perioperative outcomes were evaluated. Results. Two hundred thirty-six patients were included. Spleen preservation was performed in 114 cases (48.3%). Operative time was 277.8 ± 93.6 minutes. Progressive improvement in operative time was observed over the study period. Conversion rate was 6.3%. Morbidity occurred in 102 cases (43.2%), mainly due to grade A fistulas. Reoperation was required in 10 patients. Postoperatively, 2 patients died of sepsis due to a grade C fistula. Hospital readmission was necessary in 11 cases. A R0 resection was always achieved, with a mean number of 16.2 ± 15 harvested lymph nodes. Conclusion. To our knowledge, this is one of the largest RDP series. Safety and feasibility including the low conversion rate, the high spleen preservation rate, the adequate operative time, and the acceptable morbidity and mortality rates confirm the validity of this technique. Appropriate oncological outcomes have been also obtained.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sergio Alfieri
- Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore of Rome, Fondazione Policlinico "A Gemelli" IRCCS of Rome, Rome, Italy
| | - Ugo Boggi
- Chirurgia Generale Universitaria dell'Ospedale di Cisanello, Pisa, Italy
| | | | | | - Luca Morelli
- Chirurgia Generale Universitaria dell'Ospedale di Cisanello, Pisa, Italy
| | | | - Fabio Vistoli
- Chirurgia Generale Universitaria dell'Ospedale di Cisanello, Pisa, Italy
| | | | - Andrea Peri
- Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Pavia, Italy
| | | | - Claudio Fiorillo
- Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore of Rome, Fondazione Policlinico "A Gemelli" IRCCS of Rome, Rome, Italy
| | | | | | | | - Nelide De Lio
- Chirurgia Generale Universitaria dell'Ospedale di Cisanello, Pisa, Italy
| | - Gregorio Di Franco
- Chirurgia Generale Universitaria dell'Ospedale di Cisanello, Pisa, Italy
| | - Fausto Rosa
- Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore of Rome, Fondazione Policlinico "A Gemelli" IRCCS of Rome, Rome, Italy
| | - Roberta Menghi
- Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore of Rome, Fondazione Policlinico "A Gemelli" IRCCS of Rome, Rome, Italy
| | | | - Giuseppe Quero
- Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore of Rome, Fondazione Policlinico "A Gemelli" IRCCS of Rome, Rome, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
|
38
|
Hu YH, Qin YF, Yu DD, Li X, Zhao YM, Kong DJ, Jin W, Wang H. Meta-analysis of short-term outcomes comparing robot-assisted and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. J Comp Eff Res 2020; 9:201-218. [PMID: 31975614 DOI: 10.2217/cer-2019-0124] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
Aim: To evaluate and compare the short-term outcomes of robotic surgery and laparoscopic approach in distal pancreatectomy (DP). Materials & methods: EMBASE, PubMed, the Cochrane Library, CNKI and Wan Fang database were retrieved from the inception of electronic databases to June 2019. All analyses were performed using Stata/SE 15.1 version (StataCorp). Results: Twenty-two papers were included, four of which were prospective studies and the rest were retrospective studies. There was significant difference in spleen preservation rate (odds ratio: 2.020; 95% CI: 1.085-3.758; p = 0.027), operation time (mean difference [MD]: 27.372; 95% CI: 8.236-47.210; p = 0.000), the length of hospital stay (MD: -0.911; 95% CI: -1.287 to -0.535; p = 0.000), conversion rate (rate difference: -0.090; 95% CI: -1.287 to -0.535; p = 0.000), operation cost (MD: 2816.564; 95% CI: 1782.028-3851.064; p = 0.000). However, no significant difference was detected in estimated blood loss, total complication, severe complication, lymph nodules harvest, blood transfusion rate, total pancreatic fistula, severe pancreatic fistula, R0 resection rate and mortality. Conclusion: Both robotic and laparoscopic DP are safe and feasible. Although robotic DP increases the operation cost, the spleen-preserving rate is much higher. Robotic surgery may be an alternative approach to DP.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yong-Hao Hu
- Department of General Surgery, Tianjin Medical University General Hospital, 154 Anshan Road, Heping District, Tianjin 300052, China
| | - Ya-Fei Qin
- Department of General Surgery, Tianjin Medical University General Hospital, 154 Anshan Road, Heping District, Tianjin 300052, China
| | - Ding-Ding Yu
- Department of General Surgery, Tianjin Medical University General Hospital, 154 Anshan Road, Heping District, Tianjin 300052, China
| | - Xiang Li
- Department of General Surgery, Tianjin Medical University General Hospital, 154 Anshan Road, Heping District, Tianjin 300052, China
| | - Yi-Ming Zhao
- Department of General Surgery, Tianjin Medical University General Hospital, 154 Anshan Road, Heping District, Tianjin 300052, China
| | - De-Jun Kong
- Department of General Surgery, Tianjin Medical University General Hospital, 154 Anshan Road, Heping District, Tianjin 300052, China
| | - Wang Jin
- Department of General Surgery, Tianjin Medical University General Hospital, 154 Anshan Road, Heping District, Tianjin 300052, China
| | - Hao Wang
- Department of General Surgery, Tianjin Medical University General Hospital, 154 Anshan Road, Heping District, Tianjin 300052, China
| |
Collapse
|
|
39
|
Quero G, Fiorillo C, Alfieri S. Distal pancreatectomy in the new era of minimally invasive surgery: the on-going debate on the cost-effectiveness. Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr 2020; 8:659-661. [PMID: 31930001 DOI: 10.21037/hbsn.2019.09.22] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/06/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Giuseppe Quero
- Digestive Surgery Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, CRMPG (Advanced Pancreatic Research Center), Largo A. Gemelli, Rome, Italy.,Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Largo A. Gemelli, Rome, Italy
| | - Claudio Fiorillo
- Digestive Surgery Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, CRMPG (Advanced Pancreatic Research Center), Largo A. Gemelli, Rome, Italy
| | - Sergio Alfieri
- Digestive Surgery Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, CRMPG (Advanced Pancreatic Research Center), Largo A. Gemelli, Rome, Italy.,Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Largo A. Gemelli, Rome, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
|
40
|
Ielpo B, Nuñez-Alfonsel J, Diago MV, Hidalgo Á, Quijano Y, Vicente E. The issue of the cost of robotic distal pancreatectomies. Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr 2019; 8:655-658. [PMID: 31930000 DOI: 10.21037/hbsn.2019.09.23] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/16/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Benedetto Ielpo
- Department of General Surgery, Division of HBP Surgery, Leon University Hospital, Leon, Spain
| | - Javier Nuñez-Alfonsel
- Instituto de Validación de la Eficiencia Clínica, Fundación de Investigación HM Hospitales, Madrid, Spain
| | - Maria Victoria Diago
- Department of General Surgery, Division of HBP Surgery, Leon University Hospital, Leon, Spain
| | - Álvaro Hidalgo
- Department of Economics and Finance, Universidad de Castilla la Mancha, Toledo, Spain
| | - Yolanda Quijano
- Department of General Surgery, Sanchinarro University Hospital HM, Madrid, Spain
| | - Emilio Vicente
- Department of General Surgery, Sanchinarro University Hospital HM, Madrid, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
|
41
|
Gharios J, Hain E, Dohan A, Prat F, Terris B, Bertherat J, Coriat R, Dousset B, Gaujoux S. Pre- and intraoperative diagnostic requirements, benefits and risks of minimally invasive and robotic surgery for neuroendocrine tumors of the pancreas. Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab 2019; 33:101294. [PMID: 31351817 DOI: 10.1016/j.beem.2019.101294] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (PanNET) are rare tumours, accounting for 1%-2% of all pancreatic neoplasms. These tumors are classified as functioning neuroendocrine tumours (F-PanNETs) or non-functioning (NF-PanNETs) depends on whether the tumour is associated with clinical hormonal hypersecretion syndrome or not. In the last decades, diagnosis of PanNETs has increased significantly due to the widespread of cross-sectional imaging. Whenever possible, surgery is the cornerstone of PanNETs management and the only curative option for these patients. Indeed, after R0 resection, the 5-year overall survival rate is around 90-100% for low grade lesions but significantly drops after incomplete resections. Compared to standard resections, pancreatic sparing surgery, i.e. enucleation and central pancreatectomy, significantly decreased the risk of pancreatic insufficiency. It should be performed in patients with good general condition and normal pancreatic function to limit the operative risk and enhance the benefit of surgery. Nowadays, due to many known advantages of minimally invasive surgery, there is an ongoing trend towards laparoscopic and robotic pancreatic surgery. The aim of this study is to describe the pre- and intraoperative diagnostic requirements for the management of PanNETs and the benefits and risks of minimally invasive surgery including laparoscopic and robotic approach in view of the recent literature.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Joseph Gharios
- Department of Digestive, Hepato-biliary and Endocrine Surgery, Referral Center for Rare Adrenal Diseases, Cochin Hospital, APHP, Paris, France
| | - Elisabeth Hain
- Department of Digestive, Hepato-biliary and Endocrine Surgery, Referral Center for Rare Adrenal Diseases, Cochin Hospital, APHP, Paris, France
| | - Anthony Dohan
- Faculté de Médecine Paris Descartes, Université Paris Descartes, Sorbonne Paris Cité, France; Department of Radiology, Cochin Hospital, APHP, Paris, France
| | - Fréderic Prat
- Faculté de Médecine Paris Descartes, Université Paris Descartes, Sorbonne Paris Cité, France; Department of Gastroenterology, Cochin Hospital, APHP, Paris, France
| | - Benoit Terris
- Faculté de Médecine Paris Descartes, Université Paris Descartes, Sorbonne Paris Cité, France; Department of Pathology, Cochin Hospital, APHP, Paris, France
| | - Jérôme Bertherat
- Faculté de Médecine Paris Descartes, Université Paris Descartes, Sorbonne Paris Cité, France; Department of Endocrinology, Cochin Hospital, Referral Center for Rare Adrenal Diseases, Cochin Hospital, APHP, Paris, France
| | - Romain Coriat
- Faculté de Médecine Paris Descartes, Université Paris Descartes, Sorbonne Paris Cité, France; Department of Gastroenterology, Cochin Hospital, APHP, Paris, France
| | - Bertrand Dousset
- Department of Digestive, Hepato-biliary and Endocrine Surgery, Referral Center for Rare Adrenal Diseases, Cochin Hospital, APHP, Paris, France; Faculté de Médecine Paris Descartes, Université Paris Descartes, Sorbonne Paris Cité, France
| | - Sébastien Gaujoux
- Department of Digestive, Hepato-biliary and Endocrine Surgery, Referral Center for Rare Adrenal Diseases, Cochin Hospital, APHP, Paris, France; Faculté de Médecine Paris Descartes, Université Paris Descartes, Sorbonne Paris Cité, France.
| |
Collapse
|
|
42
|
Gavriilidis P, Roberts KJ, Sutcliffe RP. Comparison of robotic vs laparoscopic vs open distal pancreatectomy. A systematic review and network meta-analysis. HPB (Oxford) 2019; 21:1268-1276. [PMID: 31080086 DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2019.04.010] [Citation(s) in RCA: 31] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/02/2019] [Revised: 04/03/2019] [Accepted: 04/08/2019] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION The current evidence comparing oncological adequacy and effectiveness of robotic and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy to open distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma is inconclusive. Recent pairwise meta-analyses demonstrated reduced blood loss and length of stay as the principal advantages of RDP and LDP compared to ODP. The aim of this study was to compare the three approaches to distal pancreatectomy conducting a pairwise meta-analysis and consequently network meta-analysis. METHODS A systematic literature search was performed using the databases, EMBASE, Pubmed, the Cochrane library, and Google Scholar. Meta-analyses were performed using both fixed-effect and random-effect models. RESULTS RDP cohort represented only 11% of the total sample; significantly younger patients with smaller size tumours were included in the RDP and LDP cohorts compared to ODP cohort. Significantly less blood loss and shorter length of stay were the advantages of both RDP and LDP compared to ODP. The ODP cohort included significantly more specimens with positive resection margins compared to RDP and LDP cohorts. DISCUSSION The results of the present study demonstrate that reduced blood losses and shorter length of stay are the advantages of RDP and LDP compared to ODP. However, demographic discrepancies, underpowered RDP sample and differences in oncological burden do not permit certain conclusions regarding the oncological safety of RDP and LDP for pancreatic adenocarcinoma.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Paschalis Gavriilidis
- Department of Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary and Liver Transplant Surgery, Queen Elizabeth University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, B15 2TH, UK.
| | - Keith J Roberts
- Department of Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary and Liver Transplant Surgery, Queen Elizabeth University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, B15 2TH, UK
| | - Robert P Sutcliffe
- Department of Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary and Liver Transplant Surgery, Queen Elizabeth University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, B15 2TH, UK
| |
Collapse
|
|
43
|
Kamarajah SK, Sutandi N, Robinson SR, French JJ, White SA. Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic distal pancreatic resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. HPB (Oxford) 2019; 21:1107-1118. [PMID: 30962137 DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2019.02.020] [Citation(s) in RCA: 47] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/08/2018] [Revised: 02/08/2019] [Accepted: 02/18/2019] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Robotic surgery offers theoretical advantages to conventional laparoscopic surgery including improved instrument dexterity, 3D visualization and better ergonomics. This review aimed to determine if these theoretical advantages translate into improved patient outcomes in patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy through laparoscopic (LDP) or robotic (RDP) approaches. METHOD A systematic literature search was conducted for studies reporting minimally invasive surgery for distal pancreatectomy. Meta-analysis of intraoperative (blood loss, operating times, conversion and R0 resections) and postoperative outcomes (overall complications, pancreatic fistula, length of hospital stay) was performed using random effects models. RESULT Twenty non-randomised studies including 3112 patients (793 robotic and 2319 laparoscopic) were considered appropriate for inclusion. LDP had significantly shorter operating time than RDP (mean: 28, p < 0.001) but no significant difference in blood loss (mean: 52 mL, p = 0.07). RDP was associated with significantly lower conversion rates than LDP (OR 0.48, p < 0.001), but no difference in spleen preservation rate and R0 resection. There were no significant differences in overall and major complications, overall and high-grade pancreatic fistula. However, RDP was associated with a shorter length of hospital stay (mean: 1, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION Robotic distal pancreatectomy appears to offer some advantages compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery, although both techniques appear equivalent. Importantly, the quality of evidence is generally limited to cohort studies and a high-quality randomised trial comparing both techniques are needed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sivesh K Kamarajah
- Department of Hepatobiliary, Pancreatic and Transplant Surgery, Academic Department of Surgery, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear, UK.
| | - Nathania Sutandi
- Department of Hepatobiliary, Pancreatic and Transplant Surgery, Academic Department of Surgery, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear, UK
| | - Stuart R Robinson
- Department of Hepatobiliary, Pancreatic and Transplant Surgery, Academic Department of Surgery, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear, UK
| | - Jeremy J French
- Department of Hepatobiliary, Pancreatic and Transplant Surgery, Academic Department of Surgery, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear, UK
| | - Steven A White
- Department of Hepatobiliary, Pancreatic and Transplant Surgery, Academic Department of Surgery, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear, UK
| |
Collapse
|
|
44
|
Marino MV, Podda M, Gomez Ruiz M, Fernandez CC, Guarrasi D, Gomez Fleitas M. Robotic-assisted versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: the results of a case-matched comparison. J Robot Surg 2019; 14:493-502. [PMID: 31473878 DOI: 10.1007/s11701-019-01018-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/20/2019] [Accepted: 08/28/2019] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
Robotic-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) is progressively gaining momentum. It seems to provide some potential advantages over open approach. Unfortunately, only few studies investigated the impact of RPD on the oncologic outcomes. We performed a 1:1 case-matched comparison between two groups of 35 patients affected by a malignant tumor who underwent RPD and open (OPD) pancreaticoduodenectomy from August 2014 to April 2016. Operative time was longer in the RPD group compared to OPD (355 vs 262 min, p = 0.023), whereas median blood loss (235 vs 575 ml, p = 0.016) and length of hospitalization (6.5 vs 8.9 days, p = 0.041) were lower for RPD. A significant reduction of overall postoperative morbidity rate was found in the RPD group compared to the OPD group (31.4% vs 48.6% p = 0.034). No statistically significant difference was found between the two groups in terms of overall pancreatic fistula rate, R0 resection rate, and number of harvested lymph nodes. The overall and disease-free survival at 1 and 3 years were similar. RPD is a safe and effective technique. It reduces the estimated blood loss, the length hospital of stay and the rate of complications after pancreaticoduodenectomy, while preserving a good oncologic adequacy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marco Vito Marino
- Department of Surgery, Palermo University, Palermo, Italy.
- Department of General and Digestive Surgery, Hospital Universitario Marquès de Valdecilla, Av. De Valdecilla 25, Santander, Cantabria, Spain.
| | - Mauro Podda
- Department of General, Emergency and Minimally Invasive Surgery, Cagliari University Hospital "Policlinico D. Casula", Cagliari, Italy
| | - Marcos Gomez Ruiz
- Department of General and Digestive Surgery, Hospital Universitario Marquès de Valdecilla, Av. De Valdecilla 25, Santander, Cantabria, Spain
| | - Carmen Cagigas Fernandez
- Department of General and Digestive Surgery, Hospital Universitario Marquès de Valdecilla, Av. De Valdecilla 25, Santander, Cantabria, Spain
| | - Domenico Guarrasi
- Department of Emergency Surgery, Azienda Ospedaliera Ospedali Riuniti Villa Sofia-Cervello, Palermo, Italy
| | - Manuel Gomez Fleitas
- Department of General and Digestive Surgery, Hospital Universitario Marquès de Valdecilla, Av. De Valdecilla 25, Santander, Cantabria, Spain
- Department of Surgical Innovation and Robotic Surgery, Hospital Universitario Marquès de Valdecilla, Santander, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
|
45
|
Hong S, Song KB, Madkhali AA, Hwang K, Yoo D, Lee JW, Youn WY, Alshammary S, Park Y, Lee W, Kwon J, Lee JH, Hwang DW, Kim SC. Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for left-sided pancreatic tumors: a single surgeon's experience of 228 consecutive cases. Surg Endosc 2019; 34:2465-2473. [PMID: 31463719 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-019-07047-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 34] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/13/2019] [Accepted: 07/25/2019] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) has gained popularity for the treatment of left-sided pancreatic tumors. Robotic systems represent the most recent advancement in minimally invasive surgical treatment for such tumors. Theoretically, robotic systems are considered to have several advantages over laparoscopic systems. However, there have been few studies comparing both systems in the treatment of distal pancreatectomy. We compared perioperative and oncological outcomes between the two treatment modalities. METHODS A retrospective analysis was conducted of all consecutive minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy cases performed by a single surgeon at a high-volume center between January 2015 and December 2017. RESULTS The analysis included 228 consecutive patients (LDP, n = 182; Robotic-assisted laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy [R-LDP], n = 46). Operative time was significantly longer in the R-LDP group than in the LDP group (166.4 vs. 140.7 min; p = 0.001). In a subgroup analysis of patients who underwent the spleen-preserving approach, the spleen preservation rate associated with R-LDP was significantly higher than that associated with LDP (96.8% vs. 82.5%; p = 0.02). In another subgroup analysis of patients with pancreatic cancer, there were no significant differences in median overall and disease-free survival between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS R-LDP is a safe and feasible approach with perioperative and oncological outcomes comparable to those of LDP. R-LDP offers an added technical advantage that enables the surgeon to perform a complex procedure with good ergonomic comfort.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sarang Hong
- Division of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Ulsan College of Medicine and Asan Medical Center, 88 Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul, 05505, South Korea
| | - Ki Byung Song
- Division of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Ulsan College of Medicine and Asan Medical Center, 88 Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul, 05505, South Korea.
| | - Ahmad A Madkhali
- Division of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Ulsan College of Medicine and Asan Medical Center, 88 Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul, 05505, South Korea.,Hepato-Biliary and Pancreatic Surgery Unit, Department of Surgery, King Khalid University Hospital, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
| | - Kyungyeon Hwang
- Division of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Ulsan College of Medicine and Asan Medical Center, 88 Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul, 05505, South Korea
| | - Daegwang Yoo
- Division of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Ulsan College of Medicine and Asan Medical Center, 88 Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul, 05505, South Korea
| | - Jong Woo Lee
- Division of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Ulsan College of Medicine and Asan Medical Center, 88 Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul, 05505, South Korea
| | - Woo Young Youn
- Division of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Ulsan College of Medicine and Asan Medical Center, 88 Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul, 05505, South Korea
| | - Shadi Alshammary
- Division of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Ulsan College of Medicine and Asan Medical Center, 88 Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul, 05505, South Korea
| | - Yejong Park
- Division of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Ulsan College of Medicine and Asan Medical Center, 88 Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul, 05505, South Korea
| | - Woohyung Lee
- Division of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Ulsan College of Medicine and Asan Medical Center, 88 Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul, 05505, South Korea
| | - Jaewoo Kwon
- Division of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Ulsan College of Medicine and Asan Medical Center, 88 Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul, 05505, South Korea
| | - Jae Hoon Lee
- Division of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Ulsan College of Medicine and Asan Medical Center, 88 Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul, 05505, South Korea
| | - Dae Wook Hwang
- Division of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Ulsan College of Medicine and Asan Medical Center, 88 Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul, 05505, South Korea
| | - Song Cheol Kim
- Division of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Ulsan College of Medicine and Asan Medical Center, 88 Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul, 05505, South Korea
| |
Collapse
|
|
46
|
Liu R, Wakabayashi G, Palanivelu C, Tsung A, Yang K, Goh BKP, Chong CCN, Kang CM, Peng C, Kakiashvili E, Han HS, Kim HJ, He J, Lee JH, Takaori K, Marino MV, Wang SN, Guo T, Hackert T, Huang TS, Anusak Y, Fong Y, Nagakawa Y, Shyr YM, Wu YM, Zhao Y. International consensus statement on robotic pancreatic surgery. Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr 2019; 8:345-360. [PMID: 31489304 DOI: 10.21037/hbsn.2019.07.08] [Citation(s) in RCA: 73] [Impact Index Per Article: 12.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
The robotic surgical system has been applied to various types of pancreatic surgery. However, controversies exist regarding a variety of factors including the safety, feasibility, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of robotic surgery. This study aimed to evaluate the current status of robotic pancreatic surgery and put forth experts' consensus and recommendations to promote its development. Based on the WHO Handbook for Guideline Development, a Consensus Steering Group* and a Consensus Development Group were established to determine the topics, prepare evidence-based documents, and generate recommendations. The GRADE Grid method and Delphi vote were used to formulate the recommendations. A total of 19 topics were analyzed. The first 16 recommendations were generated by GRADE using an evidence-based method (EBM) and focused on the safety, feasibility, indication, techniques, certification of the robotic surgeon, and cost-effectiveness of robotic pancreatic surgery. The remaining three recommendations were based on literature review and expert panel opinion due to insufficient EBM results. Since the current amount of evidence was low/meager as evaluated by the GRADE method, further randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are needed in the future to validate these recommendations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rong Liu
- Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgical Oncology, Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) General Hospital, Beijing 100853, China
| | - Go Wakabayashi
- Center for Advanced Treatment of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Diseases, Ageo Central General Hospital, Ageo, Japan
| | - Chinnusamy Palanivelu
- Division of Gastrointestinal Surgery and Minimal Access Surgery, GEM Hospital and Research Centre, Coimbatore, India
| | - Allan Tsung
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Gastrointestinal Disease Specific Research Group, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center Department of Surgery, Columbus, OH, USA
| | - Kehu Yang
- Evidence-Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China
| | - Brian K P Goh
- Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Transplant Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore
| | - Charing Ching-Ning Chong
- Department of Surgery, Division of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Prince of Wales Hospital, the Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
| | - Chang Moo Kang
- Division of HBP Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Pancreatobiliary Cancer Center, Yonsei Cancer Center, Severance Hospital, Seoul, Korea
| | - Chenghong Peng
- Pancreatic Disease Centre, Ruijin Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200025, China
| | - Eli Kakiashvili
- Department of General Surgery, Galilee Medical Center, Nahariya, Israel
| | - Ho-Seong Han
- Department of Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul, Korea
| | - Hong-Jin Kim
- Department of Surgery, Yeungnam University Hospital, Daegu, Korea
| | - Jin He
- Department of Surgery, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Jae Hoon Lee
- Division of Hepatobiliary & Pancreas Surgery, Department of Surgery, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea
| | - Kyoichi Takaori
- Department of Surgery, Kyoto University Hospital, Shogoin, Sakyo-Ku, Kyoto, Japan
| | - Marco Vito Marino
- Department of General Surgery, Azienda Ospedaliera, Ospedali Riuniti Villa Sofia-Cervello, Palermo, Italy
| | - Shen-Nien Wang
- Division of General and Digestive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung
| | - Tiankang Guo
- Department of General Surgery, Gansu Provincial Hospital, Lanzhou 730030, China
| | - Thilo Hackert
- Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Ting-Shuo Huang
- Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Keelung
| | - Yiengpruksawan Anusak
- Minimally Invasive Surgery Division, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
| | - Yuman Fong
- Department of Surgery, City of Hope Medical Center, Duarte, CA, USA
| | - Yuichi Nagakawa
- Department of Gastrointestinal and Pediatric Surgery, Tokyo Medical University, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Yi-Ming Shyr
- Department of Surgery, Taipei Veterans General Hospital and National Yang Ming University, Taipei
| | - Yao-Ming Wu
- Department of Surgery, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei
| | - Yupei Zhao
- Department of General Surgery, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100730, China
| |
Collapse
|
|
47
|
Zhan W, Hu M, Han C, Tian H, Jing W, Li X, Shi H, Yang X, Guo T, Su H, Ma Y. Safety and effectiveness of the da Vinci robot with the "3+2" mode for distal pancreatectomy. Cancer Med 2019; 8:4226-4234. [PMID: 31210421 PMCID: PMC6675730 DOI: 10.1002/cam4.2353] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/17/2019] [Revised: 05/19/2019] [Accepted: 06/04/2019] [Indexed: 12/26/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Recently, no relevant research has focused on the relationship between the clinical efficacy of da Vinci robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) and the number of mechanical arms and assistants used for RDP. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety, efficacy, and advantages of RDP with the "3 + 2" mode. METHODS Clinical data from 53 patients (observation group) who received RDP using the "3 + 2" mode in our department, from March 2016 to September 2018, were reviewed. An additional 53 patients who received RDP using the classical mode were chosen at random for the control group. Short-term outcomes for the two groups were compared. RESULTS There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups for estimated blood loss, postoperative day of flatus passage, postoperative hospital stay, and postoperative complication (P > 0.05). Compared with the control group, the observation group had a significantly shorter operative time (166.9 ± 13.3 vs 192.6 ± 11.1 minutes, P < 0.001), lower surgical costs ($2827.79 ± $173.02 vs $3900.63 ± $317.29, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS The RDP using the "3 + 2" mode can increase the exposure of surgical field, improve cooperation between assistants, lower the surgical costs, and shorten the operative time and learning curve. Moreover, the clinical effect is equal to that of RDP using the classical mode. These findings indicate that RDP using the "3 + 2" mode is safe and feasible for institutions that are equipped for robot-assisted surgery.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Weipeng Zhan
- Department of General Surgery, Gansu Provincial Hospital, Lanzhou, China.,Institution of Clinical Research and Evidence Based Medicine, Gansu Provincial Hospital, Lanzhou, China.,Key Laboratory of Molecular Diagnosis and Precision Treatment of Surgical Tumors in Gansu Province, Lanzhou, China
| | - Ming Hu
- Department of General Surgery, Gansu Provincial Hospital, Lanzhou, China.,Institution of Clinical Research and Evidence Based Medicine, Gansu Provincial Hospital, Lanzhou, China.,Key Laboratory of Molecular Diagnosis and Precision Treatment of Surgical Tumors in Gansu Province, Lanzhou, China
| | - Caiwen Han
- Department of General Surgery, Gansu Provincial Hospital, Lanzhou, China.,Institution of Clinical Research and Evidence Based Medicine, Gansu Provincial Hospital, Lanzhou, China.,Evidence-Based Medicine Center, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China
| | - Hongwei Tian
- Department of General Surgery, Gansu Provincial Hospital, Lanzhou, China.,Institution of Clinical Research and Evidence Based Medicine, Gansu Provincial Hospital, Lanzhou, China.,Key Laboratory of Molecular Diagnosis and Precision Treatment of Surgical Tumors in Gansu Province, Lanzhou, China
| | - Wutang Jing
- Department of General Surgery, Gansu Provincial Hospital, Lanzhou, China.,Institution of Clinical Research and Evidence Based Medicine, Gansu Provincial Hospital, Lanzhou, China.,Key Laboratory of Molecular Diagnosis and Precision Treatment of Surgical Tumors in Gansu Province, Lanzhou, China
| | - Xiaofei Li
- Department of General Surgery, Gansu Provincial Hospital, Lanzhou, China.,Institution of Clinical Research and Evidence Based Medicine, Gansu Provincial Hospital, Lanzhou, China
| | - Hao Shi
- Department of General Surgery, Gansu Provincial Hospital, Lanzhou, China.,Institution of Clinical Research and Evidence Based Medicine, Gansu Provincial Hospital, Lanzhou, China
| | - Xiaojun Yang
- Department of General Surgery, Gansu Provincial Hospital, Lanzhou, China.,Institution of Clinical Research and Evidence Based Medicine, Gansu Provincial Hospital, Lanzhou, China.,Key Laboratory of Molecular Diagnosis and Precision Treatment of Surgical Tumors in Gansu Province, Lanzhou, China
| | - Tiankang Guo
- Department of General Surgery, Gansu Provincial Hospital, Lanzhou, China.,Institution of Clinical Research and Evidence Based Medicine, Gansu Provincial Hospital, Lanzhou, China.,Key Laboratory of Molecular Diagnosis and Precision Treatment of Surgical Tumors in Gansu Province, Lanzhou, China.,Evidence-Based Medicine Center, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China
| | - He Su
- Department of General Surgery, Gansu Provincial Hospital, Lanzhou, China.,Institution of Clinical Research and Evidence Based Medicine, Gansu Provincial Hospital, Lanzhou, China.,Key Laboratory of Molecular Diagnosis and Precision Treatment of Surgical Tumors in Gansu Province, Lanzhou, China
| | - Yuntao Ma
- Department of General Surgery, Gansu Provincial Hospital, Lanzhou, China.,Institution of Clinical Research and Evidence Based Medicine, Gansu Provincial Hospital, Lanzhou, China.,Key Laboratory of Molecular Diagnosis and Precision Treatment of Surgical Tumors in Gansu Province, Lanzhou, China
| |
Collapse
|
|
48
|
Staub BN, Sadrameli SS. The use of robotics in minimally invasive spine surgery. JOURNAL OF SPINE SURGERY 2019; 5:S31-S40. [PMID: 31380491 DOI: 10.21037/jss.2019.04.16] [Citation(s) in RCA: 43] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/16/2022]
Abstract
The field of spine surgery has changed significantly over the past few decades as once technological fantasy has become reality. The advent of stereotaxis, intra-operative navigation, endoscopy, and percutaneous instrumentation have altered the landscape of spine surgery. The concept of minimally invasive spine (MIS) surgery has blossomed over the past ten years and now robot-assisted spine surgery is being championed by some as another potential paradigm altering technological advancement. The application of robotics in other surgical specialties has been shown to be a safe and feasible alternative to the traditional, open approach. In 2004 the Mazor Spine Assist robot was approved by FDA to assist with placement of pedicle screws and since then, more advanced robots with promising clinical outcomes have been introduced. Currently, robotic platforms are limited to pedicle screw placement. However, there are centers investigating the role of robotics in decompression, dural closure, and pre-planned osteotomies. Robot-assisted spine surgery has been shown to increase the accuracy of pedicle screw placement and decrease radiation exposure to surgeons. However, modern robotic technology also has certain disadvantages including a high introductory cost, steep learning curve, and inherent technological glitches. Currently, robotic spine surgery is in its infancy and most of the objective evidence available regarding its benefits draws from the use of robots in a shared-control model to assist with the placement of pedicle screws. As artificial intelligence software and feedback sensor design become more sophisticated, robots could facilitate other, more complex surgical tasks such as bony decompression or dural closure. The accuracy and precision afforded by the current robots available for use in spinal surgery potentially allow for even less tissue destructive and more meticulous MIS surgery. This article aims to provide a contemporary review of the use of robotics in MIS surgery.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Saeed S Sadrameli
- Department of Neurosurgery, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX, USA
| |
Collapse
|
|
49
|
Alfieri S, Butturini G, Boggi U, Pietrabissa A, Morelli L, Vistoli F, Damoli I, Peri A, Fiorillo C, Pugliese L, Ramera M, De Lio N, Di Franco G, Esposito A, Landoni L, Rosa F, Menghi R, Doglietto GB, Quero G. Short-term and long-term outcomes after robot-assisted versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNETs): a multicenter comparative study. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2019; 404:459-468. [PMID: 31055639 DOI: 10.1007/s00423-019-01786-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 36] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/05/2018] [Accepted: 04/08/2019] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Minimally invasive surgery has increasingly gained popularity as a treatment of choice for pancreatectomy with encouraging initial results in robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP). However, few data are available on the comparison between RDP and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNETs). Our aim, thus, is to compare perioperative and long-term outcomes as well as total costs of RDP and LDP for pNETs. METHODS All RDPs and LDPs for pNETs performed in four referral centers from 2008 to 2016 were included. Perioperative outcomes, histopathological results, overall (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS), and total costs were evaluated. RESULTS Ninety-six RDPs and 85 LDPs were included. Demographic and clinical characteristics were comparable between the two cohorts. Operative time was 36.5 min longer in the RDP group (p = 0.009) but comparable to LDP after removing the docking time (247.9 vs 233.7 min; p = 0.6). LDP related to a lower spleen preservation rate (44.7% vs 65.3%; p < 0.0001) and higher blood loss (239.7 ± 112 vs 162.5 ± 98 cc; p < 0.0001). Advantages in operative time for RDP were documented in case of the spleen preservation procedures (265 ± 41.52 vs 291 ± 23 min; p = 0.04). Conversion rate, postoperative morbidity, and pancreatic fistula rate were similar between the two groups, as well as histopathological data, OS, and DFS. Significant advantages were evidenced for LDP regarding mean total costs (9235 (± 1935) € vs 11,226 (± 2365) €; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS Both RDP and LDP are safe and efficacious for pNETs treatment. However, RDP offers advantages with a higher spleen preservation rate and lower blood loss. Costs still remain the main limitation of the robotic approach.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sergio Alfieri
- Fondazione Policlinico "A.Gemelli" IRCCS of Rome, CRMPG (Gemelli Pancreatic Advanced Research Center), Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore of Rome, Largo Agostino Gemelli 8, 00166, Rome, Italy
| | - Giovanni Butturini
- Casa di Cura Pederzoli, Via Monte Baldo 24, 37019, Peschiera del Garda, Verona, Italy
| | - Ugo Boggi
- Chirurgia Generale Universitaria dell'Ospedale di Cisanello, Via Paradisa, 2, 56124, Pisa, Italy
| | - Andrea Pietrabissa
- Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Viale Camillo Golgi, 19, 27100, Pavia, Italy
| | - Luca Morelli
- Chirurgia Generale Universitaria dell'Ospedale di Cisanello, Via Paradisa, 2, 56124, Pisa, Italy
| | - Fabio Vistoli
- Chirurgia Generale Universitaria dell'Ospedale di Cisanello, Via Paradisa, 2, 56124, Pisa, Italy
| | - Isacco Damoli
- Casa di Cura Pederzoli, Via Monte Baldo 24, 37019, Peschiera del Garda, Verona, Italy
| | - Andrea Peri
- Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Viale Camillo Golgi, 19, 27100, Pavia, Italy
| | - Claudio Fiorillo
- Fondazione Policlinico "A.Gemelli" IRCCS of Rome, CRMPG (Gemelli Pancreatic Advanced Research Center), Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore of Rome, Largo Agostino Gemelli 8, 00166, Rome, Italy
| | - Luigi Pugliese
- Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Viale Camillo Golgi, 19, 27100, Pavia, Italy
| | - Marco Ramera
- Dipartimento di Chirurgia Generale e Pancreatica, Policlinico G.B. Rossi, Piazzale Ludovico Antonio Scuro 10, 37134, Verona, Italy
| | - Nelide De Lio
- Chirurgia Generale Universitaria dell'Ospedale di Cisanello, Via Paradisa, 2, 56124, Pisa, Italy
| | - Gregorio Di Franco
- Chirurgia Generale Universitaria dell'Ospedale di Cisanello, Via Paradisa, 2, 56124, Pisa, Italy
| | - Alessandro Esposito
- Dipartimento di Chirurgia Generale e Pancreatica, Policlinico G.B. Rossi, Piazzale Ludovico Antonio Scuro 10, 37134, Verona, Italy
| | - Luca Landoni
- Dipartimento di Chirurgia Generale e Pancreatica, Policlinico G.B. Rossi, Piazzale Ludovico Antonio Scuro 10, 37134, Verona, Italy
| | - Fausto Rosa
- Fondazione Policlinico "A.Gemelli" IRCCS of Rome, CRMPG (Gemelli Pancreatic Advanced Research Center), Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore of Rome, Largo Agostino Gemelli 8, 00166, Rome, Italy
| | - Roberta Menghi
- Fondazione Policlinico "A.Gemelli" IRCCS of Rome, CRMPG (Gemelli Pancreatic Advanced Research Center), Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore of Rome, Largo Agostino Gemelli 8, 00166, Rome, Italy
| | - Giovanni Battista Doglietto
- Fondazione Policlinico "A.Gemelli" IRCCS of Rome, CRMPG (Gemelli Pancreatic Advanced Research Center), Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore of Rome, Largo Agostino Gemelli 8, 00166, Rome, Italy
| | - Giuseppe Quero
- Fondazione Policlinico "A.Gemelli" IRCCS of Rome, CRMPG (Gemelli Pancreatic Advanced Research Center), Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore of Rome, Largo Agostino Gemelli 8, 00166, Rome, Italy.
- Digestive Surgical Unit, Department of Surgery, Fondation "A.Gemelli" Hospital of Rome, Catholic University of Sacred Hearth, Largo Agostino Gemelli, 8, 00168, Rome, Italy.
| |
Collapse
|
|
50
|
Marino MV, Shabat G, Potapov O, Gulotta G, Komorowski AL. Robotic pancreatic surgery: old concerns, new perspectives. Acta Chir Belg 2019. [PMID: 29514548 DOI: 10.1080/00015458.2018.1444550] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Described for the first time in 2003, the robotic pancreatic surgery shows interesting results. The evaluation of post-operative outcomes is necessary once we describe an innovative surgical approach. METHODS We have performed a retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database on robotic pancreatic surgery including malignant and benign indications for surgery. RESULTS A total of 50 consecutive patients underwent robotic pancreatic surgery (26 pancreatico duodenectomy and 24 distal pancreatectomy) between January 2012 and July 2015 in a single centre. The overall operative time was 425 (390-620) min. In a subgroup of highly selected malignant tumours, we were able to achieve 88% of R0 resection with robotic approach. A number of lymphnodes rose significantly with growing experience (p = .025). The overall major complication rate (15%), as well as pancreatic fistula rate (16%) were acceptable. The two-year overall survival for the whole group was 65%. CONCLUSION The robotic pancreatic surgery in a highly selected group of patients seems safe and feasible. The cost-effectiveness and long-term oncologic outcomes need further investigations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marco Vito Marino
- Department of Emergency and General Surgery, P. Giaccone Hospital, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy
| | - Galyna Shabat
- Department of Emergency and General Surgery, P. Giaccone Hospital, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy
| | - Oleksii Potapov
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Maria Skłodowska-Curie Memorial Institute of Oncology Cancer Centre, Kraków, Poland
| | - Gaspare Gulotta
- Department of Emergency and General Surgery, P. Giaccone Hospital, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy
| | - Andrzej L. Komorowski
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Maria Skłodowska-Curie Memorial Institute of Oncology Cancer Centre, Kraków, Poland
| |
Collapse
|