|
1
|
Napoli N, Ginesini M, Kauffmann EF, Barbarello L, Caniglia F, Costa F, Lombardo C, Perrone VG, Viti V, Amorese G, Boggi U. Navigating the learning curve of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy: Competency, proficiency, and mastery in a first-generation robotic surgeon with established open pancreatic expertise. Surgery 2025:109347. [PMID: 40180836 DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2025.109347] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/03/2024] [Revised: 03/02/2025] [Accepted: 03/05/2025] [Indexed: 04/05/2025]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE This study delineates the learning curve of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy for first-generation surgeons, using the Comprehensive Complication Index to assess patient outcomes. BACKGROUND Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy is a promising alternative to open pancreatoduodenectomy, but patient safety and quality of outcomes during the learning phase remain critical. METHODS We retrospectively analyzed 313 consecutive robotic pancreatoduodenectomies performed by a single surgeon. The cumulative-sum method defined the learning curve, and Comprehensive Complication Index, adjusted for robotic pancreatoduodenectomy difficulty by PD-ROBOSCORE, was the dependent variable. RESULTS The median PD-ROBOSCORE was 8 (4.8-10.9), and the median Comprehensive Complication Index was 29.6 (20.9-39.5). At 90 days, severe morbidity and mortality rates were 24% and 5.4%, respectively. Three learning phases were identified: competency (63 procedures), proficiency (176), and mastery (263). Early phases involved simpler cases, whereas later phases showed greater complexity and a higher proportion of patients with ASA scores >2. Pancreatic cancer cases tripled in phases 2 and 3. Each phase showed progressive reductions in operative time and Comprehensive Complication Index. The mastery phase demonstrated further improvements in Comprehensive Complication Index, lymph node harvest, and margin status. Compared with proficiency, mastery saw improved outcomes in delayed gastric emptying, harvested lymph nodes, and R1 rates in pancreatic cancer. Operative time was longer, but morbidity and mortality remained stable. CONCLUSION The robotic pancreatoduodenectomy learning process involves competency, proficiency, and mastery phases. Structured training programs may accelerate this learning curve, but high procedural volumes are essential to improve outcomes. Future studies should account for surgeon experience and case complexity when evaluating robotic pancreatoduodenectomy outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Niccolò Napoli
- Division of General and Transplant Surgery, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy
| | - Michael Ginesini
- Division of General and Transplant Surgery, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy
| | | | - Linda Barbarello
- Division of General and Transplant Surgery, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy
| | - Fabio Caniglia
- Division of General and Transplant Surgery, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy
| | - Francesca Costa
- Division of General and Transplant Surgery, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy
| | - Carlo Lombardo
- Division of General and Transplant Surgery, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy
| | | | - Virginia Viti
- Division of General and Transplant Surgery, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy
| | - Gabriella Amorese
- Division of General and Transplant Surgery, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy; Division of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Pisana, Pisa, Italy
| | - Ugo Boggi
- Division of General and Transplant Surgery, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
| |
Collapse
|
|
2
|
Varshney VK, Rathore KS, Selvakumar B, Soni S, Varshney P, Agarwal L, Goel AD, Jaiswal A. Robotic versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for periampullary neoplasm: a propensity matched analysis of peri-operative and oncologic outcomes. Surg Endosc 2025; 39:922-931. [PMID: 39630267 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-024-11423-4] [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: 06/24/2024] [Accepted: 11/11/2024] [Indexed: 02/06/2025]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Though open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) is the gold standard, robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) is on the rise due to its technical ease with robotic armamentarium and claim to decrease morbidity in the perioperative period. This study compares the perioperative and oncologic outcomes of RPD performed for periampullary neoplasms (PANs) with OPD. METHOD This is a retrospective study conducted from January 2018 to December 2023 for all the patients who underwent either OPD or RPD for PANs. Demographic, peri-operative outcomes and oncological parameters [disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS)] were analysed and compared. The two groups were matched using 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) to reduce the risk of confounding. RESULTS A hundred patients were analysed (30 in RPD and 70 in OPD), and both groups were similar in demographic characteristics. Post-operative morbidity in terms of clinically relevant pancreatic fistula, post-pancreatectomy haemorrhage, delayed gastric emptying and overall Clavien-Dindo ≥ Grade 3 complications were similar in both groups. Surgical site infection (SSI) was significantly higher in the OPD group compared to RPD (31.4% vs. 6.7, p = 0.008); however, the median postoperative hospital stay was similar in both groups. After PSM (26 patients in each group), the RPD group had significantly more operative time (480 min vs. 360 min, p = 0.007) less blood loss (250 ml vs. 400 ml, p = 0.004), and similar SSI [2(7.7%) vs. 6(23.1%), p = 0.178). The R0 resection rate, lymph nodal yield, lymph nodal positivity, DFS and OS were similar in both groups. CONCLUSION The robotic approach for PD is technically safe and feasible with equivalent resection quality and oncological outcomes compared to the open approach. RPD has equivalent postoperative morbidity, DFS and OS.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Vaibhav Kumar Varshney
- Department of Surgical Gastroenterology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Basni Industrial Area, Phase-II, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, 342005, India.
| | - Kaushal Singh Rathore
- Department of Surgical Gastroenterology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Basni Industrial Area, Phase-II, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, 342005, India
| | - B Selvakumar
- Department of Surgical Gastroenterology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Basni Industrial Area, Phase-II, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, 342005, India
| | - Subhash Soni
- Department of Surgical Gastroenterology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Basni Industrial Area, Phase-II, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, 342005, India
| | - Peeyush Varshney
- Department of Surgical Gastroenterology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Basni Industrial Area, Phase-II, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, 342005, India
| | - Lokesh Agarwal
- Department of Surgical Gastroenterology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Basni Industrial Area, Phase-II, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, 342005, India
| | - Akhil Dhanesh Goel
- Department of Community Medicine and Family Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India
| | - Abhishek Jaiswal
- Department of Community Medicine, ESIC Medical College and Hospital, Faridabad, Haryana, India
| |
Collapse
|
|
3
|
Jones LR, Zwart MJW, de Graaf N, Wei K, Qu L, Jiabin J, Ningzhen F, Wang SE, Kim H, Kauffmann EF, de Wilde RF, Molenaar IQ, Chao YJ, Moraldi L, Saint-Marc O, Nickel F, Peng CM, Kang CM, Machado M, Luyer MDP, Lips DJ, Bonsing BA, Hackert T, Shan YS, Groot Koerkamp B, Shyr YM, Shen B, Boggi U, Liu R, Jang JY, Besselink MG, Abu Hilal M. Learning curve stratified outcomes after robotic pancreatoduodenectomy: International multicenter experience. Surgery 2024; 176:1721-1729. [PMID: 39164152 DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2024.05.044] [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: 01/17/2023] [Revised: 01/30/2024] [Accepted: 05/21/2024] [Indexed: 08/22/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy is increasingly being implemented worldwide, with good results reported from individual expert centers. However, it is unclear to what extent outcomes will continue to improve during the learning curve, as large international studies are lacking. METHODS An international retrospective multicenter case series, including consecutive patients after robotic pancreatoduodenectomy from 18 centers in 8 countries in Europe, Asia, and South America until December 31, 2019, was conducted. A cumulative sum analysis was performed to determine the inflection points for the feasibility (operative time and blood loss) and proficiency (postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C and major morbidity) learning curves. Outcomes were compared in 3 groups on the basis of the learning curve inflection points. RESULTS Overall, 2,186 patients after robotic pancreatoduodenectomy were included. The feasibility learning curve was reached after 30-45 robotic pancreatoduodenectomy procedures and the proficiency learning curve after 90 robotic pancreatoduodenectomy procedures. These inflection points created 3 phases, which were associated with major morbidity (24.7%, 23.4%, and 12.3%, P < .001) but not 30-day mortality (2.1%, 2.0%, and 1.5%, P = .670). Other outcomes mostly continued to improve, including median operative time 432, 390, and 300 minutes (P < .0001), conversion 6.0%, 4.7%, and 2.7% (P = .002), bile leakage 7.2%, 4.1%, and 2.4% (P < .001), postpancreatectomy hemorrhage 6.5%, 6.1%, and 1.8% (n = 21) but not R0 resection (pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma only) 78.5%, 73.9%, and 82.8% (P = .35), and 90-day mortality rate 3.1%, 3.5%, and 2.1% (P = .191). Centers performing >20 robotic pancreatoduodenectomies annually had lower rates of conversion, reoperation, and shorter median operative time as compared with centers performing 10-20 robotic pancreatoduodenectomies annually. CONCLUSION This international multicenter study demonstrates that most outcomes of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy continued to improve during 3 learning curve phases without a negative effect on 90-day mortality. Randomized studies are needed in high-volume centers that have surpassed the first learning curves, to compare these outcomes with the open approach.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Leia R Jones
- Department of General Surgery, Istituto Ospedaliero Fondazione Poliambulanza, Brescia, Italy; Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Cancer Center Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Maurice J W Zwart
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Cancer Center Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Nine de Graaf
- Department of General Surgery, Istituto Ospedaliero Fondazione Poliambulanza, Brescia, Italy; Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Cancer Center Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Kongyuan Wei
- Department of Surgery, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Liu Qu
- Department of Surgery, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Jin Jiabin
- Department of Surgery, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, China
| | - Fu Ningzhen
- Department of Surgery, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, China
| | - Shin-E Wang
- Department of Surgery, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taiwan
| | - Hongbeom Kim
- Department of Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, South Korea
| | - Emanuele F Kauffmann
- Division of General and Transplant Surgery, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Pisana, Pisa, Italy
| | | | - I Quintus Molenaar
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Ying Jui Chao
- Department of Surgery, National Cheng Kung University Hospital, Tainan, Taiwan
| | - Luca Moraldi
- Department of Surgery, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Careggi, Florence, Italy
| | | | - Felix Nickel
- Department of Surgery, University Hospital of Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Cheng-Ming Peng
- Department of Surgery, Chung Shan Medical University Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan
| | - Chang Moo Kang
- Department of Surgery, Yonsei University Severance Hospital, Sinchon-dong, South Korea
| | - Marcel Machado
- Department of Surgery, Hospital Sírio-Libanês, São Paulo, Brazil
| | - Misha D P Luyer
- Department of Surgery, Catharina Hospital Eindhoven, the Netherlands
| | - Daan J Lips
- Department of Surgery, Medisch Spectrum Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands
| | - Bert A Bonsing
- Department of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, the Netherlands
| | - Thilo Hackert
- Department of Surgery, University Hospital of Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Yan-Shen Shan
- Department of Surgery, National Cheng Kung University Hospital, Tainan, Taiwan
| | | | - Yi-Ming Shyr
- Department of Surgery, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taiwan
| | - Baiyong Shen
- Department of Surgery, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, China
| | - Ugo Boggi
- Division of General and Transplant Surgery, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Pisana, Pisa, Italy
| | - Rong Liu
- Department of Surgery, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Jin-Young Jang
- Department of Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, South Korea
| | - Marc G Besselink
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Cancer Center Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
| | - Mohammad Abu Hilal
- Department of General Surgery, Istituto Ospedaliero Fondazione Poliambulanza, Brescia, Italy; Department of Surgery, University Hospital Southampton NHS, United Kingdom.
| |
Collapse
|
|
4
|
Shin DH, Choi M, Rho SY, Hong SS, Kim SH, Hwang HK, Kang CM. Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy with combined venous vascular resection: A comparative analysis with open approach. Ann Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 2024; 28:500-507. [PMID: 39314031 PMCID: PMC11599825 DOI: 10.14701/ahbps.24-082] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/01/2024] [Revised: 07/14/2024] [Accepted: 07/16/2024] [Indexed: 09/25/2024] Open
Abstract
Backgrounds/Aims This study aimed to compare the minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy with venous vascular resection (MI-PDVR) and open pancreatoduodenectomy with venous vascular resection (O-PDVR) for periampullary cancer. Methods Data of 124 patients who underwent PDVR (45 MI-PDVR, 79 O-PDVR) between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2023, was retrospectively reviewed. Results MI-PDVR is significantly better than O-PDVR in terms of perioperative outcomes (median operation time [452.69 minutes vs. 543.91 minutes; p = 0.004], estimated blood loss [410.44 mL vs. 747.59 mL; p < 0.01], intraoperative transfusion rate [2 cases vs. 18 cases; p = 0.01], and hospital stay [18.16 days vs. 23.91 days; p = 0.008]). The complications until the discharge day showed no significant difference between the two groups (Clavien-Dindo < 3, 84.4% vs. 82.3%; Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3, 15.6% vs. 17.7%; p = 0.809). In terms of long-term oncological outcomes, there was no statistical difference in overall survival (OS, 51.55 months [95% CI: 35.95-67.14] vs. median 49.92 months [95% CI: 40.97-58.87]; p = 0.340) and disease-free survival (DFS, median 35.06 months [95% CI: 21.47-48.65] vs. median 38.77 months [95% CI: 29.80-47.75]; p = 0.585), between the two groups. Long-term oncological outcomes for subgroup analysis focusing on pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma also showed no statistical differences in OS (40.86 months [95% CI: 34.45-47.27] vs. 48.48 months [95% CI: 38.16-58.59]; p = 0.270) and DFS (24.42 months [95% CI: 17.03-31.85] vs. 34.35 months, [95% CI: 25.44-43.27]; p = 0.740). Conclusions MI-PDVR can provide better perioperative outcomes than O-PDVR, and has similar oncological impact.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dong Hyun Shin
- Department of Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Munseok Choi
- Department of Surgery, Yongin Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Yongin, Korea
| | - Seoung Yoon Rho
- Department of Surgery, Yongin Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Yongin, Korea
| | - Seung Soo Hong
- Division of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Sung Hyun Kim
- Division of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Ho Kyoung Hwang
- Division of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Chang Moo Kang
- Division of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| |
Collapse
|
|
5
|
Machado MAC, Mattos BV, Lobo Filho MM, Makdissi F. Robotic Pancreatoduodenectomy: Increasing Complexity and Decreasing Complications with Experience: Single-Center Results from 150 Consecutive Patients. Ann Surg Oncol 2024; 31:7012-7022. [PMID: 38954090 DOI: 10.1245/s10434-024-15645-7] [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: 03/25/2024] [Accepted: 06/07/2024] [Indexed: 07/04/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND This report describes the authors' experience with 150 consecutive robotic pancreatoduodenectomies. METHODS The study enrolled 150 consecutive patients who underwent robotic pancreatoduodenectomy between 2018 and 2023. Pre- and intraoperative variables such as age, gender, indication, operation time, diagnosis, and tumor size were analyzed. The patients were divided into two groups. Group 1 comprised the first 75 patients, and group 2 comprised the last 75 cases. The median age of the patients was 62.4 years and did not differ between the two groups. RESULTS Morbidity was lower in group 2. The mortality rate was 0.7% at 30 days and 1.3% at 90 days, and there was no difference between the groups. There was a significant reduction (p < 0.05) in operative time, resection time, reconstruction time, and conversion to open surgery in group 2. Partial resection of the portal vein was performed in 17 patients and more common in group 2 (p < 0.01). The number of resected lymph nodes was higher in group 2. The indication for pancreatoduodenectomy did not differ between the two groups. There was no difference in tumor size or clinical characteristics of the patients. CONCLUSIONS The robotic platform is useful for pancreatoduodenectomy, facilitates adequate lymphadenectomy, and is helpful for digestive tract reconstruction after resection. Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy is safe and feasible for selected patients. It should be performed in specialized centers by surgeons experienced in open and minimally invasive pancreatic surgery.
Collapse
|
|
6
|
McKay B, Brough D, Kilburn D, Cavallucci D. Safety and feasibility of instituting a robotic pancreas program in the Australian setting: a case series and narrative review. ANZ J Surg 2024; 94:1247-1253. [PMID: 38529778 DOI: 10.1111/ans.18998] [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: 05/09/2023] [Revised: 01/25/2024] [Accepted: 03/12/2024] [Indexed: 03/27/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Minimally invasive pancreatic resection has been gathering interest over the last decade due to the technical demands and high morbidity associated with these typically open procedures. We report our experience with robotic pancreatectomy within an Australian context. METHODS All patients undergoing robotic distal pancreatectomy (DP) and pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) at two Australian tertiary academic hospitals between May 2014 and December 2020 were included. RESULTS Sixty-two patients underwent robotic pancreatectomy during the study period. Thirty-four patients with a median age of 68 years (range 42-84) were in the PD group whilst the DP group included 28 patients with a median age of 60 years (range 18-78). Thirteen patients (46.4%) in the DP group had spleen-preserving procedures. There were 13 conversions (38.2%) in the PD group whilst 0 conversions occurred in the DP group. The Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III complication rate was 26.4% and 17.9% in the PD and DP groups, respectively. Two deaths (5.9%) occurred within 90-days in the PD group whilst none were observed in the DP group. The median length of hospital stay was 11.5 days (range 4-56) in the PD group and 6 days (range 2-22) in the DP group. CONCLUSION Robotic pancreatectomy outcomes at our institution are comparable with international literature demonstrating it is both safe and feasible to perform. With improved access to this platform, robotic pancreas surgery may prove to be the turning point for patients with regards to post-operative complications as more experience is obtained.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bartholomew McKay
- Department of Hepatopancreaticobiliary Surgery, Royal Brisbane Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
- School of Medicine, Royal Brisbane Clinical Unit, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
| | - David Brough
- Department of Hepatopancreaticobiliary Surgery, Royal Brisbane Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
- School of Medicine, Royal Brisbane Clinical Unit, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
| | - Daniel Kilburn
- Department of Hepatopancreaticobiliary Surgery, Royal Brisbane Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
- School of Medicine, Royal Brisbane Clinical Unit, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
| | - David Cavallucci
- Department of Hepatopancreaticobiliary Surgery, Royal Brisbane Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
- School of Medicine, Royal Brisbane Clinical Unit, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
- Department of Surgery, The Wesley Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
|
7
|
Napoli N, Kauffmann EF, Ginesini M, Di Dato A, Viti V, Gianfaldoni C, Lami L, Cappelli C, Rotondo MI, Campani D, Amorese G, Vivaldi C, Cesario S, Bernardini L, Vasile E, Vistoli F, Boggi U. Robotic Versus Open Pancreatoduodenectomy With Vein Resection and Reconstruction: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis. ANNALS OF SURGERY OPEN 2024; 5:e409. [PMID: 38911629 PMCID: PMC11191888 DOI: 10.1097/as9.0000000000000409] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/21/2024] [Accepted: 02/23/2024] [Indexed: 06/25/2024] Open
Abstract
Objective This study aimed to compare robotic pancreatoduodenectomy with vein resection (PD-VR) based on the incidence of severe postoperative complications (SPC). Background Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy has been gaining momentum in recent years. Vein resection is frequently required in this operation, but no study has compared robotic and open PD-VR using a matched analysis. Methods This was an intention-to-treat study designed to demonstrate the noninferiority of robotic to open PD-VR (2011-2021) based on SPC. To achieve a power of 80% (noninferiority margin:10%; α error: 0.05; ß error: 0.20), a 1:1 propensity score-matched analysis required 35 pairs. Results Of the 151 patients with PD-VR (open = 115, robotic = 36), 35 procedures per group were compared. Elective conversion to open surgery was required in 1 patient with robotic PD-VR (2.9%). One patient in both groups experienced partial vein thrombosis. SPC occurred in 7 (20.0%) and 6 patients (17.1%) in the robotic and open PD-VR groups, respectively (P = 0.759; OR: 1.21 [0.36-4.04]). Three patients died after robotic PD-VR (8.6%) and none died after open PD-VR (P = 0.239). Robotic PD-VR was associated with longer operative time (611.1 ± 13.9 minutes vs 529.0 ± 13.0 minutes; P < 0.0001), more type 2 vein resection (28.6% vs 5.7%; P = 0.0234) and less type 3 vein resection (31.4% vs 71.4%; P = 0.0008), longer vein occlusion time (30 [25.3-78.3] minutes vs 15 [8-19.5] minutes; P = 0.0098), less blood loss (450 [200-750] mL vs 733 [500-1070.3] mL; P = 0.0075), and fewer blood transfusions (intraoperative: 14.3% vs 48.6%; P = 0.0041) (perioperative: 14.3% vs 60.0%; P = 0.0001). Conclusions In this study, robotic PD-VR was noninferior to open PD-VR for SPC. Robotic and open PD-VR need to be compared in randomized controlled trials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Niccolò Napoli
- From the Division of General and Transplant Surgery, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy
| | | | - Michael Ginesini
- From the Division of General and Transplant Surgery, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy
| | - Armando Di Dato
- From the Division of General and Transplant Surgery, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy
| | - Virginia Viti
- From the Division of General and Transplant Surgery, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy
| | - Cesare Gianfaldoni
- From the Division of General and Transplant Surgery, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy
| | - Lucrezia Lami
- From the Division of General and Transplant Surgery, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy
| | - Carla Cappelli
- Division of Radiology, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Pisana, Pisa, Italy
| | | | | | - Gabriella Amorese
- Division of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Pisana, Pisa, Italy
| | - Caterina Vivaldi
- Department of Translational Research and New Technologies in Medicine and Surgery, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy
| | - Silvia Cesario
- Division of Medical Oncology 2, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Pisana, Pisa, Italy
| | - Laura Bernardini
- Division of Medical Oncology 2, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Pisana, Pisa, Italy
| | - Enrico Vasile
- Division of Medical Oncology 2, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Pisana, Pisa, Italy
| | - Fabio Vistoli
- From the Division of General and Transplant Surgery, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy
| | - Ugo Boggi
- From the Division of General and Transplant Surgery, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
|
8
|
Klotz R, Mihaljevic AL, Kulu Y, Sander A, Klose C, Behnisch R, Joos MC, Kalkum E, Nickel F, Knebel P, Pianka F, Diener MK, Büchler MW, Hackert T. Robotic versus open partial pancreatoduodenectomy (EUROPA): a randomised controlled stage 2b trial. THE LANCET REGIONAL HEALTH. EUROPE 2024; 39:100864. [PMID: 38420108 PMCID: PMC10899052 DOI: 10.1016/j.lanepe.2024.100864] [Citation(s) in RCA: 28] [Impact Index Per Article: 28.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/01/2023] [Revised: 01/22/2024] [Accepted: 01/24/2024] [Indexed: 03/02/2024]
Abstract
Background Open partial pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) represents the current gold standard of surgical treatment of a wide range of diseases of the pancreatic head but is associated with morbidity in around 40% of cases. Robotic partial pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) is being used increasingly, yet, no randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of RPD versus OPD have been published, leaving a low level of evidence to support this practice. Methods This investigator-initiated, exploratory RCT with two parallel study arms was conducted at a high-volume pancreatic centre in line with IDEAL recommendations (stage 2b). Patients scheduled for elective partial pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) for any indication were randomised (1:1) to RPD or OPD with a centralised web-based tool. The primary endpoint was postoperative cumulative morbidity within 90 days, assessed via the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI). Biometricians were blinded to the intervention, but patients and surgeons were not. The trial was registered prospectively (DRKS00020407). Findings Between June 3, 2020 and February 14, 2022, 81 patients were randomly assigned to RPD (n = 41) or OPD (n = 40), of whom 62 patients (RPD: n = 29, OPD: n = 33) were analysed in the modified intention to treat analysis. Four patients in the OPD group were randomised, but did not undergo surgery in our department and one patient was excluded in the RPD group due to other reason. Nine patients in the RPD group and 3 patients in the OPD were excluded from the primary analysis because they did not undergo PD, but rather underwent other types of surgery. The CCI after 90 days was comparable between groups (RPD: 34.02 ± 23.48 versus OPD: 36.45 ± 27.65, difference in means [95% CI]: -2.42 [-15.55; 10.71], p = 0.713). The RPD group had a higher incidence of grade B/C pancreas-specific complications compared to the OPD group (17 (58.6%) versus 11 (33.3%); difference in rates [95% CI]: 25.3% [1.2%; 49.4%], p = 0.046). The only complication that occurred significantly more often in the RPD than in the OPD group was clinically relevant delayed gastric emptying. Procedure-related and overall hospital costs were significantly higher and duration of surgery was longer in the RPD group. Blood loss did not differ significantly between groups. The intraoperative conversion rate of RPD was 23%. Overall 90-day mortality was 4.8% without significant differences between RPD and OPD. Interpretation In the setting of a very high-volume centre, both RPD and OPD can be considered safe techniques. Further confirmatory multicentre RCTs are warranted to uncover potential advantages of RPD in terms of perioperative and long-term outcomes. Funding Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF: 01KG2010).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rosa Klotz
- Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
- The Study Centre of the German Surgical Society, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - André L. Mihaljevic
- Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
- Department of General, Visceral and Transplant Surgery, University Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
| | - Yakup Kulu
- Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Anja Sander
- Institute of Medical Biometry (IMBI), University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Christina Klose
- Institute of Medical Biometry (IMBI), University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Rouven Behnisch
- Institute of Medical Biometry (IMBI), University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Maximilian C. Joos
- Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Eva Kalkum
- The Study Centre of the German Surgical Society, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Felix Nickel
- Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Phillip Knebel
- Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Frank Pianka
- Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
- The Study Centre of the German Surgical Society, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Markus K. Diener
- Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Markus W. Büchler
- Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Thilo Hackert
- Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
|
9
|
Nickel F, Wise PA, Müller PC, Kuemmerli C, Cizmic A, Salg GA, Steinle V, Niessen A, Mayer P, Mehrabi A, Loos M, Müller-Stich BP, Kulu Y, Büchler MW, Hackert T. Short-term Outcomes of Robotic Versus Open Pancreatoduodenectomy: Propensity Score-matched Analysis. Ann Surg 2024; 279:665-670. [PMID: 37389886 DOI: 10.1097/sla.0000000000005981] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 07/01/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE The goal of the current study was to investigate the perioperative outcomes of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) in a high-volume center. BACKGROUND Despite RPDs prospective advantages over OPD, current evidence comparing the 2 has been limited and has prompted further investigation. The aim of this study was to compare both approaches while including the learning curve phase for RPD. METHODS A 1:1 propensity score-matched analysis of a prospective database of RPD with OPD (2017-2022) at a high-volume center was performed. The main outcomes were overall- and pancreas-specific complications. RESULTS Of 375 patients who underwent PD (OPD n=276; RPD n=99), 180 were included in propensity score-matched analysis (90 per group). RPD was associated with less blood loss [500 (300-800) vs 750 (400-1000) mL; P =0.006] and more patients without a complication (50% vs 19%; P <0.001). Operative time was longer [453 (408-529) vs 306 (247-362) min; P <0.001]; in patients with ductal adenocarcinoma, fewer lymph nodes were harvested [24 (18-27) vs 33 (27-39); P <0.001] with RPD versus OPD. There were no significant differences for major complications (38% vs 47%; P =0.291), reoperation rate (14% vs 10%; P =0.495), postoperative pancreatic fistula (21% vs 23%; P =0.858), and patients with the textbook outcome (62% vs 55%; P =0.452). CONCLUSIONS Including the learning phase, RPD can be safely implemented in high-volume settings and shows potential for improved perioperative outcomes versus OPD. Pancreas-specific morbidity was unaffected by the robotic approach. Randomized trials with specifically trained pancreatic surgeons and expanded indications for the robotic approach are needed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Felix Nickel
- Department of General, Visceral, and Transplantation Surgery, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
- Department of General, Visceral, and Thoracic Surgery, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Philipp A Wise
- Department of General, Visceral, and Transplantation Surgery, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
- Department of General, Visceral, and Thoracic Surgery, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Philip C Müller
- Swiss HPB and Transplantation Center, Department of Surgery and Transplantation, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
- Department of Surgery, Clarunis University Center for Gastrointestinal and Liver Disease, University Hospital and St. Clare Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland
| | - Christoph Kuemmerli
- Department of Surgery, Clarunis University Center for Gastrointestinal and Liver Disease, University Hospital and St. Clare Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland
| | - Amila Cizmic
- Department of General, Visceral, and Transplantation Surgery, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
- Department of General, Visceral, and Thoracic Surgery, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Gabriel A Salg
- Department of General, Visceral, and Transplantation Surgery, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Verena Steinle
- Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Anna Niessen
- Department of General, Visceral, and Transplantation Surgery, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
- Department of General, Visceral, and Thoracic Surgery, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Philipp Mayer
- Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Arianeb Mehrabi
- Department of General, Visceral, and Transplantation Surgery, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Martin Loos
- Department of General, Visceral, and Transplantation Surgery, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Beat P Müller-Stich
- Department of General, Visceral, and Transplantation Surgery, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
- Department of Surgery, Clarunis University Center for Gastrointestinal and Liver Disease, University Hospital and St. Clare Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland
| | - Yakup Kulu
- Department of General, Visceral, and Transplantation Surgery, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Markus W Büchler
- Department of General, Visceral, and Transplantation Surgery, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Thilo Hackert
- Department of General, Visceral, and Transplantation Surgery, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
- Department of General, Visceral, and Thoracic Surgery, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
|
10
|
Zecchin Ferrara V, Martinino A, Toti F, Schilirò D, Pinto F, Giovinazzo F. Robotic Vascular Resection in Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: A Systematic Review. J Clin Med 2024; 13:2000. [PMID: 38610766 PMCID: PMC11012275 DOI: 10.3390/jcm13072000] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/27/2024] [Revised: 03/25/2024] [Accepted: 03/26/2024] [Indexed: 04/14/2024] Open
Abstract
(1) Background: This study comprehensively compared robotic pancreatic surgery with vascular resection (RPS-VR) to other surgical procedures in the treatment of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). (2) Methods: A systematic review of relevant literature was conducted to assess a range of crucial surgical and oncological outcomes. (3) Results: Findings indicate that robotic surgery with vascular resections (VRs) significantly prolongs the duration of surgery compared to other surgical procedures, and they notably demonstrate an equal hospital stay. While some studies reported a lower conversion rate and a higher rate of blood loss and blood transfusion in the RPS-VR group, others found no significant disparity. Furthermore, RPS-VR consistently correlated with comparable recurrence rates, free margins R0, postoperative mortality, and complication rates. Concerning the last one, certain reviews reported a higher rate of major complications. Overall survival and disease-free survival remained comparable between the RPS-VR and other surgical techniques in treating PDAC. (4) Conclusions: The analysis emphasizes how RPS-VR is a resembling approach in terms of surgical outcomes and aligns with existing literature findings in this field.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Francesco Toti
- Department of Surgery, ASST Santi Paolo e Carlo, 20100 Milan, Italy
| | - Davide Schilirò
- Department of Surgery, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA (D.S.)
| | - Federico Pinto
- Department of Surgery, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL 60607, USA
| | - Francesco Giovinazzo
- Department of Surgery, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, 00131 Rome, Italy
- Department of Health Sciences, UniCamillus-Saint Camillus International University, 00131 Rome, Italy
- Department of Surgery, Saint Camillus Hospital, 31100 Treviso, Italy
| | | |
Collapse
|
|
11
|
Ricci C, Kauffmann EF, Pagnanelli M, Fiorillo C, Ferrari C, De Blasi V, Panaro F, Rosso E, Zerbi A, Alfieri S, Boggi U, Casadei R. Minimally invasive versus open radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: an entropy balancing analysis. HPB (Oxford) 2024; 26:44-53. [PMID: 37775352 DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2023.09.013] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/21/2022] [Revised: 06/25/2023] [Accepted: 09/11/2023] [Indexed: 10/01/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The safety and efficacy of minimally invasive radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (MI-RAMPS) remain to be established in pancreatic cancer (PDAC) METHODS: Eighty-five open (O)-RAMPS were compared to 93 MI-RAMPS. The entropy balance matching approach was used to compare the two cohorts, eliminating the selection bias. Three models were created. Model 1 made O-RAMPS equal to the MI-RAMPS cohort (i.e., compared the two procedures for resectable PDAC); model 2 made MI-RAMPS equal to O-RAMPS (i.e., compared the two procedures for borderline-resectable PDAC); model 3, compared robotic and laparoscopic RAMPS. RESULTS O-RAMPS and MI-RAMPS showed "non-small" differences for BMI, comorbidity, back pain, tumor size, vascular resection, anterior or posterior RAMPS, multi-visceral resection, stump management, grading, and neoadjuvant therapy. Before reweighting, O-RAMPS had fewer clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistulae (CR-POPF) (20.0% vs. 40.9%; p = 0.003), while MI-RAMPS had a higher mean of lymph nodes (25.7 vs. 31.7; p = 0.011). In model 1, MI-RAMPS and O-RAMPS achieved similar results. In model 2, O-RAMPS was associated with lower comprehensive complication index scores (MD = 11.2; p = 0.038), and CR-POPF rates (OR = 0.2; p = 0.001). In model 3, robotic-RAMPS had a higher probability of negative resection margins. CONCLUSION In patients with anatomically resectable PDAC, MI-RAMPS is feasible and as safe as O-RAMPS.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Claudio Ricci
- Division of Pancreatic Surgery, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Di Bologna, via Albertoni 15, Italy; Department of Internal Medicine and Surgery (DIMEC), Alma Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna, Italy.
| | | | - Michele Pagnanelli
- Section of Pancreatic Surgery, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Rozzano, Italy
| | - Claudio Fiorillo
- Digestive Surgery Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario "A. Gemelli" IRCCS di Roma, Largo Agostino Gemelli, 8, 00168, Rome, Italy; Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore di Roma, Rome, Italy; CRMPG (Gemelli Pancreatic Advanced Research Center), Italy
| | - Cecilia Ferrari
- Department of Digestive Surgery and Transplantation, Saint-Eloi Hospital, Montpellier University Hospital, Montpellier University, Montpellier, France
| | - Vito De Blasi
- Department of Surgery, Centre Hospitalier de Luxembourg, Luxembourg
| | - Fabrizio Panaro
- Department of Digestive Surgery and Transplantation, Saint-Eloi Hospital, Montpellier University Hospital, Montpellier University, Montpellier, France
| | - Edoardo Rosso
- Department of Surgery, Centre Hospitalier de Luxembourg, Luxembourg
| | - Alessandro Zerbi
- Section of Pancreatic Surgery, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Rozzano, Italy; Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Pieve Emanuele, Italy
| | - Sergio Alfieri
- Digestive Surgery Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario "A. Gemelli" IRCCS di Roma, Largo Agostino Gemelli, 8, 00168, Rome, Italy; Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore di Roma, Rome, Italy; CRMPG (Gemelli Pancreatic Advanced Research Center), Italy
| | - Ugo Boggi
- Division of General and Transplant Surgery, University of Pisa, Italy
| | - Riccardo Casadei
- Division of Pancreatic Surgery, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Di Bologna, via Albertoni 15, Italy; Department of Internal Medicine and Surgery (DIMEC), Alma Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
|
12
|
Zwart MJ, van den Broek B, de Graaf N, Suurmeijer JA, Augustinus S, te Riele WW, van Santvoort HC, Hagendoorn J, Borel Rinkes IH, van Dam JL, Takagi K, Tran KT, Schreinemakers J, van der Schelling G, Wijsman JH, de Wilde RF, Festen S, Daams F, Luyer MD, de Hingh IH, Mieog JS, Bonsing BA, Lips DJ, Abu Hilal M, Busch OR, Saint-Marc O, Zeh HJ, Zureikat AH, Hogg ME, Koerkamp BG, Molenaar IQ, Besselink MG. The Feasibility, Proficiency, and Mastery Learning Curves in 635 Robotic Pancreatoduodenectomies Following a Multicenter Training Program: "Standing on the Shoulders of Giants". Ann Surg 2023; 278:e1232-e1241. [PMID: 37288547 PMCID: PMC10631507 DOI: 10.1097/sla.0000000000005928] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/09/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To assess the feasibility, proficiency, and mastery learning curves for robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) in "second-generation" RPD centers following a multicenter training program adhering to the IDEAL framework. BACKGROUND The long learning curves for RPD reported from "pioneering" expert centers may discourage centers interested in starting an RPD program. However, the feasibility, proficiency, and mastery learning curves may be shorter in "second-generation" centers that participated in dedicated RPD training programs, although data are lacking. We report on the learning curves for RPD in "second-generation" centers trained in a dedicated nationwide program. METHODS Post hoc analysis of all consecutive patients undergoing RPD in 7 centers that participated in the LAELAPS-3 training program, each with a minimum annual volume of 50 pancreatoduodenectomies, using the mandatory Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit (March 2016-December 2021). Cumulative sum analysis determined cutoffs for the 3 learning curves: operative time for the feasibility (1) risk-adjusted major complication (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III) for the proficiency, (2) and textbook outcome for the mastery, (3) learning curve. Outcomes before and after the cutoffs were compared for the proficiency and mastery learning curves. A survey was used to assess changes in practice and the most valued "lessons learned." RESULTS Overall, 635 RPD were performed by 17 trained surgeons, with a conversion rate of 6.6% (n=42). The median annual volume of RPD per center was 22.5±6.8. From 2016 to 2021, the nationwide annual use of RPD increased from 0% to 23% whereas the use of laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy decreased from 15% to 0%. The rate of major complications was 36.9% (n=234), surgical site infection 6.3% (n=40), postoperative pancreatic fistula (grade B/C) 26.9% (n=171), and 30-day/in-hospital mortality 3.5% (n=22). Cutoffs for the feasibility, proficiency, and mastery learning curves were reached at 15, 62, and 84 RPD. Major morbidity and 30-day/in-hospital mortality did not differ significantly before and after the cutoffs for the proficiency and mastery learning curves. Previous experience in laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy shortened the feasibility (-12 RPDs, -44%), proficiency (-32 RPDs, -34%), and mastery phase learning curve (-34 RPDs, -23%), but did not improve clinical outcome. CONCLUSIONS The feasibility, proficiency, and mastery learning curves for RPD at 15, 62, and 84 procedures in "second-generation" centers after a multicenter training program were considerably shorter than previously reported from "pioneering" expert centers. The learning curve cutoffs and prior laparoscopic experience did not impact major morbidity and mortality. These findings demonstrate the safety and value of a nationwide training program for RPD in centers with sufficient volume.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Maurice J.W. Zwart
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Bram van den Broek
- Department of Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Nine de Graaf
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Department of Surgery, Fondazione Poliambulanza Institute, Brescia, Italy
| | - José A. Suurmeijer
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Simone Augustinus
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Wouter W. te Riele
- Department of Surgery, Regional Academic Cancer Center Utrecht, UMC Utrecht Cancer Center & St Antonius Hospital Nieuwegein, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Hjalmar C. van Santvoort
- Department of Surgery, Regional Academic Cancer Center Utrecht, UMC Utrecht Cancer Center & St Antonius Hospital Nieuwegein, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Jeroen Hagendoorn
- Department of Surgery, Regional Academic Cancer Center Utrecht, UMC Utrecht Cancer Center & St Antonius Hospital Nieuwegein, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Inne H.M. Borel Rinkes
- Department of Surgery, Regional Academic Cancer Center Utrecht, UMC Utrecht Cancer Center & St Antonius Hospital Nieuwegein, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Jacob L. van Dam
- Department of Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Kosei Takagi
- Department of Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Khé T.C. Tran
- Department of Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | | | | | - Jan H. Wijsman
- Department of Surgery, Amphia Medical Center, Breda, the Netherlands
| | - Roeland F. de Wilde
- Department of Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | | | - Freek Daams
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Misha D. Luyer
- Department of Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, the Netherlands
| | | | - Jan S.D. Mieog
- Department of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands
| | - Bert A. Bonsing
- Department of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands
| | - Daan J. Lips
- Department of Surgery, Twente Medical Spectrum, Enschede, the Netherlands
| | - Mohamed Abu Hilal
- Department of Surgery, Fondazione Poliambulanza Institute, Brescia, Italy
- Department of Surgery, Southampton University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK
| | - Olivier R. Busch
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | | | - Herbert J. Zeh
- Department of Surgery, University of Texas, Southwestern, Dallas, TX
| | - Amer H. Zureikat
- Department of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA
| | - Melissa E. Hogg
- Department of Surgery, Northshore University HealthSystem, Chicago, IL
| | - Bas G. Koerkamp
- Department of Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Isaac Q. Molenaar
- Department of Surgery, Regional Academic Cancer Center Utrecht, UMC Utrecht Cancer Center & St Antonius Hospital Nieuwegein, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Marc G. Besselink
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
|
13
|
Napoli N, Kauffmann EF, Ginesini M, Lami L, Lombardo C, Vistoli F, Campani D, Boggi U. Ca 125 is an independent prognostic marker in resected pancreatic cancer of the head of the pancreas. Updates Surg 2023; 75:1481-1496. [PMID: 37535191 PMCID: PMC10435596 DOI: 10.1007/s13304-023-01587-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/02/2023] [Accepted: 07/05/2023] [Indexed: 08/04/2023]
Abstract
The prognostic value of carbohydrate antigen 125 (Ca 125) is emerging also in pancreatic cancer (PDAC). In this study, we aim to define the prognostic value of Ca 125 in resected PDAC of the head of the pancreas. This is a single-center, retrospective study. Data from patients with a pre-operative assay of Ca 125 who underwent a pancreatic resection for PDAC between 2010 and 2018 were analyzed. As per National Comprehensive Cancer Guidelines, tumors were classified in resectable (R-PDAC), borderline resectable (BR-PDAC), and locally advanced (LA-PDAC). The Kaplan-Meier method was used to evaluate the overall survival. Cox proportional hazard regression was used to evaluate the role of pre-operative Ca 125 in predicting survival (while adjusting for confounders). The maximally selected log-rank statistic was used to identify a Ca 125 cut-off defining two groups with different survival probability. Inclusion criteria were met by 207 patients (R-PDAC: 80, BR-PDAC: 91, and LA-PDAC: 36). Ca 125 predicted overall survival before and after adjusting for confounding factors in all categories of anatomic resectability (R-PDAC: HR = 4.3; p = 0.0249) (BR-PDAC: HR = 7.82; p = 0.0024) (LA-PDAC: HR = 11.4; p = 0.0043). In BR-PDAC and LA-PDAC (n = 127), the division in two groups (high vs. low Ca 125) correlated with T stage (p = 0.0317), N stage (p = 0.0083), mean LN ratio (p = 0.0292), and tumor grading (p = 0.0143). This study confirmed the prognostic value of Ca125 in resected pancreatic cancer and, therefore, the importance of biologic over anatomic resectability. Ca 125 should be routinely assayed in surgical candidates with PDAC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Niccolò Napoli
- Division of General and Transplant Surgery, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
| | | | - Michael Ginesini
- Division of General and Transplant Surgery, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy
| | - Lucrezia Lami
- Division of General and Transplant Surgery, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy
| | - Carlo Lombardo
- Division of General and Transplant Surgery, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy
| | - Fabio Vistoli
- Division of General and Transplant Surgery, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy
| | | | - Ugo Boggi
- Division of General and Transplant Surgery, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
|
14
|
Kauffmann EF, Napoli N, Di Dato A, Salamone A, Ginesini M, Gianfaldoni C, Viti V, Amorese G, Cappelli C, Vistoli F, Boggi U. Practical implications of tumor proximity to landmark vessels in minimally invasive radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy. Updates Surg 2023; 75:1533-1540. [PMID: 37458902 PMCID: PMC10435633 DOI: 10.1007/s13304-023-01584-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/02/2023] [Accepted: 07/05/2023] [Indexed: 08/18/2023]
Abstract
Careful preoperative planning is key in minimally invasive radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (MI-RAMPS). This retrospective study aims to show the practical implications of computed tomography distance between the right margin of the tumor and either the left margin of the spleno-mesenteric confluence (d-SMC) or the gastroduodenal artery (d-GDA). Between January 2011 and June 2022, 48 minimally invasive RAMPS were performed for either pancreatic cancer or malignant intraductal mucinous papillary neoplasms. Two procedures were converted to open surgery (4.3%). Mean tumor size was 31.1 ± 14.7 mm. Mean d-SMC was 21.5 ± 18.5 mm. Mean d-GDA was 41.2 ± 23.2 mm. A vein resection was performed in 10 patients (20.8%) and the pancreatic neck could not be divided by an endoscopic stapler in 19 operations (43.1%). In patients requiring a vein resection, mean d-SMC was 10 mm (1.5-15.5) compared to 18 mm (10-37) in those without vein resection (p = 0.01). The cut-off of d-SMC to perform a vein resection was 17 mm (AUC 0.75). Mean d-GDA was 26 mm (19-39) mm when an endoscopic stapler could not be used to divide the pancreas, and 46 mm (30-65) when the neck of the pancreas was stapled (p = 0.01). The cut-off of d-GDA to safely pass an endoscopic stapler behind the neck of the pancreas was 43 mm (AUC 0.75). Computed tomography d-SMC and d-GDA are key measurements when planning for MI-RAMPS.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emanuele Federico Kauffmann
- Division of General and Transplant Surgery, University of Pisa, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Pisana, Via Paradisa 2, 56124 Pisa, Italy
| | - Niccolò Napoli
- Division of General and Transplant Surgery, University of Pisa, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Pisana, Via Paradisa 2, 56124 Pisa, Italy
| | - Armando Di Dato
- Division of General and Transplant Surgery, University of Pisa, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Pisana, Via Paradisa 2, 56124 Pisa, Italy
| | - Alice Salamone
- Division of General and Transplant Surgery, University of Pisa, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Pisana, Via Paradisa 2, 56124 Pisa, Italy
| | - Michael Ginesini
- Division of General and Transplant Surgery, University of Pisa, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Pisana, Via Paradisa 2, 56124 Pisa, Italy
| | - Cesare Gianfaldoni
- Division of General and Transplant Surgery, University of Pisa, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Pisana, Via Paradisa 2, 56124 Pisa, Italy
| | - Virginia Viti
- Division of General and Transplant Surgery, University of Pisa, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Pisana, Via Paradisa 2, 56124 Pisa, Italy
| | - Gabriella Amorese
- Division of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Pisana, Pisa, Italy
| | - Carla Cappelli
- Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Pisana, Pisa, Italy
| | - Fabio Vistoli
- Division of General and Transplant Surgery, University of Pisa, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Pisana, Via Paradisa 2, 56124 Pisa, Italy
| | - Ugo Boggi
- Division of General and Transplant Surgery, University of Pisa, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Pisana, Via Paradisa 2, 56124 Pisa, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
|
15
|
Napoli N, Cacace C, Kauffmann EF, Jones L, Ginesini M, Gianfaldoni C, Salamone A, Asta F, Ripolli A, Di Dato A, Busch OR, Cappelle ML, Chao YJ, de Wilde RF, Hackert T, Jang JY, Koerkamp BG, Kwon W, Lips D, Luyer MDP, Nickel F, Saint-Marc O, Shan YS, Shen B, Vistoli F, Besselink MG, Hilal MA, Boggi U. The PD-ROBOSCORE: A difficulty score for robotic pancreatoduodenectomy. Surgery 2023; 173:1438-1446. [PMID: 36973127 DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2023.02.020] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/21/2022] [Revised: 02/12/2023] [Accepted: 02/22/2023] [Indexed: 03/29/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Difficulty scoring systems are important for the safe, stepwise implementation of new procedures. We designed a retrospective observational study for building a difficulty score for robotic pancreatoduodenectomy. METHODS The difficulty score (PD-ROBOSCORE) aims at predicting severe postoperative complications after robotic pancreatoduodenectomy. The PD-ROBOSCORE was developed in a training cohort of 198 robotic pancreatoduodenectomies and was validated in an international multicenter cohort of 686 robotic pancreatoduodenectomies. Finally, all centers tested the model during the early learning curve (n = 300). Growing difficulty levels (low, intermediate, high) were defined using cut-off values set at the 33rd and 66th percentile (NCT04662346). RESULTS Factors included in the final multivariate model were a body mass index of ≥25 kg/m2 for males and ≥30 kg/m2 for females (odds ratio:2.39; P < .0001), borderline resectable tumor (odd ratio:1.98; P < .0001), uncinate process tumor (odds ratio:1.69; P < .0001), pancreatic duct size <4 mm (odds ratio:1.59; P < .0001), American Society of Anesthesiologists class ≥3 (odds ratio:1.59; P < .0001), and hepatic artery originating from the superior mesenteric artery (odds ratio:1.43; P < .0001). In the training cohort, the absolute score value (odds ratio = 1.13; P = .0089) and difficulty groups (odds ratio = 2.35; P = .041) predicted severe postoperative complications. In the multicenter validation cohort, the absolute score value predicted severe postoperative complications (odds ratio = 1.16, P < .001), whereas the difficulty groups did not (odds ratio = 1.94, P = .082). In the learning curve cohort, both absolute score value (odds ratio:1.078, P = .04) and difficulty groups (odds ratio: 2.25, P = .017) predicted severe postoperative complications. Across all cohorts, a PD-ROBOSCORE of ≥12.51 doubled the risk of severe postoperative complications. The PD-ROBOSCORE score also predicted operative time, estimated blood loss, and vein resection. The PD-ROBOSCORE predicted postoperative pancreatic fistula, delayed gastric emptying, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage, and postoperative mortality in the learning curve cohort. CONCLUSION The PD-ROBOSCORE predicts severe postoperative complications after robotic pancreatoduodenectomy. The score is readily available via www.pancreascalculator.com.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Niccolò Napoli
- Division of General and Transplant Surgery, University of Pisa, Italy
| | - Concetta Cacace
- Division of General and Transplant Surgery, University of Pisa, Italy
| | | | - Leia Jones
- Department of General Surgery, Istituto Ospedaliero Fondazione Poliambulanza, Brescia, Italy; Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Netherlands; Cancer Center Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Michael Ginesini
- Division of General and Transplant Surgery, University of Pisa, Italy
| | | | - Alice Salamone
- Division of General and Transplant Surgery, University of Pisa, Italy
| | - Fabio Asta
- Division of General and Transplant Surgery, University of Pisa, Italy
| | - Allegra Ripolli
- Division of General and Transplant Surgery, University of Pisa, Italy
| | - Armando Di Dato
- Division of General and Transplant Surgery, University of Pisa, Italy
| | - Olivier R Busch
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Netherlands; Cancer Center Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Marie L Cappelle
- Department of Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, Netherlands
| | - Ying Jui Chao
- Department of Surgery, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University Hospital, Tainan, Taiwan
| | - Roeland F de Wilde
- Department of Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, Netherlands
| | - Thilo Hackert
- Department of General, Visceral, and Transplantation Surgery, Heidelberg University Hospital, Germany
| | - Jin-Young Jang
- Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Bas Groot Koerkamp
- Department of Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, Netherlands
| | - Wooil Kwon
- Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Daan Lips
- Department of Surgery, Medisch Spectrum Twente, Enschede, Netherlands
| | - Misha D P Luyer
- Department of Surgery, Catharina Hospital Eindhoven, Eindhoven, Netherlands
| | - Felix Nickel
- Department of General, Visceral, and Transplantation Surgery, Heidelberg University Hospital, Germany
| | - Olivier Saint-Marc
- Department of Surgery, Centre Hospitalier Regional D'Orleans, Orléans, France
| | - Yan-Shen Shan
- Department of Surgery, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University Hospital, Tainan, Taiwan
| | - Baiyong Shen
- Department of General Surgery, Ruijin Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
| | - Fabio Vistoli
- Division of General and Transplant Surgery, University of Pisa, Italy
| | - Marc G Besselink
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Netherlands; Cancer Center Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Mohammad Abu Hilal
- Department of General Surgery, Istituto Ospedaliero Fondazione Poliambulanza, Brescia, Italy
| | - Ugo Boggi
- Division of General and Transplant Surgery, University of Pisa, Italy.
| |
Collapse
|
|
16
|
Kauffmann EF, Napoli N, Ginesini M, Gianfaldoni C, Asta F, Salamone A, Ripolli A, Di Dato A, Vistoli F, Amorese G, Boggi U. Tips and tricks for robotic pancreatoduodenectomy with superior mesenteric/portal vein resection and reconstruction. Surg Endosc 2023; 37:3233-3245. [PMID: 36624216 PMCID: PMC10082118 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-022-09860-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/28/2022] [Accepted: 12/27/2022] [Indexed: 01/10/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Open pancreatoduodenectomy with vein resection (OPD-VR) is now standard of care in patients who responded to neoadjuvant therapies. Feasibility of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) with vein resection (RPD-VR) was shown, but no study provided a detailed description of the technical challenges associated with this formidable operation. Herein, we describe the trips and tricks for technically successful RPD-VR. METHODS The vascular techniques used in RPD-VR were borrowed from OPD-VR, as well as from our experience with robotic transplantation of both kidney and pancreas. Vein resection was classified into 4 types according to the international study group of pancreatic surgery. Each type of vein resection was described in detail and shown in a video. RESULTS Between October 2008 and November 2021, a total of 783 pancreatoduodenectomies were performed, including 233 OPDs-VR (29.7%). RPD was performed in 256 patients (32.6%), and RPDs-VR in 36 patients (4.5% of all pancreatoduodenectomies; 15.4% of all pancreatoduodenectomies with vein resection; 14.0% of all RPDs). In RPD-VR vein resections were: 4 type 1 (11.1%), 10 type 2 (27.8%), 12 type 3 (33.3%) and 10 type 4 (27.8%). Vascular patches used in type 2 resections were made of peritoneum (n = 8), greater saphenous vein (n = 1), and deceased donor aorta (n = 1). Interposition grafts used in type 4 resections were internal left jugular vein (n = 8), venous graft from deceased donor (n = 1) and spiral saphenous vein graft (n = 1). There was one conversion to open surgery (2.8%). Ninety-day mortality was 8.3%. There was one (2.8%) partial vein thrombosis, treated with heparin infusion. CONCLUSIONS We have reported 36 technically successful RPDs-VR. We hope that the tips and tricks provided herein can contribute to safer implementation of RPD-VR. Based on our experience, and according to data from the literature, we strongly advise that RPD-VR is performed by expert surgeons at high volume centers.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emanuele F Kauffmann
- Division of General and Transplant Surgery, University of Pisa, Via Paradisa 2, 56124, Pisa, Italy.
| | - Niccolò Napoli
- Division of General and Transplant Surgery, University of Pisa, Via Paradisa 2, 56124, Pisa, Italy
| | - Michael Ginesini
- Division of General and Transplant Surgery, University of Pisa, Via Paradisa 2, 56124, Pisa, Italy
| | - Cesare Gianfaldoni
- Division of General and Transplant Surgery, University of Pisa, Via Paradisa 2, 56124, Pisa, Italy
| | - Fabio Asta
- Division of General and Transplant Surgery, University of Pisa, Via Paradisa 2, 56124, Pisa, Italy
| | - Alice Salamone
- Division of General and Transplant Surgery, University of Pisa, Via Paradisa 2, 56124, Pisa, Italy
| | - Allegra Ripolli
- Division of General and Transplant Surgery, University of Pisa, Via Paradisa 2, 56124, Pisa, Italy
| | - Armando Di Dato
- Division of General and Transplant Surgery, University of Pisa, Via Paradisa 2, 56124, Pisa, Italy
| | - Fabio Vistoli
- Division of General and Transplant Surgery, University of Pisa, Via Paradisa 2, 56124, Pisa, Italy
| | - Gabriella Amorese
- Division of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Pisana, Pisa, Italy
| | - Ugo Boggi
- Division of General and Transplant Surgery, University of Pisa, Via Paradisa 2, 56124, Pisa, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
|
17
|
Levi Sandri GB, Abu Hilal M, Dokmak S, Edwin B, Hackert T, Keck T, Khatkov I, Besselink MG, Boggi U. Figures do matter: A literature review of 4587 robotic pancreatic resections and their implications on training. JOURNAL OF HEPATO-BILIARY-PANCREATIC SCIENCES 2023; 30:21-35. [PMID: 35751504 DOI: 10.1002/jhbp.1209] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/11/2021] [Revised: 04/07/2022] [Accepted: 06/16/2022] [Indexed: 01/19/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The use of robotic assistance in minimally invasive pancreatic resection is quickly growing. METHODS We present a systematic review of the literature regarding all types of robotic pancreatic resection (RPR). Our aim is to show for which procedures there is enough experience to permit safe training and provide an estimation of how many centers could serve as teaching institutions. RESULTS Sixty-four studies reporting on 4587 RPRs were analyzed. A total of 2598 pancreatoduodenectomies (PD) were reported by 28 centers from Europe (6/28; 21.4%), the Americas (11/28; 39.3%), and Asia (11/28; 39.3%). Six studies reported >100 robot PD (1694/2598; 65.2%). A total of 1618 distal pancreatectomies (DP) were reported by 29 centers from Europe (10/29; 34.5%), the Americas (10/29; 34.5%), and Asia (9/29; 31%). Five studies reported >100 robotic DP (748/1618; 46.2%). A total of 154 central pancreatectomies were reported by six centers from Europe (1/6; 16.7%), the Americas (2/6; 33.3%), and Asia (3/6; 50%). Only 49 total pancreatectomies were reported. Finally, 168 enucleations were reported in seven studies (with a mean of 15.4 cases per study). A single center reported on 60 enucleations (35.7%). Results of each type of robotic procedure are also presented. CONCLUSIONS Experience with RPR is still quite limited. Despite high case volume not being sufficient to warrant optimal training opportunities, it is certainly a key component of every successful training program and is a major criterion for fellowship accreditation. From this review, it appears that only PD and DP can currently be taught at few institutions worldwide.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Mohammed Abu Hilal
- Department of Surgery, Fondazione Poliambulanza - Istituto Ospedaliero, Brescia, Italy
| | - Safi Dokmak
- Department of HPB Surgery and Liver Transplantation, DMU DIGEST, AP-HP, Hôpital Beaujon, Clichy, France
| | - Bjørn Edwin
- The Intervention Centre and Department of HPB Surgery, Oslo University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
| | - Thilo Hackert
- Klinik für Allgemein-, Viszeral- und Transplantationschirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Tobias Keck
- Klinik für Chirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein, Lübeck, Germany
| | - Igor Khatkov
- Department of Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery, Moscow Clinical Scientific Center, Moscow, Russia
| | - Marc G Besselink
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Ugo Boggi
- Department of Translational Research and New Surgical and Medical Technologies, Division of General and Transplant Surgery, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
|
18
|
Kauffmann EF, Napoli N, Ginesini M, Gianfaldoni C, Asta F, Salamone A, Amorese G, Vistoli F, Boggi U. Feasibility of "cold" triangle robotic pancreatoduodenectomy. Surg Endosc 2022; 36:9424-9434. [PMID: 35881243 PMCID: PMC9652209 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-022-09411-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/31/2022] [Accepted: 06/19/2022] [Indexed: 01/06/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Triangle pancreatoduodenectomy adds to the conventional procedure the en bloc removal of the retroperitoneal lympho-neural tissue included in the triangular area bounded by the common hepatic artery (CHA), the superior mesenteric artery (SMA), and the superior mesenteric vein/portal vein. We herein aim to show the feasibility of "cold" triangle robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (C-Tr-RPD) for pancreatic cancer (PDAC). METHODS Cold dissection corresponds to sharp arterial divestment performed using only the tips of robotic scissors. After division of the gastroduodenal artery, triangle dissection begins by lateral-to-medial divestment of the CHA and anterior-to-posterior clearance of the right side of the celiac trunk. Next, after a wide Kocher maneuver, the origin of the SMA, and the celiac trunk are identified. After mobilization of the first jejunal loop and attached mesentery, the SMA is identified at the level of the first jejunal vein and is divested along the right margin working in a distal-to-proximal direction. Vein resection and reconstruction can be performed as required. C-Tr-RPD was considered feasible if triangle dissection was successfully completed without conversion to open surgery or need to use energy devices. Postoperative complications and pathology results are presented in detail. RESULTS One hundred twenty-seven consecutive C-Tr-RPDs were successfully performed. There were three conversions to open surgery (2.3%), because of pneumoperitoneum intolerance (n = 2) and difficult digestive reconstruction. Thirty-four patients (26.7%) required associated vascular procedures. No pseudoaneurysm of the gastroduodenal artery was observed. Twenty-eight patients (22.0%) developed severe postoperative complications (≥ grade III). Overall 90-day mortality was 7.1%, declining to 2.3% after completion of the learning curve. The median number of examined lymph nodes was 42 (33-51). The rate of R1 resection (7 margins < 1 mm) was 44.1%. CONCLUSION C-Tr-RPD is feasible, carries a risk of surgical complications commensurate to the magnitude of the procedure, and improves staging of PDAC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emanuele F. Kauffmann
- Division of General and Transplant Surgery, University of Pisa, Via Paradisa 2, 56124 Pisa, Italy
| | - Niccolò Napoli
- Division of General and Transplant Surgery, University of Pisa, Via Paradisa 2, 56124 Pisa, Italy
| | - Michael Ginesini
- Division of General and Transplant Surgery, University of Pisa, Via Paradisa 2, 56124 Pisa, Italy
| | - Cesare Gianfaldoni
- Division of General and Transplant Surgery, University of Pisa, Via Paradisa 2, 56124 Pisa, Italy
| | - Fabio Asta
- Division of General and Transplant Surgery, University of Pisa, Via Paradisa 2, 56124 Pisa, Italy
| | - Alice Salamone
- Division of General and Transplant Surgery, University of Pisa, Via Paradisa 2, 56124 Pisa, Italy
| | - Gabriella Amorese
- Division of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Pisana, Pisa, Italy
| | - Fabio Vistoli
- Division of General and Transplant Surgery, University of Pisa, Via Paradisa 2, 56124 Pisa, Italy
| | - Ugo Boggi
- Division of General and Transplant Surgery, University of Pisa, Via Paradisa 2, 56124 Pisa, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
|
19
|
Robotic Pancreatoduodenectomy: From the First Worldwide Procedure to the Actual State of the Art. CURRENT SURGERY REPORTS 2022. [DOI: 10.1007/s40137-022-00319-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/17/2022]
|
|
20
|
Jin J, Yin SM, Weng Y, Chen M, Shi Y, Ying X, Gemenetzis G, Qin K, Zhang J, Deng X, Peng C, Shen B. Robotic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy with vascular resection for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: surgical and oncological outcomes from pilot experience. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2022; 407:1489-1497. [PMID: 35088144 DOI: 10.1007/s00423-021-02364-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/05/2021] [Accepted: 10/18/2021] [Indexed: 01/01/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Venous resection and reconstruction (VR) is a feasible surgical technique to achieve optimal outcomes in selected patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) who undergo open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD). However, data regarding patient outcomes in patients who undergo VR in robotic-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) are scarce. METHODS All patients with a diagnosis of PDAC who underwent upfront open or robotic pancreatoduodenectomy with VR in a high-volume institution for pancreatic surgery between 2011 and 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. Perioperative and long-term outcomes were compared between the RPD and OPD cohorts. RESULTS A total of 84 patients were included in the final analysis, 14 patients underwent RPD with VR and 70 who had OPD with VR. Reconstructed venous patency, postoperative 30-day morbidity, and 90-day mortality were comparable; however, lymph node resection rates were lower in the RPC cohort (p = 0.029). No difference was identified in 3-year survival rates between the two groups (34.0% versus 25.7% respectively, p = 0.667). CONCLUSION RPD with VR is a feasible approach for patients with PDAC and venous invasion. Further studies are needed to assess long-term outcomes compared to the open approach.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jiabin Jin
- Department of General Surgery, Pancreatic Disease Center, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
- Research Institute of Pancreatic Diseases, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
| | - Shih-Min Yin
- Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital and Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung, Taiwan
| | - Yuanchi Weng
- Department of General Surgery, Pancreatic Disease Center, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
- Research Institute of Pancreatic Diseases, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
| | - Mengmin Chen
- Department of General Surgery, Pancreatic Disease Center, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
- Research Institute of Pancreatic Diseases, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
| | - Yusheng Shi
- Department of General Surgery, Pancreatic Disease Center, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
- Research Institute of Pancreatic Diseases, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
| | - Xiayang Ying
- Department of General Surgery, Pancreatic Disease Center, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
- Research Institute of Pancreatic Diseases, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
| | | | - Kai Qin
- Department of General Surgery, Pancreatic Disease Center, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
- Research Institute of Pancreatic Diseases, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
| | - Jun Zhang
- Department of General Surgery, Pancreatic Disease Center, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
- Research Institute of Pancreatic Diseases, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
| | - Xiaxing Deng
- Department of General Surgery, Pancreatic Disease Center, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
- Research Institute of Pancreatic Diseases, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
- Department of Pancreatic Surgery, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, 200025, China.
| | - Chenghong Peng
- Department of General Surgery, Pancreatic Disease Center, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
- Research Institute of Pancreatic Diseases, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
- Department of Pancreatic Surgery, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, 200025, China.
| | - Baiyong Shen
- Department of General Surgery, Pancreatic Disease Center, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
- Research Institute of Pancreatic Diseases, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
- Department of Pancreatic Surgery, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, 200025, China.
| |
Collapse
|
|
21
|
Lee SR, Kwon J, Shin JH. Current status of robotic surgery for pancreatic tumors. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GASTROINTESTINAL INTERVENTION 2022. [DOI: 10.18528/ijgii220011] [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: 11/22/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Sung Ryol Lee
- Department of Surgery, Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Jaewoo Kwon
- Department of Surgery, Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Jun Ho Shin
- Department of Surgery, Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| |
Collapse
|
|
22
|
Vascular resections in minimally invasive surgery for pancreatic cancer. LAPAROSCOPIC, ENDOSCOPIC AND ROBOTIC SURGERY 2021. [DOI: 10.1016/j.lers.2021.09.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/19/2022] Open
|
|
23
|
Boggi U, Vistoli F, Andres A, Arbogast HP, Badet L, Baronti W, Bartlett ST, Benedetti E, Branchereau J, Burke GW, Buron F, Caldara R, Cardillo M, Casanova D, Cipriani F, Cooper M, Cupisti A, Davide J, Drachenberg C, de Koning EJP, Ettorre GM, Fernandez Cruz L, Fridell JA, Friend PJ, Furian L, Gaber OA, Gruessner AC, Gruessner RW, Gunton JE, Han D, Iacopi S, Kauffmann EF, Kaufman D, Kenmochi T, Khambalia HA, Lai Q, Langer RM, Maffi P, Marselli L, Menichetti F, Miccoli M, Mittal S, Morelon E, Napoli N, Neri F, Oberholzer J, Odorico JS, Öllinger R, Oniscu G, Orlando G, Ortenzi M, Perosa M, Perrone VG, Pleass H, Redfield RR, Ricci C, Rigotti P, Paul Robertson R, Ross LF, Rossi M, Saudek F, Scalea JR, Schenker P, Secchi A, Socci C, Sousa Silva D, Squifflet JP, Stock PG, Stratta RJ, Terrenzio C, Uva P, Watson CJ, White SA, Marchetti P, Kandaswamy R, Berney T. First World Consensus Conference on pancreas transplantation: Part II - recommendations. Am J Transplant 2021; 21 Suppl 3:17-59. [PMID: 34245223 PMCID: PMC8518376 DOI: 10.1111/ajt.16750] [Citation(s) in RCA: 36] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/19/2021] [Revised: 06/25/2021] [Accepted: 06/26/2021] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
The First World Consensus Conference on Pancreas Transplantation provided 49 jury deliberations regarding the impact of pancreas transplantation on the treatment of diabetic patients, and 110 experts' recommendations for the practice of pancreas transplantation. The main message from this consensus conference is that both simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation (SPK) and pancreas transplantation alone can improve long-term patient survival, and all types of pancreas transplantation dramatically improve the quality of life of recipients. Pancreas transplantation may also improve the course of chronic complications of diabetes, depending on their severity. Therefore, the advantages of pancreas transplantation appear to clearly surpass potential disadvantages. Pancreas after kidney transplantation increases the risk of mortality only in the early period after transplantation, but is associated with improved life expectancy thereafter. Additionally, preemptive SPK, when compared to SPK performed in patients undergoing dialysis, appears to be associated with improved outcomes. Time on dialysis has negative prognostic implications in SPK recipients. Increased long-term survival, improvement in the course of diabetic complications, and amelioration of quality of life justify preferential allocation of kidney grafts to SPK recipients. Audience discussions and live voting are available online at the following URL address: http://mediaeventi.unipi.it/category/1st-world-consensus-conference-of-pancreas-transplantation/246.
Collapse
|
|
24
|
Nakata K, Nakamura M. The current status and future directions of robotic pancreatectomy. Ann Gastroenterol Surg 2021; 5:467-476. [PMID: 34337295 PMCID: PMC8316739 DOI: 10.1002/ags3.12446] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/02/2020] [Revised: 01/19/2021] [Accepted: 01/28/2021] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
Robotic surgery has emerged as an alternative to laparoscopic surgery and it has also been applied to pancreatectomy. With the increase in the number of robotic pancreatectomies, several studies comparing robotic pancreatectomy and conventional open or laparoscopic pancreatectomy have been published. However, the use of robotic pancreatectomy remains controversial. In this review, we aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of the current status of robotic pancreatectomy. Various aspects of robotic pancreatectomy and conventional open or laparoscopic pancreatectomy are compared, including the benefits, limitations, oncological efficacy, learning curves, and costs. Both robotic pancreatoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy have favorable or comparable outcomes to conventional procedures, and robotic pancreatectomy has the potential to be an alternative to open or laparoscopic procedures. However, there are still several disadvantages to robotic platforms, such as prolonged operative duration and the high cost of the procedure. These disadvantages will be improved by developing instruments, overcoming the learning curve, and increasing the number of robotic pancreatectomies. In addition, robotic pancreatectomy is still in the introductory period in most centers and should only be used in accordance with strict indications.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kohei Nakata
- Department of Surgery and OncologyGraduate School of Medical SciencesKyushu UniversityFukuokaJapan
| | - Masafumi Nakamura
- Department of Surgery and OncologyGraduate School of Medical SciencesKyushu UniversityFukuokaJapan
| |
Collapse
|
|
25
|
Abstract
Current evidence shows that robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) is feasible with a safety profile equivalent to either open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) or laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD). However, major intraoperative bleeding can occur and emergency conversion to OPD may be required. RPD reduces the risk of emergency conversion when compared to LPD. The learning curve of RPD ranges from 20 to 40 procedures, but proficiency is reached only after 250 operations. Once proficiency is achieved, the results of RPD may be superior to those of OPD. As for now, RPD is at least equivalent to OPD and LPD with respect to incidence and severity of POPF, incidence and severity of post-operative complications, and post-operative mortality. A minimal annual number of 20 procedures per center is recommended. In pancreatic cancer (versus OPD), RPD is associated with similar rates of R0 resections, but higher number of examined lymph nodes, lower blood loss, and lower need of blood transfusions. Multivariable analysis shows that RPD could improve patient survival. Data from selected centers show that vein resection and reconstruction is feasible during RPD, but at the price of high conversion rates and frequent use of small tangential resections. The true Achilles heel of RPD is higher operative costs that limit wider implementation of the procedure and accumulation of a large experience at most single centers. In conclusion, when proficiency is achieved, RPD may be superior to OPD with respect to CR-POPF and oncologic outcomes. Achievement of proficiency requires commitment, dedication, and truly high volumes.
Collapse
|
|
26
|
Kauffmann EF, Napoli N, Genovese V, Ginesini M, Gianfaldoni C, Vistoli F, Amorese G, Boggi U. Feasibility and safety of robotic-assisted total pancreatectomy: a pilot western series. Updates Surg 2021; 73:955-966. [PMID: 34009627 PMCID: PMC8184722 DOI: 10.1007/s13304-021-01079-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/13/2021] [Accepted: 05/03/2021] [Indexed: 01/04/2023]
Abstract
This study was designed to demonstrate non-inferiority of robot-assisted total pancreatectomy (RATP) to open total pancreatectomy (OPT) based on an intention-to-treat analysis, having occurrence of severe post-operative complications (SPC) as primary study endpoint. The two groups were matched (2:1) by propensity scores. Assuming a rate of SPC of 22.5% (non-inferiority margin: 15%; α: 0.05; β: 0.20; power: 80%), a total of 25 patients were required per group. During the study period (October 2008–December 2019), 209 patients received a total pancreatectomy. After application of exclusion and inclusion criteria, matched groups were extracted from an overall cohort of 132 patients (OPT: 107; RATP: 25). Before matching, the two groups were different with respect to prevalence of cardiac disease (24.3% versus 4.0%; p = 0.03), presence of jaundice (45.8% versus 12.0%; p = 0.002), presence of a biliary drainage (23.4% versus 0; p = 0.004), history of weight loss (28.0% versus 8.0%; p = 0.04), and vein involvement (55.1% versus 28.0%) (p = 0.03). After matching, the two groups (OTP: 50; RATP: 25) were well balanced. Regarding primary study endpoint, SPC developed in 13 patients (26.0%) after OTP and in 6 patients (24.0%) after RATP (p = 0.85). Regarding secondary study endpoints, RATP was associated with longer median operating times [475 (408.8–582.5) versus 585 min (525–637.5) p = 0.003]. After a median follow-up time of 23.7 months (10.4–71), overall survival time [22.6 (11.2–81.2) versus NA (27.3–NA) p = 0.006] and cancer-specific survival [22.6 (11.2–NA) versus NA (27.3–NA) p = 0.02] were improved in patients undergoing RATP. In carefully selected patients, robot-assisted total pancreatectomy is non-inferior to open total pancreatectomy regarding occurrence of severe post-operative complications.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Niccolò Napoli
- Division of General and Transplant Surgery, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy
| | - Valerio Genovese
- Division of General and Transplant Surgery, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy
| | - Michael Ginesini
- Division of General and Transplant Surgery, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy
| | - Cesare Gianfaldoni
- Division of General and Transplant Surgery, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy
| | - Fabio Vistoli
- Division of General and Transplant Surgery, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy
| | - Gabriella Amorese
- Division of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Pisana, Pisa, Italy
| | - Ugo Boggi
- Division of General and Transplant Surgery, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
| |
Collapse
|
|
27
|
Azagra JS, Rosso E, Pascotto B, de Blasi V, Henrard A, González González L. Real robotic total mesopancreas excision (TMpE) assisted by hanging manoeuver (HM): Standardised technique. Int J Med Robot 2021; 17:e2259. [PMID: 33825351 DOI: 10.1002/rcs.2259] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/28/2021] [Revised: 03/06/2021] [Accepted: 04/02/2021] [Indexed: 12/28/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is one of the most demanding interventions for digestive surgeons. R0 resection is a key point for the overall survival and disease-free survival. Total mesopancreas excision (TMpE) has been described by laparotomy but laparoscopy did not provide good results probably because of the technical difficulties of the approach. We propose a standardised total robotic approach. METHODS In this step-by-step technical description, we propose as example, a case of a 53-year-old man with a pancreatic head adenocarcinoma with doubts about the invasion of the mesopancreas surrounding superior mesenteric artery. The mesopancreas hanging manoeuver allows us to perform a TMpE. RESULTS The surgery performed was a robotic artery first pancreaticoduodenectomy with TMpE. The pathological result was pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma pT2, N1 (1/23), M0, V0, L0, Pn0, R0. CONCLUSIONS Robotic approach is safe, effective and reproductible. Through a standardised technique, it may overcome some of the technical difficulties of laparoscopic PD.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Juan Santiago Azagra
- Department of General and Minimally Invasive Surgery (Laparoscopy and Robotic), Centre Hospitalier de Luxembourg, Luxembourg, Luxembourg
| | - Edoardo Rosso
- Department of General and Minimally Invasive Surgery (Laparoscopy and Robotic), Centre Hospitalier de Luxembourg, Luxembourg, Luxembourg
| | - Beniamino Pascotto
- Department of General and Minimally Invasive Surgery (Laparoscopy and Robotic), Centre Hospitalier de Luxembourg, Luxembourg, Luxembourg
| | - Vito de Blasi
- Department of General and Minimally Invasive Surgery (Laparoscopy and Robotic), Centre Hospitalier de Luxembourg, Luxembourg, Luxembourg
| | - Alexandre Henrard
- Department of General and Minimally Invasive Surgery (Laparoscopy and Robotic), Centre Hospitalier de Luxembourg, Luxembourg, Luxembourg
| | - Lucia González González
- Department of General and Minimally Invasive Surgery (Laparoscopy and Robotic), Centre Hospitalier de Luxembourg, Luxembourg, Luxembourg
| |
Collapse
|
|
28
|
van der Heijde N, Vissers FL, Boggi U, Dokmak S, Edwin B, Hackert T, Khatkov IE, Keck T, Besselink MG, Abu Hilal M. Designing the European registry on minimally invasive pancreatic surgery: a pan-European survey. HPB (Oxford) 2021; 23:566-574. [PMID: 32933843 DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2020.08.015] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/18/2019] [Revised: 07/08/2020] [Accepted: 08/21/2020] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The recent Miami international evidence-based guidelines on minimally invasive pancreatic surgery (MIPS) advise all centers that perform MIPS to participate in multicenter registries to safeguard optimal outcomes and patient safety. During the design phase of a pan-European registry on MIPS, the European consortium of Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Surgery (E-MIPS) sought input from European HPB surgeons. METHODS An anonymous online questionnaire with 23 questions on MIPS practice was sent to all member centers of the European-African Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association (E-AHPBA) and E-MIPS. RESULTS Completed questionnaires were obtained from 98 centers in 23 countries, of which 75 (76.5%) were academic centers. Centers had a median annual pancreatoduodenectomy volume of 45. The most-performed MIPS procedure was laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (93.9% of centers). Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy was performed in 49% of all centers. Some 25 centers already participated in an ongoing national registry, and were willing to share their data with the European registry on MIPS. The most mentioned (45.4%) maximum time for processing one patient's data into the registry was 10-15 min. CONCLUSION This European survey showed considerable support for the European registry on MIPS.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nicky van der Heijde
- Department of Surgery, Southampton University Hospital, Southampton, United Kingdom; Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Frederique L Vissers
- Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Ugo Boggi
- Division of General and Transplant Surgery, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy
| | - Safi Dokmak
- Department of Surgery, Beaujon Hospital, Clichy, France
| | - Bjørn Edwin
- The Intervention Centre and Department of HPB Surgery, Oslo University Hospital and Institute for Clinical Medicine, Oslo, Norway
| | - Thilo Hackert
- Department of Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Igor E Khatkov
- Department of Surgery, Moscow Clinical Scientific Center, Moscow, Russia
| | - Tobias Keck
- Clinic for Surgery, University of Schleswig-Holstein Campus Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany
| | - Marc G Besselink
- Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
| | - Mohammed Abu Hilal
- Department of Surgery, Southampton University Hospital, Southampton, United Kingdom; Department of Surgery, Instituto Fondazione Poliambulanza, Brescia, Italy.
| | | |
Collapse
|
|
29
|
Magistri P, Assirati G, Ballarin R, Di Sandro S, Di Benedetto F. Major robotic hepatectomies: technical considerations. Updates Surg 2021; 73:989-997. [PMID: 33411220 DOI: 10.1007/s13304-020-00940-1] [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: 07/12/2020] [Accepted: 12/07/2020] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
Abstract
Robotic approach to the liver may allow to perform difficult resections with a minimally invasive strategy in an easier way as compared to standard laparoscopy. The aim of this study is to review our experience with robotic major hepatectomies, reporting technical considerations, and describing the outcomes of patients that underwent either left (LRH) or right robotic hepatectomy (RRH). Our prospectively maintained database was screened to identify all patients that received a major liver resection for benign or malignant disease. Preoperative data and postoperative short-term and long-term outcomes were reported. 261 robotic procedures were performed in our Center between May 2014 and October 2020. 12 patients underwent robotic left hepatectomy (RLH) and 10 patients were treated by robotic right hepatectomy (RRH). In the RLH group, median operative time (OT) was 383 min, median estimated blood loss (EBL) was 300 ml, and median in-hospital stay was of 3 days. In the RRH group, median OT was 490 min, median EBL 725 ml, and median hospital stay was 5 days. Although one of the advantages of minimally invasive surgery is to obtain radical resections with parenchyma sparing strategies, patients that need a major hepatectomy may benefit of a robotic resection with good postoperative outcomes. Team learning curve and growth instead of personal progression is crucial to expand the limits of novel surgical techniques.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Paolo Magistri
- Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery and Liver Transplantation Unit, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, 41124, Modena, Italy
| | - Giacomo Assirati
- Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery and Liver Transplantation Unit, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, 41124, Modena, Italy
| | - Roberto Ballarin
- Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery and Liver Transplantation Unit, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, 41124, Modena, Italy
| | - Stefano Di Sandro
- Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery and Liver Transplantation Unit, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, 41124, Modena, Italy
| | - Fabrizio Di Benedetto
- Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery and Liver Transplantation Unit, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, 41124, Modena, Italy.
| |
Collapse
|
|
30
|
Groen JV, Stommel MWJ, Sarasqueta AF, Besselink MG, Brosens LAA, van Eijck CHJ, Molenaar IQ, Verheij J, de Vos-Geelen J, Wasser MN, Bonsing BA, Mieog JSD. Surgical management and pathological assessment of pancreatoduodenectomy with venous resection: an international survey among surgeons and pathologists. HPB (Oxford) 2021; 23:80-89. [PMID: 32444267 DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2020.04.015] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/06/2019] [Revised: 02/06/2020] [Accepted: 04/23/2020] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The aim of this survey was to gain insights in the current surgical management and pathological assessment of pancreatoduodenectomy with portal-superior mesenteric vein resection (VR). METHODS A systematic literature search was performed to identify international expert surgeons (N = 150) and pathologists (N = 40) who published relevant studies between 2009 and 2019. These experts and Dutch surgeons (N = 17) and pathologists (N = 20) were approached to complete an online survey. RESULTS Overall, 76 (46%) surgeons and 37 (62%) pathologists completed the survey. Most surgeons (71%) estimated that preoperative imaging corresponded correctly with intraoperative findings of venous involvement in 50-75% of patients. An increased complication risk following VR was expected by 55% of surgeons, mainly after Type 4 (segmental resection-venous conduit anastomosis). Most surgeons (61%) preferred Type 3 (segmental resection-primary anastomosis). Most surgeons (75%) always perform the VR themselves. Standard postoperative imaging for patency control was performed by 54% of surgeons and 39% adjusted thromboprophylaxis following VR. Most pathologists (76%) always assessed tumor infiltration in the resected vein and only 54% of pathologists always assess the resection margins of the vein itself. Variation in assessment of tumor infiltration depth was observed. CONCLUSION This international survey showed variation in the surgical management and pathological assessment of pancreatoduodenectomy with venous involvement. This highlights the lack of evidence and emphasizes the need for research on imaging modalities to improve patient selection for VR, surgical techniques, postoperative management and standardization of the pathological assessment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jesse V Groen
- Department of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands
| | - Martijn W J Stommel
- Department of Surgery, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| | - Arantza F Sarasqueta
- Department of Pathology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Marc G Besselink
- Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Lodewijk A A Brosens
- Department of Pathology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands; Department of Pathology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| | - Casper H J van Eijck
- Department of Surgery, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam Department of Surgery, the Netherlands
| | - Isaac Q Molenaar
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Joanne Verheij
- Department of Pathology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Judith de Vos-Geelen
- Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology, GROW - School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht UMC+, Maastricht, the Netherlands
| | - Martin N Wasser
- Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands
| | - Bert A Bonsing
- Department of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands
| | - J Sven D Mieog
- Department of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.
| | | |
Collapse
|
|
31
|
Weng Y, Chen M, Gemenetzis G, Shi Y, Ying X, Deng X, Peng C, Jin J, Shen B. Robotic-assisted versus open total pancreatectomy: a propensity score-matched study. Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr 2020; 9:759-770. [PMID: 33299830 PMCID: PMC7720059 DOI: 10.21037/hbsn.2020.03.19] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/10/2019] [Accepted: 03/03/2020] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Total pancreatectomy (TP) is a complex surgical procedure with significant postoperative morbidity. Despite the narrowed range of indications for TP, the introduction of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and the increasing complexity of surgical resections performed in high-volume centers has increased the number of annually performed TPs, especially regarding malignant disease. The introduction of robotic-assisted pancreatic surgery has provided a novel and minimally invasive approach for TP, yet the feasibility of this technique is still unknown. This study assessed the safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted total pancreatectomy (RTP) compared to conventional open total pancreatectomy (OTP). METHODS All patients who underwent TP between March 2015 and July 2019 in a high-volume institution for pancreatic surgery were included in this retrospective study. Clinical data and perioperative outcomes were derived from the prospectively maintained institutional database. A 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) method was utilized to compare the RTP and OTP cohorts to minimize bias. RESULTS A standardized surgical protocol was utilized for RTP following a learning curve of RPD and RDP. The median operative time for patients who underwent RTP was significantly decreased compared to those who underwent OTP [300 (IQR, 250-360) vs. 360 min (IQR, 300-525), P=0.031]. Additionally, en bloc resection and spleen-preserving rates were also higher in the RTP cohort. Major 30-day morbidity (Clavien-Dindo > IIIa) and 90-day mortality were similar between the two cohorts. After a median follow-up time of 15 (IQR, 8-24) months, both the RTP and OTP cohorts had a comparable quality of life regarding exocrine and endocrine insufficiency. CONCLUSIONS RTP appears to be safe and feasible when utilized in high-volume centers for the indicated management of benign and highly selected malignant pancreatic disease. However, further prospective randomized studies are needed to assess the feasibility of this approach.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yuanchi Weng
- Department of General Surgery, Pancreatic Disease Center, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
| | - Mengmin Chen
- Department of General Surgery, Pancreatic Disease Center, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
| | | | - Yusheng Shi
- Department of General Surgery, Pancreatic Disease Center, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
| | - Xiayang Ying
- Department of General Surgery, Pancreatic Disease Center, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
| | - Xiaxing Deng
- Department of General Surgery, Pancreatic Disease Center, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
| | - Chenghong Peng
- Department of General Surgery, Pancreatic Disease Center, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
| | - Jiabin Jin
- Department of General Surgery, Pancreatic Disease Center, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
| | - Baiyong Shen
- Department of General Surgery, Pancreatic Disease Center, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
| |
Collapse
|
|
32
|
Marino MV, Giovinazzo F, Podda M, Gomez Ruiz M, Gomez Fleitas M, Pisanu A, Latteri MA, Takaori K. Robotic-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy with vascular resection. Description of the surgical technique and analysis of early outcomes. Surg Oncol 2020; 35:344-350. [PMID: 32979700 DOI: 10.1016/j.suronc.2020.08.025] [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] [Received: 12/21/2019] [Revised: 05/03/2020] [Accepted: 08/19/2020] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Despite the potential benefits, the adoption of the minimally invasive surgery for the treatment of borderline resectable pancreatic cancer is still in the initial phase. We investigated the safety and feasibility of the robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy with venous resection/reconstruction (RPD SMV/PV). METHODS Since March 2013 to October 2019, a total of 73 RPD and 10 RPD SMV/PV were performed. The two groups were case-matched according to the preoperative characteristics. RESULTS Mean operative times and estimated blood loss were less in the RPD group in comparison to that in the RPD with SMV-PV group (525 vs 642 min, p = 0.003 and 290 vs 620 ml, p = 0.002, respectively). The mean length of hospital stay was similar in the RPD group in comparison to that in the RPD with SMV-PV group (10 days vs 13 days, p = 0.313). The two groups had similar overall postoperative morbidity rate (57.5% vs 60%, p = 0.686), although the severe complication rate was lower in the RPD group (11% vs 40%, p = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS RPD with SMV-PV is associated with increased operative time, estimated blood loss, higher major complication rate compared with RPD.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marco Vito Marino
- Department of Emergency and General Surgery, Azienda Ospedaliera, Ospedali Riuniti Villa Sofia-Cervello, Palermo, Italy; Department of General and Digestive Surgery, Hospital Universitario Marqués de Valdecilla, Santander, Spain; Department of Surgical, Oncological and Oral Science, Palermo University Hospital, Palermo, Italy; General Surgery Department, Policlinico Abano Terme, Padova, Italy.
| | - Francesco Giovinazzo
- Department of Surgery, Transplantation Service, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario "A. Gemelli" IRCCS, Rome, Italy
| | - Mauro Podda
- Department of Surgery, Cagliari University Hospital D. Casula, Cagliari, Italy
| | - Marcos Gomez Ruiz
- Department of General and Digestive Surgery, Hospital Universitario Marqués de Valdecilla, Santander, Spain
| | - Manuel Gomez Fleitas
- Department of Robotics and Surgical Innovation, Hospital Universitario Marqués de Valdecilla, Santander, Spain
| | - Adolfo Pisanu
- Department of Surgery, Cagliari University Hospital D. Casula, Cagliari, Italy
| | - Mario Adelfio Latteri
- Department of Surgical, Oncological and Oral Science, Palermo University Hospital, Palermo, Italy
| | - Kyoichi Takaori
- Department of General Surgery, Kyoto University Hospital, Shogoin, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
|
33
|
Geers J, Topal H, Jaekers J, Topal B. 3D-laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy with superior mesenteric or portal vein resection for pancreatic cancer. Surg Endosc 2020; 34:5616-5624. [PMID: 32749613 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-020-07847-3] [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] [Received: 05/26/2020] [Accepted: 07/24/2020] [Indexed: 01/04/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy with synchronous vein resection for pancreatic cancer is controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate outcomes and describe the surgical technique of 3d-laparoscopic pylorus-resecting pancreaticoduodenectomy (3dLPD) with venous resection for pancreatic cancer. METHODS A retrospective cohort analysis was performed with 26 patients [male/female 11/15; median age 68 (range 45-83) years] who underwent 3dLPD with stented pancreaticogastrostomy and superior mesenteric or portal vein resection for pancreatic adenocarcinoma between November 2016 and June 2019. Median follow-up time after surgery was 12 months (range 3-32). RESULTS Median operating time was 340 min (range 240-420) and intra-operative blood loss was 100 mL (range 0-1000). Type of venous resection and reconstruction was wedge-resection with primary closure (n = 22), wedge-resection with reconstruction using a peritoneal patch (n = 3), and segmental resection with primary end-to-end reconstruction (n = 1). Laparoscopy was converted to open surgery in 4 (15%) patients. Postoperative complications occurred in 10 (38%) patients including severe complications (Clavien-Dindo grade > 2) in 4 (15%). Postoperative mortality was zero. R0 resection was achieved in 21 (81%) patients. Median number of lymph nodes retrieved was 25 (range 10-45). Venous patency was observed in 23 (88%) patients with a median patency duration of 11 months (range 0-31). CONCLUSIONS 3dLPD with simultaneous venous resection for pancreatic cancer results in acceptable reconstruction patency and adequacy of surgical oncology without compromising clinical outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Joachim Geers
- Department of Visceral Surgery, University Hospitals KU Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Halit Topal
- Department of Visceral Surgery, University Hospitals KU Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Joris Jaekers
- Department of Visceral Surgery, University Hospitals KU Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Baki Topal
- Department of Visceral Surgery, University Hospitals KU Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
| |
Collapse
|
|
34
|
Oncological outcomes of robotic-assisted versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a propensity score-matched analysis. Surg Endosc 2020; 35:3437-3448. [PMID: 32696148 PMCID: PMC8195757 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-020-07791-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 25] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/21/2019] [Accepted: 07/07/2020] [Indexed: 11/23/2022]
Abstract
Background Robotic-assisted minimally invasive surgery is associated with worse oncologic outcomes for some but not other types of cancers. We conducted a propensity score-matched analysis to compare oncologic outcomes of robotic-assisted laparoscopic (RPD) vs. open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Methods Treatment-naïve PDAC patients undergoing either RPD or OPD at our hospital between January 2013 and December 2017 were included. Propensity score matching was conducted at a ratio of 1:2. The primary outcome was disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). Results A total of 672 cases were identified. The propensity score-matched cohort included 105 patients receiving RPD and 210 patients receiving OPD. The 2 groups did not differ in the number of retrieved lymph nodes [11 (7–16) vs. 11 (6–17), P = 0.622] and R0 resection rate (88.6% vs. 89.0%, P = 0.899). There was no statistically significant difference in median DFS (14 [95% CI 11–22] vs. 12 [95% CI 10–14] months (HR 0.94; 95% CI 0.87–1.50; log-rank P = 0.345) and median OS (27 [95% CI 22–35] vs. 20 [95% CI 18–24] months (HR 0.77; 95% CI 0.57–1.04; log-rank P = 0.087) between the two groups. Multivariate COX analysis showed that RPD was not an independent predictor of DFS (HR 0.90; 95% CI 0.68–1.19, P = 0.456) or OS (HR 0.77; 95% CI 0.57–1.05, P = 0.094). Conclusion Comparable DFS and OS were observed between patients receiving RPD and OPD. This preliminary finding requires further confirmation with prospective randomized controlled trials.
Collapse
|
|
35
|
Yin SM, Peng CH, Jin JB, Qian JF. Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy with hepatic artery reconstruction is feasible and safe for type 9 hepatic arterial anatomy: A case report. Asian J Surg 2020; 43:644-646. [DOI: 10.1016/j.asjsur.2020.01.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/27/2019] [Accepted: 01/02/2020] [Indexed: 12/19/2022] Open
|
|
36
|
Kauffmann EF, Napoli N, Cacace C, Menonna F, Vistoli F, Amorese G, Boggi U. Resection or repair of large peripancreatic arteries during robotic pancreatectomy. Updates Surg 2020; 72:145-153. [DOI: 10.1007/s13304-020-00715-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/09/2019] [Accepted: 01/22/2020] [Indexed: 02/08/2023]
|
|
37
|
Wei Q, Chen QP, Guan QH, Zhu WT. Repair of the portal vein using a hepatic ligamentum teres patch for laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy: A case report. World J Clin Cases 2019; 7:2879-2887. [PMID: 31616706 PMCID: PMC6789404 DOI: 10.12998/wjcc.v7.i18.2879] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/06/2019] [Revised: 07/05/2019] [Accepted: 07/20/2019] [Indexed: 02/05/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) has been developed gradually with the advances in surgical laparoscopic techniques. It is technically challenging to perform LPD with portal vein resection and reconstruction.
CASE SUMMARY A 71-year-old female patient was diagnosed with distal cholangiocarcinoma. After preoperative examination and rigorous preoperative preparation, the patient underwent LPD using 3D laparoscopy on July 17, 2018. During the surgery, we found that the tumor invaded the right wall of the portal vein; thus, pancreaticoduodenectomy combined with partial portal vein wall resection was performed. The defect of the portal vein wall was approximately 2.5 cm × 1.0 cm. The hepatic ligamentum teres was excised by laparoscopy and then recanalized in vitro. Following recanalization, the hepatic ligamentum teres was cut longitudinally and then trimmed into vascular patches that were then used to reconstruct the defect of the portal vein through 3D laparoscopy. The operative time was 560 min, and intraoperative blood loss was 100 mL. The duration of the blood occlusion time was 63 min. No blood transfusion was required. The patient underwent enhanced recovery after surgery procedures after the operation. The patient was discharged on postoperative day 11. Follow-up for 6 months after discharge showed no stenosis of the portal vein and good patency of blood flow.
CONCLUSION It is safe and feasible to use the hepatic ligamentum teres patch to repair portal vein in LPD. However, the long-term patency of this technique for venous reconstruction requires further investigation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Qiang Wei
- Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery and Clinical Nutrition Center, Binzhou Medical University Hospital, Binzhou 256600, Shandong Province, China
| | - Qiang-Pu Chen
- Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery and Clinical Nutrition Center, Binzhou Medical University Hospital, Binzhou 256600, Shandong Province, China
| | - Qing-Hai Guan
- Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery and Clinical Nutrition Center, Binzhou Medical University Hospital, Binzhou 256600, Shandong Province, China
| | - Wen-Tao Zhu
- Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery and Clinical Nutrition Center, Binzhou Medical University Hospital, Binzhou 256600, Shandong Province, China
| |
Collapse
|
|
38
|
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
|
|
39
|
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
|
|
40
|
Beane JD, Zenati M, Hamad A, Hogg ME, Zeh HJ, Zureikat AH. Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy with vascular resection: Outcomes and learning curve. Surgery 2019; 166:8-14. [DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2019.01.037] [Citation(s) in RCA: 27] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/05/2018] [Revised: 01/09/2019] [Accepted: 01/10/2019] [Indexed: 12/19/2022]
|
|
41
|
Shyr BU, Chen SC, Shyr YM, Wang SE. Surgical, survival, and oncological outcomes after vascular resection in robotic and open pancreaticoduodenectomy. Surg Endosc 2019; 34:377-383. [PMID: 30963260 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-019-06779-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 44] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/15/2018] [Accepted: 04/04/2019] [Indexed: 12/19/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND To evaluate the surgical, oncological, and survival outcomes after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) with superior mesenteric vein (SMV)/portal vein (PV) resection by either robotic PD (RPD) or open PD (OPD). METHODS Data of patients with periampullary lesions undergoing PD were retrieved from a prospectively collected computer database. Surgical risks as well as oncological and survival outcomes were compared between patients with (vein resection group) and without SMV/PV resection (without vein resection group). RESULTS A total of 391 patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy were enrolled, including 43 (11.0%) and 384 (89.0%) patients with and without vein resection, respectively. Eleven (25.6%) of PDs with vein resection were performed using the robotic approach. Operation time in the vein resection group was significantly longer (median of 8 vs. 7 h). Blood loss, curative resection (R0) rate, and harvested lymph node number were similar between these two groups. Surgical outcomes including postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), delayed gastric emptying (DGE), postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), chyle leakage, wound infection, and hospital stay were not significantly different between the two groups. There was no survival difference between these groups, with 1- and 3-year survival rates of 92.6% and 26.5%, respectively, for vein resection group, vs. 70.3% and 37.2%, respectively, for the without vein resection group. CONCLUSIONS PD with vein resection is technically feasible by OPD and RPD in selected patients. Additional SMV/PV would not increase the surgical risks of PD and could achieve similar survival outcomes for pancreatic head adenocarcinoma when compared to PD without vein resection.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bor-Uei Shyr
- Departments of Surgery, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, National Yang Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan
| | - Shih-Chin Chen
- Departments of Surgery, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, National Yang Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan
| | - Yi-Ming Shyr
- Departments of Surgery, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, National Yang Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan
| | - Shin-E Wang
- Departments of Surgery, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, National Yang Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan.
- Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, 201 Section 2 Shipai Road, Taipei, 112, Taiwan.
| |
Collapse
|
|
42
|
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
|
|
43
|
Matteotti R. Robotic surgery for liver, pancreas, and bile duct pathologies: A critical analysis and personal views. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GASTROINTESTINAL INTERVENTION 2019. [DOI: 10.18528/ijgii180048] [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: 11/22/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Ronald Matteotti
- Department of Hepato-Biliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Jersey Shore University Medical Center, Neptune, NJ, USA
| |
Collapse
|
|
44
|
Kauffmann EF, Napoli N, Menonna F, Iacopi S, Lombardo C, Bernardini J, Amorese G, Cacciato Insilla A, Funel N, Campani D, Cappelli C, Caramella D, Boggi U. A propensity score-matched analysis of robotic versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer based on margin status. Surg Endosc 2019; 33:234-242. [PMID: 29943061 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-018-6301-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 31] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/04/2018] [Accepted: 06/18/2018] [Indexed: 01/21/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND No study has shown the oncologic non-inferiority of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) versus open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) for pancreatic cancer (PC). METHODS This is a single institution propensity score matched study comparing RPD and ODP for resectable PC, based on factors predictive of R1 resection (≤ 1 mm). Only patients operated on after completion of the learning curve in both procedures and for whom circumferential margins were assessed according to the Leeds pathology protocol were included. The primary study endpoint was the rate of R1 resection. Secondary study endpoints were as follows: number of examined lymph nodes (N), rate of perioperative transfusions, percentage of patients receiving adjuvant therapies, occurrence of local recurrence, overall survival, disease-free survival, and sample size calculation for randomized controlled trials (RCT). RESULTS Factors associated with R1 resection were tumor diameter, number of positive N, N ratio, logarithm odds of positive N, and duodenal infiltration. The matching process identified 20 RPDs and 24 OPDs. All RPDs were completed robotically. R1 resection was identified in 11 RPDs (55.0%) and in 10 OPDs (41.7%) (p = 0.38). There was no difference in the rate of R1 at each margin as well as in the proportion of patients with multiple R1 margins. RPD and OPD were also equivalent with respect to all secondary study endpoints, with a trend towards lower rate of blood transfusions in RPD. Based on the figures presented herein, a non-inferiority RCT comparing RPD and OPD having the rate of R1 resection as the primary study endpoint requires 3355 pairs. CONCLUSIONS RPD and OPD achieved the same rate of R1 resections in resectable PC. RPD was also non-inferior to OPD with respect to all secondary study endpoints. Because of the high number of patients required to run a RCT, further assessment of RPD for PC would require the implementation of an international registry.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Niccolò Napoli
- Division of General and Transplant Surgery, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy
| | - Francesca Menonna
- Division of General and Transplant Surgery, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy
| | - Sara Iacopi
- Division of General and Transplant Surgery, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy
| | - Carlo Lombardo
- Division of General and Transplant Surgery, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy
| | - Juri Bernardini
- Division of General and Transplant Surgery, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy
| | - Gabriella Amorese
- Division of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy
| | | | - Niccola Funel
- Division of Pathology, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy
| | | | | | | | - Ugo Boggi
- Division of General and Transplant Surgery, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
- Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Pisana, Università di Pisa, Via Paradisa 2, 56124, Pisa, Italy.
| |
Collapse
|
|
45
|
Rodriguez M, Memeo R, Leon P, Panaro F, Tzedakis S, Perotto O, Varatharajah S, de'Angelis N, Riva P, Mutter D, Navarro F, Marescaux J, Pessaux P. Which method of distal pancreatectomy is cost-effective among open, laparoscopic, or robotic surgery? Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr 2018; 7:345-352. [PMID: 30498710 DOI: 10.21037/hbsn.2018.09.03] [Citation(s) in RCA: 34] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/31/2022]
Abstract
Background The aim of this study was to analyze the clinical and economic impact of robotic distal pancreatectomy, laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy, and open distal pancreatectomy. Methods All consecutive patients who underwent distal pancreatic resection for benign and malignant diseases between January 2012 and December 2015 were prospectively included. Cost analysis was performed; all charges from patient admission to discharge were considered. Results There were 21 robotic (RDP), 25 laparoscopic (LDP), and 43 open (ODP) procedures. Operative time was longer in the RDP group (RDP =345 minutes, LDP =306 min, ODP =251 min, P=0.01). Blood loss was higher in the ODP group (RDP =192 mL, LDP =356 mL, ODP =573 mL, P=0.0002). Spleen preservation was more frequent in the RDP group (RDP =66.6%, LDP =61.9%, ODP =9.3%, P=0.001). The rate of patients with Clavien-Dindo > grade III was higher in the ODP group (RDP =0%, LDP =12%, ODP =23%, P=0.01), especially for non-surgical complications, which were more frequent in the ODP group (RDP =9.5%, LDP =24%, ODP =41.8%, P=0.02). Length of hospital stay was increased in the ODP group (ODP =19 days, LDP =13 days, RDP =11 days, P=0.007). The total cost of the procedure, including the surgical procedure and postoperative course was higher in the ODP group (ODP =30,929 Euros, LDP =22,150 Euros, RDP =21,219 Euros, P=0.02). Conclusions Cost-effective results of RDP seem to be similar to LDP with some better short-term outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Maylis Rodriguez
- General, Digestive, and Endocrine Surgery, Nouvel Hôpital Civil, Strasbourg, France
| | - Riccardo Memeo
- General, Digestive, and Endocrine Surgery, Nouvel Hôpital Civil, Strasbourg, France.,Institut de Recherche Contre les Cancers de l'Appareil Digestif (IRCAD)/Research Institute against Digestive Cancer, Strasbourg, France.,Institut Hospitalo-Universitaire (IHU), Institute for Minimally Invasive Hybrid Image-Guided Surgery, Université de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France
| | - Piera Leon
- Department of Digestive Surgery, Hôpital Saint-Eloi, Montpellier, France
| | - Fabrizio Panaro
- Department of Digestive Surgery, Hôpital Saint-Eloi, Montpellier, France
| | - Stylianos Tzedakis
- General, Digestive, and Endocrine Surgery, Nouvel Hôpital Civil, Strasbourg, France
| | - Ornella Perotto
- General, Digestive, and Endocrine Surgery, Nouvel Hôpital Civil, Strasbourg, France
| | | | - Nicola de'Angelis
- General, Digestive, and Endocrine Surgery, Nouvel Hôpital Civil, Strasbourg, France
| | - Pietro Riva
- General, Digestive, and Endocrine Surgery, Nouvel Hôpital Civil, Strasbourg, France
| | - Didier Mutter
- General, Digestive, and Endocrine Surgery, Nouvel Hôpital Civil, Strasbourg, France.,Institut de Recherche Contre les Cancers de l'Appareil Digestif (IRCAD)/Research Institute against Digestive Cancer, Strasbourg, France.,Institut Hospitalo-Universitaire (IHU), Institute for Minimally Invasive Hybrid Image-Guided Surgery, Université de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France
| | - Francis Navarro
- Department of Digestive Surgery, Hôpital Saint-Eloi, Montpellier, France
| | - Jacques Marescaux
- Institut de Recherche Contre les Cancers de l'Appareil Digestif (IRCAD)/Research Institute against Digestive Cancer, Strasbourg, France.,Institut Hospitalo-Universitaire (IHU), Institute for Minimally Invasive Hybrid Image-Guided Surgery, Université de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France
| | - Patrick Pessaux
- General, Digestive, and Endocrine Surgery, Nouvel Hôpital Civil, Strasbourg, France.,Institut de Recherche Contre les Cancers de l'Appareil Digestif (IRCAD)/Research Institute against Digestive Cancer, Strasbourg, France.,Institut Hospitalo-Universitaire (IHU), Institute for Minimally Invasive Hybrid Image-Guided Surgery, Université de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France
| |
Collapse
|
|
46
|
Ielpo B, Caruso R, Duran H, Diaz E, Fabra I, Malavé L, Quijano Y, Vicente E. Robotic versus standard open pancreatectomy: a propensity score-matched analysis comparison. Updates Surg 2018; 71:137-144. [PMID: 29582359 DOI: 10.1007/s13304-018-0529-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/15/2017] [Accepted: 03/19/2018] [Indexed: 02/08/2023]
Abstract
Interest in robotic pancreatectomy has been greatly increasing over the last decade. However, evidence supporting the benefits of robotic over open pancreatectomy is still outstanding. This study aims to assess the safety and efficacy of robotic pancreatectomy compared with the conventional open surgical approach. Propensity score-matched (1:1) was used to balance age, sex, BMI, ASA, tumor size, and malignancy of 17 robotic pancreaticoduodenectomies (PD), 12 pancreatic enucleations (PE), and 28 distal pancreatectomies (DP); and was compared with the open standard approach. Robotic PD was associated with longer operative time (594 vs. 413 min; p = 0.03) and decreased blood loss (190 vs. 394 ml; p = 0.001). Robotic PE showed a lower mean length of hospital stay (8.4 vs. 12.8 days; p = 0.04) and, in addition, robotic DP showed less blood loss (175 vs. 375 ml; p = 0.01), less severe morbidities (7.14 vs. 17.9%; p = 0.02), and a reduced mean length of hospital stay (8.9 vs. 15.1; p = 0.001). Overall, conversion rate was 4 (7%). Robotic pancreatectomy is as safe and effective as the standard open surgical approach with reduced blood loss in PD and DP, length of hospital stay in PE and DP, and severe morbidity in DP.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Benedetto Ielpo
- General Surgery Department, Sanchinarro University Hospital, San Pablo CEU University of Madrid, Calle Oña 10, 28050, Madrid, Spain.
| | - Riccardo Caruso
- General Surgery Department, Sanchinarro University Hospital, San Pablo CEU University of Madrid, Calle Oña 10, 28050, Madrid, Spain
| | - Hipolito Duran
- General Surgery Department, Sanchinarro University Hospital, San Pablo CEU University of Madrid, Calle Oña 10, 28050, Madrid, Spain
| | - Eduardo Diaz
- General Surgery Department, Sanchinarro University Hospital, San Pablo CEU University of Madrid, Calle Oña 10, 28050, Madrid, Spain
| | - Isabel Fabra
- General Surgery Department, Sanchinarro University Hospital, San Pablo CEU University of Madrid, Calle Oña 10, 28050, Madrid, Spain
| | - Luis Malavé
- General Surgery Department, Sanchinarro University Hospital, San Pablo CEU University of Madrid, Calle Oña 10, 28050, Madrid, Spain
| | - Yolanda Quijano
- General Surgery Department, Sanchinarro University Hospital, San Pablo CEU University of Madrid, Calle Oña 10, 28050, Madrid, Spain
| | - Emilio Vicente
- General Surgery Department, Sanchinarro University Hospital, San Pablo CEU University of Madrid, Calle Oña 10, 28050, Madrid, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
|
47
|
Allan BJ, Novak SM, Hogg ME, Zeh HJ. Robotic vascular resections during Whipple procedure. J Vis Surg 2018; 4:13. [PMID: 29445599 DOI: 10.21037/jovs.2017.12.15] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/12/2017] [Accepted: 12/13/2017] [Indexed: 01/06/2023]
Abstract
Indications for resection of pancreatic cancers have evolved to include selected patients with involvement of peri-pancreatic vascular structures. Open Whipple procedures have been the standard approach for patients requiring reconstruction of the portal vein (PV) or superior mesenteric vein (SMV). Recently, high-volume centers are performing minimally invasive Whipple procedures with portovenous resections. Our institution has performed seventy robotic Whipple procedures with concomitant vascular resections. This report outlines our technique.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bassan J Allan
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| | - Stephanie M Novak
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| | - Melissa E Hogg
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| | - Herbert J Zeh
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
|
48
|
Konstantinidis IT, Jutric Z, Eng OS, Warner SG, Melstrom LG, Fong Y, Lee B, Singh G. Robotic total pancreatectomy with splenectomy: technique and outcomes. Surg Endosc 2017; 32:3691-3696. [PMID: 29273875 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-017-6003-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/01/2017] [Accepted: 12/02/2017] [Indexed: 12/21/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Robotic total pancreatectomy (TP) represents a minimally invasive approach to a major intra-abdominal operation. Its utility, technique, and outcomes are evolving. METHODS In this video, we describe a systematic approach to a robotic total pancreatectomy performed for multifocal intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN). Additionally, we reviewed the National Cancer Database (NCDB) to examine the outcomes of robotic TP compared to laparoscopic and open TP between 2010 and 2014. RESULTS The patient is a 61-year-old female who was diagnosed with multifocal IPMN. A total of 6 robotic ports were placed and the da Vinci Xi robotic system was used with the patient supine. The approach entailed as follows: (1) Diagnostic laparoscopy; (2) Entry into the lesser sac; (3) Division of the short gastric vessels; (4) Exposure and dissection of the inferior pancreas border; (5) Dissection and transection of the splenic artery; (6) Mobilization of the pancreas tail/spleen; (7) Exposure of the splenic vein-superior mesenteric vein confluence; (8) Kocher maneuver; (9) Release of the ligament of Treitz and transection of the proximal jejunum; (10) Transection of the distal stomach; (11) Portal lymphadenectomy; (12) Dissection and transection of the gastroduodenal artery; (13) Superior mesenteric vein exposure/dissection of the uncinate process; (14) Hepaticojejunostomy; (15) Cholecystectomy; and (16) Gastrojejunostomy. NCDB database review of 73 patients who underwent robotic TP revealed similar rates of margin negative resections and retrieved lymph nodes between robotic, laparoscopic, and open TP, whereas robotic and laparoscopic TP were associated with shorter in-hospital stay and reduced mortality at 30 and 90 days compared to open TP. Overall median survival of pancreatic adenocarcinoma patients who underwent TP was similar between robotic, laparoscopic, and open approaches. CONCLUSION Robotic total pancreatectomy with splenectomy offers a minimally invasive approach to a major abdominal operation and is feasible in a stepwise, reproducible technique. It is associated with improved postoperative outcomes and equivalent oncologic outcomes compared to open TP.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ioannis T Konstantinidis
- Department of Surgery, City of Hope National Medical Center, Medical Office Bldg., 1500 East Duarte Road, Duarte, CA, 91010, USA
| | - Zeljka Jutric
- Department of Surgery, City of Hope National Medical Center, Medical Office Bldg., 1500 East Duarte Road, Duarte, CA, 91010, USA
| | - Oliver S Eng
- Department of Surgery, City of Hope National Medical Center, Medical Office Bldg., 1500 East Duarte Road, Duarte, CA, 91010, USA
| | - Susanne G Warner
- Department of Surgery, City of Hope National Medical Center, Medical Office Bldg., 1500 East Duarte Road, Duarte, CA, 91010, USA
| | - Laleh G Melstrom
- Department of Surgery, City of Hope National Medical Center, Medical Office Bldg., 1500 East Duarte Road, Duarte, CA, 91010, USA
| | - Yuman Fong
- Department of Surgery, City of Hope National Medical Center, Medical Office Bldg., 1500 East Duarte Road, Duarte, CA, 91010, USA
| | - Byrne Lee
- Department of Surgery, City of Hope National Medical Center, Medical Office Bldg., 1500 East Duarte Road, Duarte, CA, 91010, USA
| | - Gagandeep Singh
- Department of Surgery, City of Hope National Medical Center, Medical Office Bldg., 1500 East Duarte Road, Duarte, CA, 91010, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
|
49
|
Kim HS, Han Y, Kang JS, Kim H, Kim JR, Kwon W, Kim SW, Jang JY. Comparison of surgical outcomes between open and robot-assisted minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy. JOURNAL OF HEPATO-BILIARY-PANCREATIC SCIENCES 2017; 25:142-149. [PMID: 29117639 DOI: 10.1002/jhbp.522] [Citation(s) in RCA: 43] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/27/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Robot surgery is a new method that maintains advantages and overcomes disadvantages of conventional methods, even in pancreatic surgery. This study aimed to evaluate safety and benefits of robot-assisted minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (robot PD). METHODS This study included 237 patients who underwent PD between 2015 and 2017. Demographics and surgical outcomes were evaluated. RESULTS Fifty-one patients underwent robot PD and 186 underwent open PD. Robot PD group had younger age (60.7 vs. 65.4 years, P = 0.006) and lower body mass index (22.7 vs. 24.0, P = 0.007). Robot PD group had lower proportion of patients with firm or hard pancreatic texture (15.7% vs. 38.2%, P = 0.004) and smaller pancreatic duct size (2.3 vs. 3.3 mm, P = 0.002). Two groups had similar operation time (robot vs. open: 335.6 vs. 330.1 min) and complications (15.7% vs. 21.0%), including postoperative pancreatic fistula rate (6.0% vs. 12.0%). Robot PD group had lower postoperative pain score (3.7 vs. 4.1 points, P = 0.008), and shorter postoperative stay (10.6 vs. 15.3 days, P = 0.001). CONCLUSION Robot PD is comparable to open PD in early outcomes. Robot PD is safe and feasible and enables early recovery; indication for robot PD is expected to expand in the near future.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hyeong Seok Kim
- Department of Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, 101 Daehak-Ro, Jongro-Gu, Seoul 110-744, Korea
| | - Youngmin Han
- Department of Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, 101 Daehak-Ro, Jongro-Gu, Seoul 110-744, Korea
| | - Jae Seung Kang
- Department of Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, 101 Daehak-Ro, Jongro-Gu, Seoul 110-744, Korea
| | - Hongbeom Kim
- Department of Surgery, Dongguk University College of Medicine, Ilsan, Korea
| | - Jae Ri Kim
- Department of Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, 101 Daehak-Ro, Jongro-Gu, Seoul 110-744, Korea
| | - Wooil Kwon
- Department of Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, 101 Daehak-Ro, Jongro-Gu, Seoul 110-744, Korea
| | - Sun-Whe Kim
- Department of Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, 101 Daehak-Ro, Jongro-Gu, Seoul 110-744, Korea
| | - Jin-Young Jang
- Department of Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, 101 Daehak-Ro, Jongro-Gu, Seoul 110-744, Korea
| |
Collapse
|
|
50
|
Chen K, Pan Y, Liu XL, Jiang GY, Wu D, Maher H, Cai XJ. Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary disease: a comprehensive review of literature and meta-analysis of outcomes compared with open surgery. BMC Gastroenterol 2017; 17:120. [PMID: 29169337 PMCID: PMC5701376 DOI: 10.1186/s12876-017-0691-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 59] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/05/2017] [Accepted: 11/17/2017] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) has been gradually attempted. However, whether MIPD is superior, equal or inferior to its conventional open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) is not clear. METHODS Studies published up to May 2017 were searched in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Main outcomes were comprehensively reviewed and measured including conversion to open approach, operation time (OP), estimated blood loss (EBL), transfusion, length of hospital stay (LOS), overall complications, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), delayed gastric emptying (DGE), post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), readmission, reoperation and reasons of preoperative death, number of retrieved lymph nodes (RLN), surgical margins, recurrence, and survival. The software of Review Manage version 5.1 was used for meta-analysis. RESULTS One hundred studies were included for systematic review and 26 out of them (totally 3402 cases, 1064 for MIPD, 2338 for OPD) were included for meta-analysis. In the early years, most articles were case reports or non-control case series studies, while in the last 6 years high-volume and comparative researches were increasing gradually. Systematic review revealed conversion rates of MIPD to OPD ranged from 0% to 40%. The mean or median OP of MIPD ranged from 276 to 657 min. The total POPF rates vary between 3.8% and 50% observed in all systematic reviewed studies. Meta-analysis demonstrated MIPD had longer OP (WMD = 99.4 min; 95%CI: 46.0 ~ 152.8, P < 0.01), lower blood loss (WMD = -0.54 ml; 95% CI, -0.88 ~ -0.20 ml; P < 0.01), lower transfusion rate (RR = 0.73, 95%CI: 0.57 ~ 0.94, P = 0.02), shorter LOS (WMD = -3.49 days; 95%CI: -4.83 ~ -2.15, P < 0.01). There was no significant difference in time to oral intake, postoperative complications, POPF, reoperation, readmission, perioperative mortality and number of retrieved lymph nodes. CONCLUSION Our study demonstrates MIPD is technically feasible and safety on the basis of historical studies. MIPD is associated with less blood loss, faster postoperative recovery, shorter length of hospitalization and longer operation time. These findings are waiting for being confirmed with robust prospective comparative studies and randomized clinical trials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ke Chen
- Department of General Surgery, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, 3 East Qingchun Road, Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, 310016, China
| | - Yu Pan
- Department of General Surgery, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, 3 East Qingchun Road, Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, 310016, China
| | - Xiao-Long Liu
- Department of General Surgery, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, 3 East Qingchun Road, Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, 310016, China
| | - Guang-Yi Jiang
- Department of General Surgery, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, 3 East Qingchun Road, Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, 310016, China
| | - Di Wu
- Department of General Surgery, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, 3 East Qingchun Road, Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, 310016, China
| | - Hendi Maher
- School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, 866 Yuhangtang Road, Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, 310058, China
| | - Xiu-Jun Cai
- Department of General Surgery, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, 3 East Qingchun Road, Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, 310016, China.
| |
Collapse
|