Outcomes of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Pancreatoduodenectomy Following Learning Curves of Surgeons: A Multicenter Study on 2255 Patients.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) with laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) in operative and oncologic outcomes. BACKGROUND: Previous studies comparing RPD with LPD have only been carried out in small, single-center studies with variable quality. METHODS: Consecutive patients from nine centers in China who underwent RPD or LPD between 2015 and 2022 were included. A 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) was used to minimize bias. RESULTS: Of the 2,255 patients, 1158 underwent RPD and 1097 underwent LPD. Following PSM, 1006 patients were enrolled in each group. The RPD group had significantly shorter operative time (270.0 vs. 305.0 minutes, P<0.001), lower intraoperative blood transfusion rate (5.9% vs. 12.0%, P<0.001), lower conversion rate (3.8% vs. 6.7%, P=0.004), and higher vascular reconstruction rate (7.9% vs. 5.6%, P=0.040) than the LPD group. There were no significant differences in estimated blood loss, postoperative length of stay, perioperative complications, and 90-day mortality. Patients who underwent vascular reconstruction had similar outcomes between the two groups, although they had significantly lower estimated blood loss (300.0 vs. 360.0 mL; P=0.021) in the RPD group. Subgroup analysis on pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) found no significant differences between the two groups in median recurrence-free survival (14.3 vs. 15.3 mo, P=0.573) and overall survival (24.1 vs. 23.7 mo, P=0.710). CONCLUSIONS: In experienced hands, both RPD and LPD are safe and feasible procedures with similar surgical outcomes. RPD had the perioperative advantage over LPD especially in vascular reconstruction. For PDAC patients, RPD resulted in similar oncological and survival outcomes as LPD.

Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for sporadic benign insulinoma: Short- and long-term outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive surgery is the optimal treatment for insulinoma. The present study aimed to compare short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic surgery for sporadic benign insulinoma. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of patients who underwent laparoscopic or robotic surgery for insulinoma at our center between September 2007 and December 2019 was conducted. The demographic, perioperative and postoperative follow-up results were compared between the laparoscopic and robotic groups. RESULTS: A total of 85 patients were enrolled, including 36 with laparoscopic approach and 49 with robotic approach. Enucleation was the preferred surgical procedure. Fifty-nine patients (69.4%) underwent enucleation; among them, 26 and 33 patients underwent laparoscopic and robotic surgery, respectively. Robotic enucleation had a lower conversion rate to laparotomy (0 vs. 19.2%, P = 0.013), shorter operative time (102.0 vs. 145.5 min, P = 0.008) and shorter postoperative hospital stay (6.0 vs. 8.5 d, P = 0.002) than laparoscopic enucleation. There were no differences between the groups in terms of intraoperative blood loss, the rates of postoperative pancreatic fistula and complications. After a median follow-up of 65 months, two patients in the laparoscopic group developed a functional recurrence and none of the patients in the robotic group had a recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic enucleation can reduce the conversion rate to laparotomy and shorten operative time, which might lead to a reduction in postoperative hospital stay.

Early and late recurrence patterns of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Survival after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains poor because of high incidences of recurrence. The risk factors, patterns, and long-term prognosis in patients with early recurrence and late recurrence (ER and LR) for PDAC after PD were studied. METHODS: Data from patients who underwent PD for PDAC were analyzed. Recurrence was divided into ER (ER ≤1 years) and LR (LR >1 years) using the time to recurrence after surgery. Characteristics and patterns of initial recurrence, and postrecurrence survival (PRS) were compared between patients with ER and LR. RESULTS: Among the 634 patients, 281 (44.3%) and 249 (39.3%) patients developed ER and LR, respectively. In the multivariate analysis, preoperative CA19-9 levels, resection margin status, and tumor differentiation were significantly associated with both ER and LR, while lymph node metastasis and perineal invasion were associated with LR. Patients with ER, when compared with patients with LR, showed a significantly higher proportion of liver-only recurrence ( P <0.05), and worse median PRS (5.2 vs. 9.3 months, P <0.001). Lung-only recurrence had a significantly longer PRS when compared with liver-only recurrence ( P <0.001). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that ER and irregular postoperative recurrence surveillance were independently associated with a worse prognosis ( P <0.001). CONCLUSION: The risk factors for ER and LR after PD are different for PDAC patients. Patients who developed ER had worse PRS than those who developed LR. Patients with lung-only recurrence had a significantly better prognosis than those with other recurrent sites.

A novel online calculator to predict early recurrence and long-term survival of patients with resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma after pancreaticoduodenectomy: A multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is prone to relapse even after radical pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) (including robotic, laparoscopic and open approach). This study aimed to develop an online nomogram calculator to predict early recurrence (ER) (within one year after surgery) and long-term survival in patients with PDAC. METHODS: Patients with PDAC after radical PD were included. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to identify independent risk factors. An online nomogram calculator was developed based on independent risk factors in the training cohort and then tested in the internal and external validation cohorts. RESULTS: Of the 569 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 310, 155, and 104 patients were in the training, internal and external validation cohorts, respectively. Multivariate analysis revealed that preoperative carbohydrate antigen19-9 (CA19-9) [Odds Ratio (OR) 1.002; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.001-1.003; P = 0.001], fibrinogen/albumin (FAR) (OR 1.132; 95% CI 1.012-1.266; P = 0.029), N stage (OR 2.291; 95% CI 1.283-4.092; P = 0.005), and tumor differentiation (OR 3.321; 95% CI 1.278-8.631; P = 0.014) were independent risk factors for ER. Nomogram based on the above four factors achieved good C-statistics of 0.772, 0.767 and 0.765 in predicting ER in the training, internal and external validation cohorts, respectively. Time-dependent ROC analysis (timeROC) and decision curve analysis (DCA) revealed that the nomogram provided superior diagnostic capacity and net benefit compared with other staging systems. CONCLUSION: This multi-center study developed and validated an online nomogram calculator that can predict ER and long-term survival in patients with PDAC with high degrees of stability and accuracy.

Robotic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for distal cholangiocarcinoma: a multicenter propensity score-matched study.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatoduodenectomy is the only potentially curative treatment for distal cholangiocarcinoma (DCC). In this study, we sought to compare the perioperative and oncological outcomes of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) based on a multicenter propensity score-matched study. METHODS: Consecutive patients with DCC who underwent RPD or OPD from five centers in China between January 2014 and June 2019 were included. A 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) was performed. Univariable and multivariable Cox regression analyses were used to identify independent prognosis factors for overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) of these patients. RESULTS: A total of 217 patients and 228 patients underwent RPD and OPD, respectively. After PSM, 180 patients in each group were enrolled. There were no significant differences in operative time, lymph node harvest, intraoperative transfusion, vascular resection, R0 resection, postoperative major morbidity, reoperation, 90-day mortality, and long-term survival between the two groups before and after PSM. Whereas, compared with the OPD group, the RPD group had significantly lower estimated blood loss (150.0 ml vs. 250.0 ml; P < 0.001), and a shorter postoperative length of stay (LOS) (12.0 days vs. 15.0 days; P < 0.001). Multivariable analysis showed carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9), R0 resection, N stage, perineural invasion, and tumor differentiation significantly associated with OS and RFS of these patients. CONCLUSIONS: RPD was comparable to OPD in feasibility and safety. For patients with DCC, RPD resulted in similar oncologic and survival outcomes as OPD.

A novel online calculator to predict recurrence risk in patients with distal cholangiocarcinoma after radical pancreaticoduodenectomy.

BACKGROUND: Patients with distal cholangiocarcinoma (DCC) are prone to relapse even after radical pancreaticoduodenectomy. In this study, we sought to create an online nomogram calculator to accurately predict the recurrence risk of DCC. METHODS: A total of 184 patients were included. Multivariate Cox regression analysis was used to identify independent prognosis factors for recurrence-free survival and overall survival. A nomogram was constructed according to the prognostic factors in the training cohort and then tested in the validation cohort. RESULTS: Multivariate Cox analysis showed preoperative carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (p < 0.001), maximum tumor size (p = 0.076), perineural invasion (p = 0.044), and N stage (p = 0.076) were independent prognostic factors for DCC relapse. We then constructed a nomogram with these four factors. The consistency index (C-index) of the nomogram in the training and validation cohorts were 0.703 and 0.665, respectively. Time-dependent receiver operating characteristic and decision curve analyses revealed that the nomogram provided higher diagnostic power and net benefit compared with other staging systems. CONCLUSION: In this study, we developed an online nomogram calculator that can accurately predict the recurrence risk of DCC and identify patients with a high risk of recurrence in a simple and convenient manner.

Development and validation of an online calculator to predict early recurrence and long-term survival in patients with distal cholangiocarcinoma after pancreaticoduodenectomy.

BACKGROUND: Distal cholangiocarcinoma (DCC) is a malignancy associated with a short survival time. In this study, we aimed to create an online nomogram calculator to predict early recurrence and long-term survival in patients with DCC after pancreaticoduodenectomy. METHODS: A total of 486 patients with DCC were included. An online nomogram calculator was developed and validated in training, internal validation and external validation cohorts, respectively. RESULTS: Of the 486 patients who met the inclusion criteria, we allocated 240, 120, and 126 patients to the training, internal validation, and external validation cohorts, respectively. Multivariable analysis showed that preoperative CA19-9, maximum tumor diameter, perineural invasion, and tumor differentiation were significant risk factors for early recurrence in patients with DCC. Incorporating these four factors, the nomogram achieved good AUC values of 0.788, 0.771, and 0.723 for predicting early recurrence in the training, internal validation, and external validation cohorts, respectively. Notably, this nomogram also had good power to predict overall survival. The discrimination ability of the nomogram was evaluated by dividing the predicted probabilities of early recurrence and survival into two risk groups in the training cohort (low risk ≤ 132; high risk > 132; P < .001). Time-dependent ROC and decision curve analysis further revealed that the nomogram provided higher diagnostic capacity and superior net benefit compared to other staging systems. CONCLUSION: This study developed and validated a web-based nomogram calculator that was capable of predicting early recurrence and long-term prognosis in patients with DCC after pancreaticoduodenectomy with high degrees of stability and accuracy.

Robotic resection of duodenal gastrointestinal stromal tumour: Preliminary experience from a single centre.

BACKGROUND: Experience in minimally invasive surgery in the treatment of duodenal gastrointestinal stromal tumors (DGISTs) is accumulating, but there is no consensus on the choice of surgical method. AIM: To summarize the technique and feasibility of robotic resection of DGISTs. METHODS: The perioperative and demographic outcomes of a consecutive series of patients who underwent robotic resection and open resection of DGISTs between May 1, 2010 and May 1, 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. The patients were divided into the open surgery group and the robotic surgery group. Pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) or limited resection was performed based on the location of the tumour and the distance between the tumour and duodenal papilla. Age, sex, tumour location, tumour size, operation time (OT), estimated blood loss (EBL), postoperative hospital stay (PHS), tumour mitosis, postoperative risk classification, postoperative recurrence and recurrence-free survival were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: Of the 28 patients included, 19 were male and 9 were female aged 51.3 ± 13.1 years. Limited resection was performed in 17 patients, and PD was performed in 11 patients. Eleven patients underwent open surgery, and 17 patients underwent robotic surgery. Two patients in the robotic surgery group underwent conversion to open surgery. All the tumours were R0 resected, and there was no significant difference in age, sex, tumour size, operation mode, PHS, tumour mitosis, incidence of postoperative complications, risk classification, postoperative targeted drug therapy or postoperative recurrence between the two groups (P > 0.05). OT and EBL in the robotic group were significantly different to those in the open surgery group (P < 0.05). All the patients survived during the follow-up period, and 4 patients had recurrence and metastasis. No significant difference in recurrence-free survival was noted between the open surgery group and the robotic surgery group (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Robotic resection is safe and feasible for patients with DGISTs, and its therapeutic effect is equivalent to open surgery.

A comparative study of end-to-end pancreatic anastomosis versus pancreaticojejunostomy after robotic central pancreatectomy.

Robotic central pancreatectomy has been applied for 20 years with the advantage of minimally invasive surgery. The general pancreatic reconstruction approaches include pancreaticojejunostomy and pancreaticogastrostomy. Recently, our group reported a few preliminary cases of application of end-to-end pancreatic anastomosis in robotic central pancreatectomy. This novel approach has not been compared with the conventional approach on a large scale. The objective of this study is to compare end-to-end pancreatic anastomosis with pancreaticojejunostomy after robotic central pancreatectomy based on the perioperative and long-term outcomes. Clinical data consist of demographics, clinicopathologic characteristics, perioperative and long-term outcomes of patients who underwent robotic central pancreatectomy from March 2015 to December 2019 were collected and analyzed. Seventy-four patients received a robotic central pancreatectomy with either end-to-end pancreatic anastomosis (n = 52) or pancreaticojejunostomy (n = 22). End-to-end pancreatic anastomosis was associated with shorter operative time and reduced blood loss. Despite a higher incidence of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (69.2% vs. 36.4%, p = 0.009), the newer anastomotic technique was also associated with earlier removal of nasogastric tube and resumption of oral intake. Long-term results, in terms of either endocrine or exocrine function, were not affected by the anastomotic technique. We have shown the feasibility of robotic central pancreatectomy with end-to-end pancreatic anastomosis. Despite streamlined technique, the newer anastomosis appears to improve early post-operative results while preserving endocrine and exocrine functions in the long-term period. Evaluation of the true potential of robotic central pancreatectomy with end-to-end pancreatic anastomosis requires a prospective and randomized study enrolling a large number of patients.

Robotic pancreatectomy for intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm of the pancreas: A large-scale study.

BACKGROUND: Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) of the pancreas is a mucin-producing tumor that develops from the epithelial lining of the main pancreatic duct or branch pancreatic ducts. Here, we assessed the feasibility and safety of various robotic pancreatectomy approaches to treating IPMN, and short- and long-term outcomes of robotic IPMN resection. METHODS: Data from patients who underwent robotic pancreatectomy for IPMN between 2012 and 2019 at our hospital were retrospectively analyzed. The survival outcomes for patients were compared using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: Of the 174 patients who underwent robotic pancreatectomy, 120 and 54 patients had benign or malignant tumors, respectively. Patients with malignant IPMN had lost more weight in the 6 months prior to surgery (P = .008), and a higher serum level of CA19-9 (P < .001) and CEA (P < .001). Postoperative pancreatic or biliary fistula occurred in 17 or 6 patients overall, respectively. The pathology of the IPMN (P = .030), tumor diameter (P = .016), mural nodule (P = .023), tumor capsule (P = .003) and CA19-9 (P = .024) values were all independent risk factors for survival. The median OS time after surgical resection for the malignant IPMN group was 29.0 months (range, 21.6-36.4). The OS was significantly different in patients with IPMN according to their different pathology, tumor capsule, mural nodule group, CA19-9 level, or tumor diameter. CONCLUSIONS: This large-scale survey of 174 patients indicated that various robotic pancreatectomy approaches were feasible and safe for IPMN. Patients had an acceptable prognosis, indicating that robotic pancreatectomy represents a feasible potential therapeutic strategy for IPMN.

Adjuvant nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine vs gemcitabine alone for resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: A single center experience in China.

BACKGROUND: Nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (AG) has resulted in higher tumor response and survival rates for metastatic or advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) compared with gemcitabine (GEM) alone. AIM: To examine the feasibility and safety of AG adjuvant chemotherapy of resectable PDAC. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed patients with resected PDAC who received AG or GEM as postoperative adjuvant treatment between January 2013 and December 2016 at the Chinese People's Liberation Army General Hospital, Beijing, China. The patients adopted combined nab-paclitaxel (125 mg/m2) and GEM (1 g/m2) or GEM (1 g/m2) alone treatment, on days 1 and 8 every 3 wk for six cycles, unless intolerable adverse events or disease progression occurred. The disease-free survival, overall survival (OS) and adverse events of the two groups were statistically analyzed. RESULTS: Compared with GEM, median disease-free survival (12.2 mo vs 15.8 mo, P = 0.039) and OS (20.6 mo vs 28.3 mo, P = 0.028) were significantly improved in the AG group. The 2-year OS rates were 63.3% and 43.3% in the AG and GEM groups, respectively. However, the incidence of sensory neuropathy was increased significantly in the AG than the GEM group (53.3% vs 23.3%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In our initial experience, AG significantly improved disease-free survival and OS of patients with resected PDAC. AG may be a potential option for postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy of resectable PDAC.

Clinical diagnosis and management of pancreatic mucinous cystadenoma and cystadenocarcinoma: Single-center experience with 82 patients.

BACKGROUND: Mucinous cystic neoplasm (MCN) of the pancreas is characterized by mucin-producing columnar epithelium and dense ovarian-type stroma and at risk for malignant transformation. Early diagnosis and treatment of MCN are particularly important. AIM: To investigate the clinical characteristics of and management strategies for pancreatic mucinous cystadenoma (MCA) and mucinous cystadenocarcinoma (MCC). METHODS: The clinical and pathological data of 82 patients with pancreatic MCA and MCC who underwent surgical resection at our department between April 2015 and March 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: Of the 82 patients included in this study, 70 had MCA and 12 had MCC. Tumor size of MCC was larger than that of MCA (P = 0.049). Age and serum levels of tumor markers carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), carbohydrate antigen (CA) 19-9, and CA12-5 were significantly higher in MCC than in MCA patients (P = 0.005, 0.026, and 0.037, respectively). MCA tumor size was positively correlated with serum CA19-9 levels (r = 0.389, P = 0.001). Compared with MCC, MCA had a higher minimally invasive surgery rate (P = 0.014). In the MCA group, the rate of major complications was 5.7% and that of clinically relevant pancreatic fistula was 8.6%; the corresponding rates in the MCC group were 16.7% and 16.7%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Tumor size, age, and serum CEA, CA19-9, and CA12-5 levels may contribute to management of patients with MCN. Surgical resection is the primary treatment modality for MCC and MCA.

[Robotic Surgery for Pancreatic Serous Cystadenoma: Analysis of 148 Cases].

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the clinical efficacy of robotic surgery for pancreatic serous cystadenoma. METHODS: There were 148 patients with pancreatic serous cystadenoma underwent robotic surgery from April 2015 to June 2019 in our department, the clinical data including intraoperative data, perioperative complications, and histopathological results were retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: Among the 148 patients, there were 39 cases (26.4%) of the tumors located in pancreatic head, 15 cases (10.1%) in pancreatic neck and 94 cases (63.5%) in pancreatic body and tail. Pancreaticoduodenectomy, distal pancreatectomy, central pancreatectomy, and enucleation were performed in 26 cases (17.6%), 71 cases (48.0%), 24 cases (16.2%) and 27 (18.2%) cases, respectively. The incidence of serious postoperative complications were 7.7%, 2.8%, 0, 0, respectively, and grade B pancreatic fistula were 7.7%, 7.0%, 41.7%, 14.8%, respectively. 90-day mortality was 0. Compared with pancreaticoduodenectomy, enucleation of the pancreatic head tumor had shorter operation time ( P<0.001), less intraoperative blood loss ( P<0.001), and shorter length of hospital stay ( P<0.001). Compared with central pancreatectomy+pancreaticojejunostomy, Rong central pancreatectomy had shorter operation time ( P=0.007) and length of hospital stay ( P=0.040). CONCLUSION: Robotic surgery for pancreatic serous cystadenomaisis safe and feasible. Rong central pancreatectomy for serous cystadenoma in middle segmental pancreas could achieve feasible results.

Retrocolic versus antecolic gastrointestinal reconstruction in robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy.

BACKGROUND: With the advancement of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD), several reconstruction methods have been advocated to make RPD more effective and safer. In this study, we investigated the safety and effectiveness of RPD using a left retrocolic (L-port) technique and compared it with those of RPD using an antecolic technique. METHODS: Between October 2015 and August 2016, we retrospectively reviewed consecutive cases of RPD before and after introducing the L-port technique for gastrointestinal reconstruction. The L-port technique was mainly performed for retrocolic gastrojejunal reconstruction and some cases of duodenojejunal reconstruction. The perioperative and postoperative outcomes were compared in the two groups. RESULTS: Eighty-three cases of RPD were retrieved for statistical analysis. Compared with the antecolic group, the L-port group was significantly associated with a shorter operative time (median time [IQR] 345 [307-384] min vs. 390 [370-455] min, P < 0.001), reconstruction time (54 [48-59] min vs. 84 [75-98] min, P < 0.001) and lower incidence of delayed gastric emptying. There were no cases of re-operation due to internal herniation, colonic ischemia, or bowel volvulus in the L-port group during the 1-year follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrated that the L-port technique of RPD is a safe and feasible technique for gastrointestinal reconstruction.

An end-to-end pancreatic anastomosis in robotic central pancreatectomy.

BACKGROUND: Suturing the proximal pancreatic stump and performing pancreaticoenterostomy for the distal pancreatic stump following central pancreatectomy is a conventional procedure. This reconstruction after resection of the pathological pancreatic lesion brings changes in anatomy and physiology. In this study, an innovative one-stage robotic end-to-end pancreatic anastomosis was reported to replace the conventional pancreaticoenterostomy following central pancreatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The clinical data of 11 consecutive patients who underwent robotic central pancreatectomy with end-to-end pancreatic anastomosis between August 2017 and December 2017 were analyzed retrospectively. RESULTS: All operations were completed successfully without any conversion to open surgery. Nine patients had benign tumors, one had a mass-forming chronic pancreatitis, and one had an isolated pancreatic metastasis from a renal cancer. The mean gap left after central pancreatectomy was 4.3 ± 1.0 cm. The median operative time was 121 (range, 105 to 199) min. The median blood loss was 50 (range, 20 to 100) ml. Seven (63.6%) patients developed complications which included Clavien-Dindo Grade I complications in five patients, a Grade II complication in one patient, and a Grade IIIa complication in one patient. Seven patients developed a Grade B postoperative pancreatic fistula, and two patients a biochemical leak. There was no Grade C or worse pancreatic fistula. Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography at postoperative 6 months showed no stricture in any of the main pancreatic ducts. Three patients had an asymptomatic and small pancreatic pseudocyst. CONCLUSION: Robotic central pancreatectomy with end-to-end pancreatic anastomosis was safe and feasible. It restores the normal anatomy of the pancreas. With its good short-and long-term outcomes, it could be an alternative reconstructive method to pancreaticoenterostomy following central pancreatectomy.

The learning curve for a surgeon in robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a retrospective study in a high-volume pancreatic center.

BACKGROUND: Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is one of the most technically difficult abdominal operations. Recent advances have allowed surgeons to attempt PD using minimally invasive surgery techniques. This retrospective study aimed to analyze the learning curve of a single surgeon who had carried out his first 100 robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) in a high-volume pancreatic center. METHODS: The data on consecutive patients who underwent RPD for malignant or benign pathologies were prospectively collected and retrospectively analyzed. The data included the demographic data, operative time, estimated blood loss, postoperative length of hospital stay, morbidity rate, mortality rate, and final pathological results. The cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis was used to identify the inflexion points which corresponded to the learning curve. RESULTS: Between 2012 and 2016, 100 patients underwent RPD by a single surgeon. From the CUSUM operation time (CUSUM OT) learning curve, two distinct phases of the learning process were identified (early 40 patients and late 60 patients). The operation time (mean, 418 min vs. 317 min), hospital stay (mean, 22 days vs. 15 days), and estimated blood loss (mean, 227 ml vs. 134 ml) were significantly lower after the first 40 patients (P < 0.05). The pancreatic fistula, postoperative hemorrhage, delayed gastric emptying, and reoperation rates also decreased in the late 60 patients group (P < 0.05). Non-significant reductions were observed in the incidences of major (Clavien-Dindo Grade II or higher) morbidity, postoperative death, bile leakage, gastric fistula, wound infection, and open conversion. CONCLUSIONS: RPD was technically feasible and safe in selected patients. The learning curve was completed after 40 RPD. Further studies are required to confirm the long-term oncological outcomes of RPD.

Impact of resection margins on long-term survival after pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic head carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The impact of resection margin status on long-term survival after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) for patients with pancreatic head carcinoma remains controversial and depends on the method used in the histopathological study of the resected specimens. This study aimed to examine the impact of resection margin status on the long-term overall survival of patients with pancreatic head carcinoma after PD using the tumor node metastasis standard. METHODS: Consecutive patients with pancreatic head carcinoma who underwent PD at the Chinese People's Liberation Army General Hospital between May 2010 and May 2016 were included. The impact of resection margin status on long-term survival was retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: Among the 124 patients, R0 resection was achieved in 85 patients (68.5%), R1 resection in 38 patients (30.7%) and R2 resection in 1 patient (0.8%). The 1- and 3-year overall survival (OS) rates were significantly higher for the patients who underwent R0 resection than the rates for those who underwent R1 resection (1-year OS rates: 69.4% vs 53.0%; 3-year OS rates: 26.9% vs 11.7%). Multivariate analysis showed that resection margin status and venous invasion were significant risk factors for OS. CONCLUSION: Resection margin was an independent risk factor for OS for patients with pancreatic head carcinoma after PD. R0 resection was associated with significantly better OS after surgery.

Application of End-to-end Anastomosis in Robotic Central Pancreatectomy.

Central pancreatectomy is carried out for the treatment of benign or low-malignant potential tumors located in the pancreatic neck or proximal part of pancreatic body. With technological development, the robotic surgical system has shown its advantage in minimally invasive surgery and been increasingly applied in central pancreatectomy. However, reconstruction of the continuity of pancreas with end-to-end anastomosis after robotic central pancreatectomy has not been applied. In this study, we report surgical techniques for robotic central pancreatectomy with end-to-end anastomosis. The pancreas is reconstructed by duct-to-duct anastomosis of the pancreatic duct with a pancreatic stent inserted in the two stumps of pancreatic duct, and by end-to-end anastomosis of the pancreatic parenchyma. Compared with traditional central pancreatectomy with pancreaticoenteric anastomosis, this approach decreases the operative injury to the patient, and also conserves the integrity and continuity of the digestive duct and pancreatic duct. The robotic surgical system integrated with multiple instruments with flexible and precise movement is particularly suitable for the dissection and reconstruction of the pancreatic duct. We found that robotic central pancreatectomy with end-to-end anastomosis is safe and feasible, and we need more experience to evaluate its best indications and long-term outcomes.

[A single-team experience with robotic pancreatic surgery in 1010 cases].

OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety and advantages of robotic pancreatic surgery (RPS) based on the single-team experience with 1010 cases. METHODS: The clinical data of 1010 cases of RPS performed by a single team from November, 2011 to September, 2017 in our hospital were collected prospectively and analyzed. In most of cases the surgeries were performed using the third-generation da Vinci robotic surgical system. RESULTS: The 1010 cases receiving RPS included 417 cases of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD), 428 cases of robotic distal pancreatectomy, 60 cases of robotic central pancreatectomy, 53 cases of robotic pancreatic tumor enucleation, 3 cases of Appleby procedure, and 49 cases of other operations (including 4 cases of innovative robotic retroperitoneal laparoscopic surgery, 4 cases of robotic pancreatic tumor enucleation combined with main pancreatic duct bridging repair, 1 case of single incision robotic pancreatic tumor enucleation, and 2 cases of robotic central pancreatectomy combined with end-to-end anastomosis reconstruction). The median operative time was 210 min (30-720 min) with a median intraoperative blood loss of 80 mL (10-2000 mL), a conversion rate of 4.06% (41/1010), a blood transfusion rate of 6.7% (68/1010), a mean post-operative stay of 10.87∓6.70 days, a complication rate (beyond grade III according to Clavien-Dindo scoring system) of 8.0% (81/1010), and a pancreatic fistula rate (beyond) grade B of 9.21% (93/1010). The mortality rate of the patients was 0.69% (7/1010) in 30 days and 1.31% (12//934) in 90 days. The application of RPS in total pancreatectomy increased steadily from the rate of 10.44% in 2012 to 72.06% in 2017. CONCLUSION: This represents to our knowledge the world largest series of robotic pancreatic resections. RPS is expected to gradually replace open procedure and laparoscopic procedure to become the primary choice of approach for pancreatectomy. After the learning curve, RPS procedure including distal pancreatectomy, robotic Appleby procedure and other operations can be safely performed, and the experiences from other centers can be beneficial to reduce severe complications in the early stage of learning.

Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: A propensity score-matched study.

BACKGROUND: Robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) is considered a safe and feasible alternative to laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP). However, previous studies have some limitations including small sample size and selection bias. This study aimed to evaluate whether the robotic approach has advantages over laparoscopic surgery in distal pancreatectomy. METHODS: Demographics and perioperative outcomes among patients undergoing RDP (n = 102) and LDP (n = 102) between January 2011 and December 2015 were reviewed. A 1:1 propensity score matched analysis was performed between both groups. RESULTS: Both groups displayed no significant differences in perioperative outcomes including operative time, blood loss, transfusion rate, and rates of overall morbidities and pancreatic fistula. Robotic approach reduced the rate of conversion to laparotomy (2.9% vs 9.8%, P = 0.045), especially in patients with large tumors (0% vs 22.2%, P = 0.042). RDP improved spleen (SP) and splenic vessels preservation (SVP) rates in patients with moderate tumors (60.0% vs 35.5%, P = 0.047; 37.1% vs 12.9%, P = 0.025), especially in patients without malignancy (95.5% vs 52.4%, P = 0.001; 59.1% vs 19.0%, P = 0.007). RDP also reduced postoperative hospital stay (PHS) significantly (7.67% vs 8.58, P = 0.032). CONCLUSIONS: RDP is associated with less rate of conversion to laparotomy, shorter PHS, and improved SP and SVP rates in selected patients than LDP.