The pan - COVID - AGICT study. The impact of COVID-19 pandemic on surgically treated pancreatic cancer patients. A multicentric Italian study.

BACKGROUND: In this article we aimed to perform a subgroup analysis using data from the COVID-AGICT study, to investigate the perioperative outcomes of patients undergoing surgery for pancreatic cancers (PC) during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: The primary endpoint of the study was to find out any difference in the tumoral stage of surgically treated PC patients between 2019 and 2020. Surgical and oncological outcomes of the entire cohort of patients were also appraised dividing the entire peri-pandemic period into six three-month timeframes to balance out the comparison between 2019 and 2020. RESULTS: Overall, a total of 1815 patients were surgically treated during 2019 and 2020 in 14 Italian surgical Units. In 2020, the rate of patients treated with an advanced pathological stage was not different compared to 2019 (p = 0.846). During the pandemic, neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT) has dropped significantly (6.2% vs 21.4%, p < 0.001) and, for patients who didn't undergo NCT, the latency between diagnosis and surgery was shortened (49.58 ± 37 days vs 77.40 ± 83 days, p < 0.001). During 2020 there was a significant increase in minimally invasive procedures (p < 0.001). The rate of postoperative complication was the same in the two years but during 2020 there was an increase of the medical ones (19% vs 16.1%, p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The post-pandemic dramatic modifications in healthcare provision, in Italy, did not significantly impair the clinical history of PC patients receiving surgical resection. The present study is one of the largest reports available on the argument and may provide the basis for long-term analyses.

ASO Author Reflections: The Role of Robotic Surgery on Central Pancreatectomy.

Central pancreatectomy (CP) is indicated for benign or low-grade pancreatic tumors located in the neck or proximal pancreatic body. This procedure is demanding and has a high rate of postoperative complications. Minimally invasive surgery is now commonly used for CP but it is still unclear whether the robotic approach offers any advantages over conventional pancreatic minimally invasive surgery. Most studies on robotic CP are limited to case reports or case series; however, there are two important studies on this topic. Currently, the evidence on robotic CP remains limited, making it challenging to draw definitive conclusions in favor of one technique over the other. The use of a robotic platform, with its integrated tools such as intraoperative ultrasound, can guide the surgeon in performing this technically demanding procedure in a safer manner. The controversy regarding the best minimally invasive surgery approach for CP is still ongoing and requires further research.

Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy: a pan-European multicenter propensity-matched study.

BACKGROUND: The use of robot-assisted and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy is increasing, yet large adjusted analyses that can be generalized internationally are lacking. This study aimed to compare outcomes after robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy in a pan-European cohort. METHODS: An international multicenter retrospective study including patients after robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy from 50 centers in 12 European countries (2009-2020). Propensity score matching was performed in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome was major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo ≥III). RESULTS: Among 2,082 patients undergoing minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy, 1,006 underwent robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and 1,076 laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy. After matching 812 versus 812 patients, the rates of major morbidity (31.9% vs 29.6%; P = .347) and 30-day/in-hospital mortality (4.3% vs 4.6%; P = .904) did not differ significantly between robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy, respectively. Robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with a lower conversion rate (6.7% vs 18.0%; P < .001) and higher lymph node retrieval (16 vs 14; P = .003). Laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with shorter operation time (446 minutes versus 400 minutes; P < .001), and lower rates of postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C (19.0% vs 11.7%; P < .001), delayed gastric emptying grade B/C (21.4% vs 7.4%; P < .001), and a higher R0-resection rate (73.2% vs 84.4%; P < .001). CONCLUSION: This European multicenter study found no differences in overall major morbidity and 30-day/in-hospital mortality after robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy compared with laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy. Further, laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with a lower rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula, delayed gastric emptying, wound infection, shorter length of stay, and a higher R0 resection rate than robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy. In contrast, robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with a lower conversion rate and a higher number of retrieved lymph nodes as compared with laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy.

Fashioning esophagogastric anastomosis in robotic Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy: a multicenter experience.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the present study is to compare outcomes of the robotic hand-sewn, linear- and circular-stapled techniques performed to create an intrathoracic esophagogastric anastomosis in patients who underwent Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy. METHODS: Patients who underwent a planned Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy were retrospectively analysed from prospectively maintained databases. Only patients who underwent a robotic thoracic approach with the creation of an intrathoracic esophagogastric anastomosis were included in the study. Patients were divided into three groups: hand-sewn-, circular stapled-, and linear-stapled anastomosis group. Demographic information and surgery-related data were extracted. The primary outcome was the rate of anastomotic leakages (AL) in the three groups. Moreover, the rate of grade A, B and C anastomotic leakage were evaluated. In addition, patients of each group were divided in subgroups according to the characteristics of anastomotic fashioning technique. RESULTS: Two hundred and thirty patients were enrolled in the study. No significant differences were found between the three groups about AL rate (p = 0.137). Considering the management of the AL for each of the three groups, no significant differences were found. Evaluating the correlation between AL rate and the characteristics of anastomotic fashioning technique, no significant differences were found. CONCLUSIONS: No standardized anastomotic fashioning technique has yet been generally accepted. This study could be considered a call to perform ad hoc high-quality studies involving high-volume centers for upper gastrointestinal surgery to evaluate what is the most advantageous anastomotic technique.

Robotic Ultrasound-Guided Central Pancreatectomy with Main Pancreatic Duct Endoscopy Evaluation for High-Risk, Mixed-Type Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Neoplasm.

BACKGROUND: Central pancreatectomy (CP) is a parenchymal-sparing technique indicated for the resection of selected lesions of the neck or proximal body of the pancreas.1,2 The risk of postoperative complications is theoretically doubled because the surgeon has to manage two cut surfaces of the pancreas. The video shows a fully robotic CP to treat a 62-year-old male patient with a mixed-type intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) of the pancreatic neck, using ultrasound (US) and Wirsung endoscopic evaluation to guide the pancreatic resection and ensure optimal resection margins. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A US-guided robotic CP was carried out, and an intraoperative endoscopic evaluation of the MPD was performed to determine the distal transection level. A transmesocolic, end-to-side, robot-sewn Wirsung-jejunostomy with internal MPD stenting was then created. The procedure was completed with a side-to-side jejunojejunostomy. RESULTS: The operative time was 290 min, with negligible blood loss. During the postoperative course, the patient experienced bleeding from a branch of the gastroduodenal artery with subsequent fluid collection, which was successfully treated with angioembolization and percutaneous drainage. He was discharged home on postoperative day 22. Final pathology revealed a non-invasive IPMN with low-grade dysplasia and free surgical margins. At 12 months of follow-up, the patient was doing well, with no evidence of local recurrence and endocrine or exocrine pancreatic insufficiency. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of robotic surgery with intraoperative US and Wirsungoscopy may offer distinct technical advantages for challenging pancreatectomies that follow the principles of parenchymal-sparing surgery.

REDISCOVER International Guidelines on the Perioperative Care of Surgical Patients With Borderline-resectable and Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: The REDISCOVER consensus conference aimed at developing and validate guidelines on the perioperative care of patients with borderline resectable (BR-) and locally advanced (LA) pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Coupled with improvements in chemotherapy and radiation, the contemporary approach to pancreatic surgery supports resection of BR-PDAC and, to a lesser extent, LA-PDAC. Guidelines outlining the selection and perioperative care for these patients are lacking. METHODS: The Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) methodology was used to develop the REDISCOVER guidelines and create recommendations. The Delphi approach was used to reach consensus (agreement ≥80%) among experts. Recommendations were approved after a debate and vote among international experts in pancreatic surgery and pancreatic cancer management. A Validation Committee used the AGREE II-GRS tool to assess the methodological quality of the guidelines. Moreover, an independent multidisciplinary advisory group revised the statements to ensure adherence to non-surgical guidelines. RESULTS: Overall, 34 recommendations were created targeting centralization, training, staging, patient selection for surgery, possibility of surgery in uncommon scenarios, timing of surgery, avoidance of vascular reconstruction, details of vascular resection/reconstruction, arterial divestment, frozen section histology of perivascular tissue, extent of lymphadenectomy, anticoagulation prophylaxis and role of minimally invasive surgery. The level of evidence was however low for 29 of 34 clinical questions. Participants agreed that the most conducive mean to promptly advance our understanding in this field is to establish an international registry addressing this patient population ( https://rediscover.unipi.it/ ). CONCLUSIONS: The REDISCOVER guidelines provide clinical recommendations pertaining to pancreatectomy with vascular resection for patients with BR- and LA-PDAC, and serve as the basis of a new international registry for this patient population.

Surgical Techniques and Related Perioperative Outcomes After Robot-assisted Minimally Invasive Gastrectomy (RAMIG): Results From the Prospective Multicenter International Ugira Gastric Registry.

OBJECTIVE: To gain insight in global practice of RAMIG and evaluated perioperative outcomes using an international registry. BACKGROUND: The techniques and perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted minimally invasive gastrectomy (RAMIG) for gastric cancer vary substantially in literature. METHODS: Prospectively registered RAMIG-cases for gastric cancer (≥10 per center) were extracted from 25 centers in Europe, Asia and South-America. Techniques for the resection, reconstruction, anastomosis and lymphadenectomy were analyzed, and related to perioperative surgical and oncological outcomes. Complications were uniformly defined by the Gastrectomy Complications Consensus Group. RESULTS: Between 2020-2023, 759 patients underwent total (n=272), distal (n=465) or proximal (n=22) gastrectomy (RAMIG). After total gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y-reconstruction, anastomotic leakage rates were 8% with hand-sewn (n=9/111) and 6% with linear stapled anastomoses (n=6/100). After distal gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y (67%) or Billroth-II-reconstruction (31%), anastomotic leakage rates were 3% with linear stapled (n=11/433) and 0% with hand-sewn anastomoses (n=0/26). Extent of lymphadenectomy consisted of D1+ (28%), D2 (59%) or D2+ (12%). Median nodal harvest yielded 31 nodes [IQR 21-47] after total and 34 nodes [IQR 24-47] after distal gastrectomy. R0-resection rates were 93% after total and 96% distal gastrectomy. Hospital stay was 9 days after total and distal gastrectomy, and was 3 days shorter without perianastomotic drains versus routine drain placement. Postoperative 30-day mortality was 1%. CONCLUSIONS: This large multicenter study provided a worldwide overview of current RAMIG-techniques with their respective perioperative outcomes. These outcomes demonstrated high surgical quality, set a quality standard for RAMIG and can be considered an international reference for surgical standardization.

Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma in obese patients.

BACKGROUND: Robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) is associated with a lower conversion rate and less blood loss than laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP). LDP has similar oncological outcomes as open surgery in PDAC. The aim of this study was to compare perioperative and oncological outcomes in obese patients with RDP versus LDP for PDAC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospectively, all obese patients who underwent RDP or LDP for PDAC between 2012 and 2022 at 12 international expert centres were included. RESULTS: out of 372, 81 patients were included. All baseline features were comparable between the two groups. RDP was associated with decreased blood loss (495mlLDP vs. 188mlRDP; p = 0.003), lower conversion rate (13.5%RDP vs. 36.4%LDP; p = 0.019) and lower rate of Clavien-Dindo ≥3 complications (13.5%RDP vs. 36.4%LDP; p = 0.019). Overall and disease-free survival were comparable. CONCLUSIONS: In obese patients with left-sided PDAC, the robotic approach was associated with improved intraoperative outcomes and fewer severe complications.

Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy in obese patients.

BACKGROUND: Although robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) has a lower conversion rate to open surgery and causes less blood loss than laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP), clear evidence on the impact of the surgical approach on morbidity is lacking. Prior studies have shown a higher rate of complications among obese patients undergoing pancreatectomy. The primary aim of this study is to compare short-term outcomes of RDP vs. LDP in patients with a BMI ≥ 30. METHODS: In this multicenter study, all obese patients who underwent RDP or LDP for any indication between 2012 and 2022 at 18 international expert centers were included. The baseline characteristics underwent inverse probability treatment weighting to minimize allocation bias. RESULTS: Of 446 patients, 219 (50.2%) patients underwent RDP. The median age was 60 years, the median BMI was 33 (31-36), and the preoperative diagnosis was ductal adenocarcinoma in 21% of cases. The conversion rate was 19.9%, the overall complication rate was 57.8%, and the 90-day mortality rate was 0.7% (3 patients). RDP was associated with a lower complication rate (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.52-0.89; p = 0.005), less blood loss (150 vs. 200 ml; p < 0.001), fewer blood transfusion requirements (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.15-0.50; p < 0.001) and a lower Comprehensive Complications Index (8.7 vs. 8.9, p < 0.001) than LPD. RPD had a lower conversion rate (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.19-0.39; p < 0.001) and achieved better spleen preservation rate (OR 1.96, 95% CI 1.13-3.39; p = 0.016) than LPD. CONCLUSIONS: In obese patients, RDP is associated with a lower conversion rate, fewer complications and better short-term outcomes than LPD.

International standardization and optimization group for intersphincteric resection (ISOG-ISR): modified Delphi consensus on anatomy, definition, indication, surgical technique, specimen description and functional outcome.

AIM: Intersphincteric resection (ISR) is an oncologically complex operation for very low-lying rectal cancers. Yet, definition, anatomical description, operative indications and operative approaches to ISR are not standardized. The aim of this study was to standardize the definition of ISR by reaching international consensus from the experts in the field. This standardization will allow meaningful comparison in the literature in the future. METHOD: A modified Delphi approach with three rounds of questionnaire was adopted. A total of 29 international experts from 11 countries were recruited for this study. Six domains with a total of 37 statements were examined, including anatomical definition; definition of intersphincteric dissection, intersphincteric resection (ISR) and ultra-low anterior resection (uLAR); indication for ISR; surgical technique of ISR; specimen description of ISR; and functional outcome assessment protocol. RESULTS: Three rounds of questionnaire were performed (response rate 100%, 89.6%, 89.6%). Agreement (≥80%) reached standardization on 36 statements. CONCLUSION: This study provides an international expert consensus-based definition and standardization of ISR. This is the first study standardizing terminology and definition of deep pelvis/anal canal anatomy from a surgical point of view. Intersphincteric dissection, ISR and uLAR were specifically defined for precise surgical description. Indication for ISR was determined by the rectal tumour's maximal radial infiltration (T stage) below the levator ani. A new surgical definition of T3isp was reached by consensus to define T3 low rectal tumours infiltrating the intersphincteric plane. A practical flowchart for surgical indication for uLAR/ISR/abdominoperineal resection was developed. A standardized ISR surgical technique and functional outcome assessment protocol was defined.

Open vs robotic gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy: a propensity score-matched analysis on 1469 patients from the IMIGASTRIC prospective database.

BACKGROUND: Comparative data on D2-robotic gastrectomy (RG) vs D2-open gastrectomy (OG) are lacking in the Literature. Aim of this paper is to compare RG to OG with a focus on D2-lymphadenectomy. STUDY DESIGN: Data of patients undergoing D2-OG or RG for gastric cancer were retrieved from the international IMIGASTRIC prospective database and compared. RESULTS: A total of 1469 patients were selected for inclusion in the study. After 1:1 propensity score matching, a total of 580 patients were matched and included in the final analysis, 290 in each group, RG vs OG. RG had longer operation time (210 vs 330 min, p < 0.0001), reduced intraoperative blood loss (155 vs 119.7 ml, p < 0.0001), time to liquid diet (4.4 vs 3 days, p < 0.0001) and to peristalsis (2.4 vs 2 days, p < 0.0001), and length of postoperative stay (11 vs 8 days, p < 0.0001). Morbidity rate was higher in OG (24.1% vs 16.2%, p = 0.017). CONCLUSION: RG significantly expedites recovery and reduces the risk of complications compared to OG. However, long-term survival is similar.

The clinical implication of minimally invasive versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for non-pancreatic periampullary cancer: a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Most studies on minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) combine patients with pancreatic and periampullary cancers even though there is substantial heterogeneity between these tumors. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the role of MIPD compared to open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) in patients with non-pancreatic periampullary cancer (NPPC). METHODS: A systematic review of Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane databases was performed by two independent reviewers to identify studies comparing MIPD and OPD for NPPC (ampullary, distal cholangio, and duodenal adenocarcinoma) (01/2015-12/2021). Individual patient data were required from all identified studies. Primary outcomes were (90-day) mortality, and major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo 3a-5). Secondary outcomes were postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), delayed gastric emptying (DGE), postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), blood-loss, length of hospital stay (LOS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Overall, 16 studies with 1949 patients were included, combining 928 patients with ampullary, 526 with distal cholangio, and 461 with duodenal cancer. In total, 902 (46.3%) patients underwent MIPD, and 1047 (53.7%) patients underwent OPD. The rates of 90-day mortality, major morbidity, POPF, DGE, PPH, blood-loss, and length of hospital stay did not differ between MIPD and OPD. Operation time was 67 min longer in the MIPD group (P = 0.009). A decrease in DFS for ampullary (HR 2.27, P = 0.019) and distal cholangio (HR 1.84, P = 0.025) cancer, as well as a decrease in OS for distal cholangio (HR 1.71, P = 0.045) and duodenal cancer (HR 4.59, P < 0.001) was found in the MIPD group. CONCLUSIONS: This individual patient data meta-analysis of MIPD versus OPD in patients with NPPC suggests that MIPD is not inferior in terms of short-term morbidity and mortality. Several major limitations in long-term data highlight a research gap that should be studied in prospective maintained international registries or randomized studies for ampullary, distal cholangio, and duodenum cancer separately. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42021277495) on the 25th of October 2021.

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

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

Robotic versus laparoscopic left colectomy: a propensity score matched analysis from a bi-centric experience.

The advantages of using the robotic platform may not be clearly evident in left colectomies, where the surgeon operates in an "open field" and does not routinely require intraoperative suturing. Current evidences are based on limited cohorts reporting conflicting outcomes regarding robotic left colectomies (RLC). The aim of this study is to report a bi-centric experience with robotic left colectomy in order to help in defining the role of the robotic approach for these procedures. This is a bi-centric propensity score matched study including patients who underwent RLC or laparoscopic left colectomy (LLC) between January 1, 2012 and May 1, 2022. RLC patients were matched to LLC patients in a 1:1 ratio. Main outcomes were conversion to open surgery and 30-day morbidity. In total, 300 patients were included. Of 143 (47.7%) RLC patients, 119 could be matched. After matching, conversion rate (4.2 vs. 7.6%, p = 0.265), 30-day morbidity (16.1 vs. 13.7%, p = 0.736), Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ 3 complications (2.4 vs 3.2%, p = 0.572), transfusions (0.8 vs. 4.0%, p = 0.219), and 30-day mortality (0.8 vs 0.8%, p = 1.000) were comparable for RLC and LLC, respectively. Median operative time was longer for RLC (296 min 260-340 vs. 245, 195-296, p < 0.0001). Early oral feeding, time to first flatus, and hospital stay were similar between groups. RLC has safety parameters as well as conversion to open surgery comparable with standard laparoscopy. Operative time is longer with the robotic approach.

The MIS-COVID-AGICT Study: Trend of Minimally Invasive Surgery for Gastrointestinal Cancer Treatment During the First Waves of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Italy. Subgroup Analysis from the COVID-AGICT Study: COVID-19 and Advanced Gastrointestinal Cancer Surgical Treatment.

Background: A preliminary analysis from the COVID-Advanced Gastrointestinal Cancer Surgical Treatment (AGICT) study showed that the rate of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for elective and urgent procedures did not decrease during the pandemic year. In this article, we aimed to perform a subgroup analysis using data from the COVID-AGICT study to evaluate the trend of MIS during the COVID-19 pandemic period in Italy. Methods: This study was conducted collecting data of MIS patients from the COVID-AGICT database. The primary endpoint was to demonstrate whether the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic scenario reduced MIS for elective treatment of gastrointestinal cancer (GIC) in Italy in 2020. The secondary endpoint was to evaluate the impact of the pandemic period on perioperative outcomes in the MIS group. Results: In the pandemic year, 62% of patients underwent surgery with a minimally invasive approach, compared to 63% in 2019 (P = .23). In 2020, the proportion of patients undergoing elective MIS decreased compared to the previous year (80% versus 82%, P = .04), and the rate of urgent MIS did not differ between the 2 years (31% and 33% in 2019 and 2020 - P = .66). Colorectal cancer was less likely to be treated with MIS approach during 2020 (78% versus 75%, P < .001). Conversely, the rate of MIS pancreatic resection was higher in 2020 (28% versus 22%, P < .002). Conversion to an open approach was lower in 2020 (7.2% versus 9.2% - P = .01). Major postoperative complications were similar in both years (11% versus 11%, P = .9). Conclusion: In conclusion, although MIS for elective treatment of GIC in Italy was reduced during the COVID-19 pandemic period, our study revealed that the overall proportion of MIS (elective and urgent) and postoperative outcomes were comparable to the prepandemic period. ClinicalTrial.gov (NCT04686747).

Fully Robotic Side-to-Side Linear-Stapled Anastomosis During Robotic Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy.

BACKGROUND: The adoption of robotic surgery for esophageal cancer has been expanding rapidly over the recent years. In the setting of two-field esophagectomy, different techniques exist for intrathoracic esophagogastric anastomosis, although the superiority of one over another has not been clearly demonstrated. Potential benefits in terms of anastomotic leakage and stenosis have been reported in association with a linear-stapled anastomosis as compared to the more widespread techniques of circular mechanical and hand-sewn reconstructions, however, there is still limited reported evidence on its application to robotic surgery. We here report our fully robotic technique of side-to-side, semi-mechanical anastomosis. METHODS: All consecutive patients undergoing fully robotic esophagectomy featuring intrathoracic side-to-side stapled anastomosis by a single surgical team were included in this analysis. Operative technique is detailed, and perioperative data are assessed. RESULTS: A total of 49 patients were included. There were no intraoperative complications and no conversion occurred. The rate of overall postoperative morbidity was 25, 14% being the relative rate of major complications. With anastomotic-related morbidity in particular, one patient developed minor anastomotic leakage. CONCLUSIONS: Our experience demonstrates that a linear, side-to-side fully robotic stapled anastomosis can be created with a high technical success and minimal incidence of anastomosis-related morbidity.

Use and outcome of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery in the European E-MIPS registry.

BACKGROUND: The European registry for minimally invasive pancreatic surgery (E-MIPS) collects data on laparoscopic and robotic MIPS in low- and high-volume centers across Europe. METHODS: Analysis of the first year (2019) of the E-MIPS registry, including minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) and minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD). Primary outcome was 90-day mortality. RESULTS: Overall, 959 patients from 54 centers in 15 countries were included, 558 patients underwent MIDP and 401 patients MIPD. Median volume of MIDP was 10 (7-20) and 9 (2-20) for MIPD. Median use of MIDP was 56.0% (IQR 39.0-77.3%) and median use of MIPD 27.7% (IQR 9.7-45.3%). MIDP was mostly performed laparoscopic (401/558, 71.9%) and MIPD mostly robotic (234/401, 58.3%). MIPD was performed in 50/54 (89.3%) centers, of which 15/50 (30.0%) performed ≥20 MIPD annually. This was 30/54 (55.6%) centers and 13/30 (43%) centers for MIPD respectively. Conversion rate was 10.9% for MIDP and 8.4% for MIPD. Overall 90 day mortality was 1.1% (n = 6) for MIDP and 3.7% (n = 15) for MIPD. CONCLUSION: Within the E-MIPS registry, MIDP is performed in about half of all patients, mostly using laparoscopy. MIPD is performed in about a quarter of patients, slightly more often using the robotic approach. A minority of centers met the Miami guideline volume criteria for MIPD.

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

BACKGROUND: Robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RDP) is increasingly used as an alternative to laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer but comparative multicenter studies confirming the safety and efficacy of RDP are lacking. METHODS: An international, multicenter, retrospective, cohort study, including consecutive patients undergoing RDP and LDP for resectable pancreatic cancer in 33 experienced centers from 11 countries (2010-2019). The primary outcome was R0-resection. Secondary outcomes included lymph node yield, major complications, conversion rate, and overall survival. RESULTS: In total, 542 patients after minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy were included: 103 RDP (19%) and 439 LDP (81%). The R0-resection rate was comparable (75.7% RDP vs. 69.3% LDP, p = 0.404). RDP was associated with longer operative time (290 vs. 240 min, p < 0.001), more vascular resections (7.6% vs. 2.7%, p = 0.030), lower conversion rate (4.9% vs. 17.3%, p = 0.001), more major complications (26.2% vs. 16.3%, p = 0.019), improved lymph node yield (18 vs. 16, p = 0.021), and longer hospital stay (10 vs. 8 days, p = 0.001). The 90-day mortality (1.9% vs. 0.7%, p = 0.268) and overall survival (median 28 vs. 31 months, p = 0.599) did not differ significantly between RDP and LDP, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In selected patients with resectable pancreatic cancer, RDP and LDP provide a comparable R0-resection rate and overall survival in experienced centers. Although the lymph node yield and conversion rate appeared favorable after RDP, LDP was associated with shorter operating time, less major complications, and shorter hospital stay. The specific benefits associated with each approach should be confirmed by multicenter, randomized trials.