Comparative analysis of open, laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatic resection: The United Kingdom's first single-centre experience.

INTRODUCTION: Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) has potential advantages over its open equivalent open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) for pancreatic disease in the neck, body and tail. Within the United Kingdom (UK), there has been no previous experience describing the role of robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP). This study evaluated differences between ODP, LDP and RDP. METHODS: Patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy performed in the Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery at the Freeman Hospital between September 2007 and December 2018 were included from a prospectively maintained database. The primary outcome measure was length of hospital stay, and the secondary outcome measures were complication rates graded according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. RESULTS: Of the 125 patients, the median age was 61 years and 46% were male. Patients undergoing RDP (n = 40) had higher American Society of Anesthesiologists grading III compared to ODP (n = 38) and LDP (n = 47) (57% vs. 37% vs. 38%, P = 0.02). RDP had a slightly lower but not significant conversion rate (10% vs. 13%, P = 0.084), less blood loss (median: 0 vs. 250 ml, P < 0.001) and a higher rate of splenic preservation (30% vs. 2%, P < 0.001) and shorter operative time, once docking time excluded (284 vs. 300 min, P < 0.001) compared to LDP. RDP had a higher R0 resection rate than ODP and LDP (79% vs. 47% vs. 71%, P = 0.078) for neoplasms. RDP was associated with significantly shorter hospital stay than LDP and ODP (8 vs. 9 vs. 10 days, P = 0.001). While there was no significant different in overall complications across the groups, RDP was associated with lower rates of Grade C pancreatic fistula than ODP and LDP (2% vs. 5% vs. 6%, P = 0.194). CONCLUSION: Minimally invasive pancreatic resection offers potential advantages over ODP, with a trend showing RDP to be marginally superior when compared to conventional LDP, but it is accepted that that this is likely to be at greater expense compared to the other current techniques.

Evolution of Esophagectomy for Cancer Over 30 Years: Changes in Presentation, Management and Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Esophageal cancer has seen a considerable change in management and outcomes over the last 30 years. Historically, the overall prognosis has been regarded as poor; however, the use of multimodal treatment and the integration of enhanced recovery pathways have improved short- and long-term outcomes. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the changing trends in presentation, management, and outcomes for patients undergoing surgical treatment for esophageal cancer over 30 years from a single-center, high-volume unit in the UK. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data from consecutive patients undergoing esophagectomy for cancer (adenocarcinoma or squamous cell carcinoma) between 1989 and 2018 from a single-center, high-volume unit were reviewed. Presentation method, management strategies, and outcomes were evaluated. Patients were grouped into successive 5-year cohorts for comparison and evaluation of changing trends. RESULTS: Between 1989 and 2018, 1486 patients underwent esophagectomy for cancer. Median age was 65 years (interquartile range [IQR] 59-71) and 1105 (75%) patients were male. Adenocarcinoma constituted 1105 (75%) patients, and overall median survival was 29 months (IQR 15-68). Patient presentation changed, with epigastric discomfort now the most common presentation (70%). An improvement in mortality from 5 to 2% (p < 0.001) was seen over the time period, and overall survival improved from 22 to 56 months (p < 0.001); however, morbidity increased from 54 to 68% (p = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Long-term outcomes have significantly improved over the 30-year study period. In addition, mortality and length of stay have improved despite an increase in complications. The reasons for this are multifactorial and include the use of perioperative chemo(radio)therapy, the introduction of an enhanced recovery pathway, and improved patient selection.

Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic liver resections: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Theoretical advantages of robotic surgery compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery include improved instrument dexterity, 3D visualization, and better ergonomics. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine advantages of robotic surgery over laparoscopic surgery in patients undergoing liver resections. METHOD: A systematic literature search was conducted for studies comparing robotic assisted or totally laparoscopic liver resection. Meta-analysis of intraoperative (operative time, blood loss, transfusion rate, conversion rate), oncological (R0 resection rates), and postoperative (bile leak, surgical site infection, pulmonary complications, 30-day and 90-day mortality, length of stay, 90-day readmission and reoperation rates) outcomes was performed using a random effects model. RESULT: Twenty-six non-randomized studies including 2630 patients (950 robotic and 1680 laparoscopic) were included, of which 20% had major robotic liver resection and 14% had major laparoscopic liver resection. Intraoperatively, robotic liver resection was associated with significantly less blood loss (mean: 286 vs 301 mL, p < 0.001) but longer operating time (mean: 281 vs 221 min, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in conversion rates or transfusion rates between robotic liver resection and laparoscopic liver resection. Postoperatively, there were no significant differences in overall complications, bile leaks, and length of hospital stay between robotic liver resection and laparoscopic liver resection. However, robotic liver resection was associated with significantly lower readmission rates than laparoscopic liver resection (odds ratio: 0.43, p = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Robotic liver resection appears to offer some advantages compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery, although both techniques appear equivalent. Importantly, the quality of evidence is generally limited to cohort studies and a high-quality randomized trial comparing both techniques is needed.