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.

Outcomes After Minimally Invasive Versus Open Total Pancreatectomy: A Pan-European Propensity Score Matched Study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess postoperative 90-day outcomes after minimally invasive (laparoscopic/robot-assisted) total pancreatectomy (MITP) in selected patients versus open total pancreatectomy (OTP) among European centers. BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive pancreatic surgery is becoming increasingly popular but data on MITP are scarce and multicenter studies comparing outcomes versus OTP are lacking. It therefore remains unclear if MITP is a valid alternative. METHODS: Multicenter retrospective propensity-score matched study including consecutive adult patients undergoing MITP or OTP for all indications at 16 European centers in 7 countries (2008-2017). Patients after MITP were matched (1:1, caliper 0.02) to OTP controls. Missing data were imputed. The primary outcome was 90-day major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo ≥3a). Secondary outcomes included 90-day mortality, length of hospital stay, and survival. RESULTS: Of 361 patients (99MITP/262 OTP), 70 MITP procedures (50 laparoscopic, 15 robotic, 5 hybrid) could be matched to 70 OTP controls. After matching, MITP was associated with a lower rate of major morbidity (17% MITP vs. 31% OTP, P = 0.022). The 90-day mortality (1.4% MITP vs. 7.1% OTP, P = 0.209) and median hospital stay (17 [IQR 11-24] MITP vs. 12 [10-23] days OTP, P = 0.876) did not differ significantly. Among 81 patients with PDAC, overall survival was 3.7 (IQR 1.7-N/A) versus 0.9 (IQR 0.5-N/ A) years, for MITP versus OTP, which was nonsignificant after stratification by T-stage. CONCLUSION: This international propensity score matched study showed that MITP may be a valuable alternative to OTP in selected patients, given the associated lower rate of major morbidity.

Learning curve of three European centers in laparoscopic, hybrid laparoscopic, and robotic pancreatoduodenectomy.

INTRODUCTION: There are limited numbers of high-volume centers performing minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) routinely. Several approaches to MIPD have been described. Aim of this analysis was to show the learning curve of three different approaches to MIPD. Focus was on determining the number of cases necessary to obtain proficient level in MIPD. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective study wherein outcomes of 300 consecutive patients at three centers-at each center the initial 100 consecutive patients undergoing MIPD for malignant and benign tumors of the head of the pancreas and perimpullary area, performed by three experienced surgeons were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: Overall, 300 patients after MIPD were included: the three different cohorts (laparoscopic n = 100, hybrid n = 100, robotic n = 100). CUSUM analysis of operating time in each center demonstrated that the plateau for laparoscopic PD was n = 61, for hybrid PDes was n = 32 and for robotic PD was n = 68. Median operative time for laparoscopic, hybrid, and robotic approaches was 395 min, 404 min, 510 min, respectively. Intraoperative blood loss for laparoscopic PD, hybrid PD, and robotic PD was 250 ml, 250 ml, and 413 ml, respectively. Delayed gastric emptying occurred 12% in laparoscopic cohort, 10% in hybrid, and 53% in robotic cohort. Major complications (Clavien-Dindo III/IV) rate for laparoscopic PD, hybrid PD, and robotic PD was 32%, 37%, and 22% with 5% death in each cohorts, respectively. CONCLUSION: This analysis of the learning curve of three European centers found a shorter learning curve with hybrid PD as compared to laparoscopic and robotic PD. In implementation of a MIPD program, a stepwise approach might be beneficial.

One hundred and forty five total laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomies: A single centre experience.

INTRODUCTION: Laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) remains one of the most challenging minimal invasive operations today. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between January 2007 and December 2016, 197 patients were scheduled for LPD but 162 patients (from January 2007 to July 2016) were analysed in this cohort series. RESULTS: Total LPD concerned for 162 patients (five patients did not undergo PD and 12 underwent conversion): standard LPD in 104 patients (66%), and laparoscopic pylorus-preserving PD in 41 patients (26%). Median operative time was 415 (240-765) min. Median blood loss was 200 (50-2100) ml. Twelve patients required blood transfusion. Clinically relevant pancreatic fistula (ISGPF grades B and C) occurred in 21 (13%) patients: 16 (10.0%) grade B, and 5 (3%) grade C. Grades B and C delayed gastric emptying occurred in five patients each. Grades B and C post-pancreatectomy bleeding occurred in 9 (5.7%) and 3 (1.9%) patients, respectively. LPD was performed for 18 (11.4%) benign and 139 (88.5%) malignant lesions. Superior mesenteric and/or portal vein involvement required major venous resection in eight patients. The 90-day mortality 5.0%. The median overall survival for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma was 22.5 months. CONCLUSION: Morbidity and mortality for LPD are comparable to open procedures rates in the literature. Laparoscopic major venous resection is feasible and safe.

Superior mesenteric-portal vein resection during laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) with concomitant resection of major portal vessels has recently emerged as feasible and safe, with similar morbidity and mortality as well as oncologic outcome compared with patients undergoing open PD with major vascular resection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Of a consecutive series of 133 LPD, eight patients underwent concomitant superior mesenteric vein/portal vein (SMV/PV) resection and reconstruction with the intent of achieving a R0 resection. RESULTS: Four of these eight patients had tangential resection followed by lateral wall repair with Prolene 4.0. One patient had tangential resection with patch reconstruction. Three patients had circular venous resection: One had end-to-end primary venous reconstruction, and two patients had a prosthetic vascular graft interposition. There was no operative mortality. The SMV/PV was patent in all patients postoperatively on ultrasound Doppler or CT scans. Two patients (who underwent circular venous resection) had postoperative complications. One 77-year-old patient with preexisting cardiovascular disease died of heart failure on postoperative day 2, while another (undergoing prosthetic graft reconstruction) had postoperative bilioenteric anastomotic dehiscence and underwent immediate re-laparoscopy for repair. CONCLUSIONS: In our experience, LPD with concomitant major venous resection is feasible even in cases of longitudinal venous invasion. Further studies are needed to evaluate the role of laparoscopy in borderline pancreatic cancer.