Robotic Pancreatoduodenectomy: Increasing Complexity and Decreasing Complications with Experience: Single-Center Results from 150 Consecutive Patients.

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.

Robotic Hepatic Bisegmentectomy (s4b + s5) and Hilar Lymphadenectomy for Incidental Gallbladder Cancer Using Glissonian Approach.

BACKGROUND: Gallbladder carcinoma is a rare cancer with a poor prognosis and the most common biliary tract malignancy. This video shows robotic treatment of a patient with incidental gallbladder cancer diagnosed after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The operation consisted of a robotic bisegmentectomy (liver segments 4b and 5) using a Glissonian approach and a hilar lymphadenectomy. METHODS: A 73-year-old woman with no relevant history underwent a laparoscopic cholecystectomy at another hospital facility. The pathology revealed a gallbladder carcinoma. The patient was then referred for further treatment. Pathologic revision confirmed T2a carcinoma and staging was negative for distant metastases. The multidisciplinary team decided on a radical resection that will consist of a hilar lymphadenectomy and a frozen section of the cystic stump along the resection of segments 4b and 5. A robotic approach was proposed, and consent was obtained. RESULTS: The operation time was 300 min and was performed 21 days after the cholecystectomy. Estimated blood loss was 120 mL with no transfusions required during or after the procedure. The postoperative recovery was uneventful, and the patient was discharged on the fourth postoperative day. The final pathology showed no residual disease in the liver specimen and no metastases among 16 removed lymph nodes. CONCLUSIONS: The robotic approach is safe and feasible for radical treatment after incidentally discovered gallbladder cancer. The Glissonian approach is useful for anatomic resection of liver segments 4b and 5. This video can help oncologic surgeons to perform this challenging procedure.

Bovine Pericardial Graft for Portomesenteric Reconstruction During Robotic Pancreatoduodenectomy.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) is one of the most complex procedures in oncologic surgery. We present a video of robotic portomesenteric reconstruction with bovine pericardial graft during PD. METHODS: A 52-year-old woman was referred with a mass in the head of the pancreas. The tumor was in contact with the portomesenteric axis. The multidisciplinary team decided to perform an upfront resection. The surgery was performed as a pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy with lymphadenectomy. The superior mesenteric artery first approach was used to expose the head of the pancreas, so that the entire surgical specimen was attached only through the tumor invasion of the portomesenteric axis. After resection of the invaded portomesenteric axis, its large extension precluded primary reconstruction, so a bovine pericardial graft was used for venous reconstruction. After completion of the venous anastomosis, reconstruction of the digestive tract was performed as usual. RESULTS: Surgical time was 430 min; clamp time was 55 min; and portomesenteric reconstruction took 41 min. Estimated blood loss was 320 mL without transfusion. Pathology confirmed T3N1 ductal adenocarcinoma with free margins. No pancreatic or biliary fistula was observed, and she was discharged on postoperative day 8. A postoperative examination confirmed the patency of the graft. The patient is doing well 6 months after surgery and has no signs of the disease. CONCLUSIONS: A bovine pericardial graft is useful for reconstruction and readily available, eliminating the need to harvest an autologous vein or use synthetic grafts. This procedure can be safely performed with the robotic platform.

Liver growth prediction in ALPPS - A multicenter analysis from the international ALPPS registry.

BACKGROUND: While ALPPS triggers a fast liver hypertrophy, it is still unclear which factors matter most to achieve accelerated hypertrophy within a short period of time. The aim of the study was to identify patient-intrinsic factors related to the growth of the future liver remnant (FLR). METHODS: This cohort study is composed of data derived from the International ALPPS Registry from November 2011 and October 2018. We analyse the influence of demographic, tumour type and perioperative data on the growth of the FLR. The volume of the FLR was calculated in millilitre and percentage using computed-tomography (CT) scans before and after stage 1, both according to Vauthey formula. RESULTS: A total of 734 patients were included from 99 centres. The median sFLR at stage 1 and stage 2 was 0.23 (IQR, 0.18-0.28) and 0.39 (IQR: 0.31-0.46), respectively. The variables associated with a lower increase from sFLR1 to sFLR2 were age˃68 years (p = .02), height ˃1.76 m (p ˂ .01), weight ˃83 kg (p ˂ .01), BMI˃28 (p ˂ .01), male gender (p ˂ .01), antihypertensive therapy (p ˂ .01), operation time ˃370 minutes (p ˂ .01) and hospital stay˃14 days (p ˂ .01). The time required to reach sufficient volume for stage 2, male gender accounts 40.3% in group ˂7 days, compared with 50% of female, and female present 15.3% in group ˃14 days compared with 20.6% of male. CONCLUSIONS: Height, weight, FLR size and gender could be the variables that most constantly influence both daily growths, the interstage increase and the standardized FLR before the second stage.

Mesopancreas Excision and Triangle Operation During Robotic Pancreatoduodenectomy.

BACKGROUND: The retropancreatic space between the superior mesenteric artery, celiac axis, and portal vein is called the mesopancreas. Total mesopancreas excision and skeletonization of both celiac axis and superior mesenteric artery are used to reduce R1 resection in high-risk patients and in those with locally advanced disease. The aim of this study was to present a series of video clips from several patients showing the mesopancreas excision and the triangle operation with a detailed technical description of both techniques with different approaches. METHODS: Video clips were compiled from several robotic pancreatoduodenectomies to demonstrate the total mesopancreas excision and triangle operation technique, as follows: (1) main steps for mesopancreas excision and triangle operation, (2) anterior approach for mesopancreas excision, and (3) triangle operation. RESULTS: A total of 87 patients underwent robotic PD at our center between March 2018 and March 2021. Of these, 22 patients underwent robotic mesopancreas excision. This technique was used for patients at high risk for R1 resection in 18 patients and triangle operation in four patients. Partial portal vein resection was necessary in 6 cases. One patient had R1 resection and was treated with adjuvant therapy. The remaining patients presented free surgical margins. The mean number of harvested lymph nodes was 40 (range: 27-77). The median interval between the operation and chemotherapy was 23 days. CONCLUSIONS: The robotic total mesopancreas excision and the triangle operation are feasible and safe for selected patients. The indication for this radical operation is the presence of a high risk for R1 resection and for those with locally advanced disease. The presented video may help oncological surgeons to perform these techniques.

Robotic Artery-First Approach During Pancreatoduodenectomy.

BACKGROUND: Surgical resection with adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy is the only curative modality for treatment of patients with pancreatic and periampullary tumors. With the increasing use of minimally invasive techniques, laparoscopic and robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) has become more common, but laparoscopic artery-first techniques have been described in few studies. The aim of this study is to describe our robotic artery-first technique. METHODS: Video clips were compiled from several robotic PDs to demonstrate the artery-first technique. This technique consists of early retroperitoneal dissection of the superior mesenteric artery from the pancreatic head. RESULTS: Overall, 73 patients underwent robotic PD at our center between March 2018 and August 2020. Of these, 24 patients underwent the robotic artery-first approach. Indication for its use included proximity of the tumor to the portal vein or SMV in six cases. In three cases, partial resection of the portomesenteric axis was necessary, and the artery-first approach allowed for safe venous resection and reconstruction. In three other cases, the tumor was in close contact with the vein, but it could be resected with free margins without venous resection. In the remaining 18 patients, the approach was systematically used regardless of tumor proximity to the portomesenteric axis. CONCLUSIONS: This robotic artery-first approach is feasible and safe for PD. The approach could facilitate robotic PD, and its systematical use could provide some important advantages during the resection phase. The videos could also help oncological surgeons to perform this complex yet important maneuver.

Diagnosis of pancreatic solid pseudopapillary neoplasms using cell-blocks and immunohistochemical evaluation of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration biopsy specimens.

INTRODUCTION: Preoperative diagnostic imaging of pancreatic solid pseudopapillary neoplasms (SPNs) is challenging. A few studies have investigated the role of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for the diagnosis of SPN. We investigated the diagnostic yield of cell-blocks and immunohistochemistry (IHC) for SPN using EUS-FNA specimens without cytological evaluation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analysed the histopathology records of patients with suspected SPN, who underwent EUS-FNA biopsy between January 1997 and January 2020. Diagnosis based on cell-blocks (haematoxylin-eosin staining with complementary IHC) was compared with the definitive surgical diagnosis. RESULTS: This study included 25 patients (24 were women). Patients' mean age was 33.7 years (range 12-78 years). The most common symptom was abdominal pain. SPN was an incidental finding in 52% of the patients. The mean lesion size was 4.3 cm (range 1.2-11.4 cm), and the most common endosonographic features included solid-cystic (56%) or solid (40%) tumours. Final diagnoses included SPNs (n = 23) and non-functioning neuroendocrine tumours (n = 2). The overall accuracy of EUS-FNA was 80%. Tumour cells showed immunopositivity for ß-catenin, CD10, CD99 and progesterone receptor (PR) in 93.7%, 87.5%, 83.3% and 66.6% of patients, respectively. No SPN showed immunopositivity for chromogranin A. CONCLUSIONS: Intention-to-diagnose analysis showed that the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA for SPNs using cell blocks and complementary IHC without cytological evaluation was fairly good. Evaluation of ß-catenin, CD 10, CD99 and PR expression must be included in the IHC panel for diagnostic confirmation of SPNs using EUS-FNA biopsy specimens.

First Long-term Oncologic Results of the ALPPS Procedure in a Large Cohort of Patients With Colorectal Liver Metastases.

OBJECTIVES: To analyze long-term oncological outcome along with prognostic risk factors in a large cohort of patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) undergoing ALPPS. BACKGROUND: ALPPS is a two-stage hepatectomy variant that increases resection rates and R0 resection rates in patients with primarily unresectable CRLM as evidenced in a recent randomized controlled trial. Long-term oncologic results, however, are lacking. METHODS: Cases in- and outside the International ALPPS Registry were collected and completed by direct contacts to ALPPS centers to secure a comprehensive cohort. Overall, cancer-specific (CSS), and recurrence-free (RFS) survivals were analyzed along with independent risk factors using Cox-regression analysis. RESULTS: The cohort included 510 patients from 22 ALPPS centers over a 10-year period. Ninety-day mortality was 4.9% and median overall survival, CSS, and RFS were 39, 42, and 15 months, respectively. The median follow-up time was 38 months (95% confidence interval 32-43 months). Multivariate analysis identified tumor-characteristics (primary T4, right colon), biological features (K/N-RAS status), and response to chemotherapy (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) as independent predictors of CSS. Traditional factors such as size of metastases, uni versus bilobar involvement, and liver-first approach were not predictive. When hepatic recurrences after ALPPS was amenable to surgical/ablative treatment, median CSS was significantly superior compared to chemotherapy alone (56 vs 30 months, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This large cohort provides the first evidence that patients with primarily unresectable CRLM treated by ALPPS have not only low perioperative mortality, but achieve appealing long-term oncologic outcome especially those with favorable tumor biology and good response to chemotherapy.

Robotic Resection of Hilar Cholangiocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Hilar cholangiocarcinoma is the most common malignant neoplasm of the biliary tract. Surgical resection is the only curative modality of treatment. The aim of this video is to present a robotic left hepatectomy extended to caudate lobe, combined with bile duct resection, lymphadenectomy, and Roux-en-Y biliary reconstruction. METHODS: A 76-year-old female presented with progressive jaundice due to hilar cholangiocarcinoma. She underwent chemoradiation and after 5 months of treatment was referred for second opinion; imaging reevaluation showed objective response and no arterial invasion. Multidisciplinary team decided for radical treatment, which consisted in robotic left hepatectomy, caudate lobe resection, resection of bile duct, lymphadenectomy, and hepaticojejunostomy. RESULTS: Operative time was 8 h. Estimated blood loss was 740 mL (received 2 U). The patient's recovery was complicated by drainage clogging resulting in fever and perihepatic fluid collection, successfully treated by change of drainage. Pathology confirmed cholangiocarcinoma with free surgical margins (T1aN0). The patient is well, with no signs of disease 5 months after the procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic resection of hilar cholangiocarcinoma is feasible and safe. The robotic approach has some technical advantages over laparoscopic approach. This video may help oncological surgeons to perform this complex procedure.

Robotic ALPPS.

BACKGROUND: The associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy (ALPPS) procedure is a useful strategy to treat patients with advanced liver tumors and small future liver remnants. This video presents a robotic ALPPS procedure to treat synchronous colorectal liver metastases. METHODS: A 71-year-old man with liver metastases from sigmoid cancer was referred. A multidisciplinary team decided on chemotherapy followed by liver resection (first), then colon resection. After four cycles, objective response was observed and the multidisciplinary team then chose the ALPPS procedure. The future liver remnant (segments 3 and 4 and the Spiegel lobe) was 24%. A robotic approach was proposed. Colon resection was performed after the ALPPS procedure, also using the robotic approach. RESULTS: The duration of the first stage was 293 min, and the technique used in the first stage was partial ALPPS (parenchymal transection deep to 2 cm above the inferior vena cava) with preservation of the right hepatic duct. The patient was discharged on the fourth day. The second stage of the procedure took 245 min. Recovery was uneventful and the patient was discharged on the fourth day. Finally, the patient underwent robotic resection of the primary colorectal neoplasm. The surgery lasted 182 min, recovery was uneventful, and the patient was discharged on the fifth postoperative day. Final pathology disclosed a T3N1bM1 adenocarcinoma. Liver pathology confirmed colorectal metastases with partial response. All surgical margins were free. Currently, the patient is well, with no signs of disease 5 months post-procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic ALPPS is feasible and safe. The robotic approach may have some advantages over the laparoscopic and open ALPPS approaches. This video may help oncological surgeons to perform this complex procedure.

Defining Benchmark Outcomes for ALPPS.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to use the concept of benchmarking to establish robust and standardized outcome references after the procedure ALPPS (Associating Liver Partition and Portal Vein Ligation for Staged hepatectomy). BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The recently developed ALPPS procedure, aiming at removing primarily unresectable liver tumors, has been criticized for safety issues with high variations in the reported morbidity/mortality rates depending on patient, disease, technical characteristics, and center experience. No reference values for relevant outcome parameters are available. METHODS: Among 1036 patients registered in the international ALPPS registry, 120 (12%) were benchmark cases fulfilling 4 criteria: patients ≤67 years of age, with colorectal metastases, without simultaneous abdominal procedures, and centers having performed ≥30 cases. Benchmark values, defined as the 75th percentile of the median outcome parameters of the centers, were established for 10 clinically relevant domains. RESULTS: The benchmark values were completion of stage 2: ≥96%, postoperative liver failure (ISGLS-criteria) after stage 2: ≤5%, ICU stay after ALPPS stages 1 and 2: ≤1 and ≤2 days, respectively, interstage interval: ≤16 days, hospital stay after ALPPS stage 2: ≤10 days, rates of overall morbidity in combining both stage 1 and 2: ≤65% and for major complications (grade ≥3a): ≤38%, 90-day comprehensive complication index was ≤22, the 30-, 90-day, and 6-month mortality was ≤4%, ≤5%, and 6%, respectively, the overall 1-year, recurrence-free, liver-tumor-free, and extrahepatic disease-free survival was ≥86%, ≥50%, ≥57%, and ≥65%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This benchmark analysis sets key reference values for ALPPS, indicating similar outcome as other types of major hepatectomies. Benchmark cutoffs offer valid tools not only for comparisons with other procedures, but also to assess higher risk groups of patients or different indications than colorectal metastases.

Robotic Repeat Right Hepatectomy for Recurrent Colorectal Liver Metastasis.

BACKGROUND: Repeat hepatectomy often is required for primary and metastatic tumors. The purpose of this video was to present a robotic repeat hepatectomy for recurrent colorectal metastasis after multiple previous open surgeries. PATIENT: A 64-year-old man underwent open left colectomy complicated by anastomotic leak. He was reoperated for colostomy, which was reverted. One year later, he underwent open metastasectomy. Recently, he presented a recurrence in the right liver, and a robotic right hepatectomy was indicated. TECHNIQUE: This approach used five trocars. The operation began with adhesiolysis. The next step was to dissect and divide the right hepatic artery and the right portal vein. A retrohepatic tunnel is created on the right side of the inferior vena cava for a modified liver hanging maneuver. The liver was pulled upwards and liver transection resumed towards the right hepatic vein. The liver was divided with bipolar forceps under continuous saline irrigation. The right hepatic duct was found inside the liver and was divided. Finally, the right hepatic vein was divided inside the liver parenchyma using a vascular stapler, and robotic right hepatectomy was completed. RESULTS: The operative time for docking was 10 min; adhesiolysis took 90 min while robotic right hepatectomy was completed in 240 min. The Pringle maneuver was not used. Estimated blood loss was 150 mL with no need for transfusion. Recovery was uneventful, and the patient was discharged on the fifth postoperative day. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic repeat hepatectomy is feasible and safe in experienced hands and may have some advantages over laparoscopic and open repeat liver resections.

Robotic Left Hepatectomy and Roux-en-Y Hepaticojejunostomy After Bile Duct Injury.

BACKGROUND: Bile duct injuries after cholecystectomy remain a major concern because their incidence has not changed through the years despite technical advances. This video presents a robotic left hepatectomy and Roux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomy as a treatment for a complex bile duct injury after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. METHODS: A 52-year-old man underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy at another institution 8 years previously, which resulted in a bile duct injury. His postoperative period was complicated by jaundice and cholangitis. He was treated with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and multiple endoprostheses for 3 years, after which the endoprostheses were removed, and he was sent to the authors' institution. Computed tomography showed that the left liver had signs of disturbed perfusion and dilation of the left intrahepatic bile duct. The patient was asymptomatic and refused any further attempt at surgical correction of the lesion. He was accompanied for 5 years. Magnetic resonance imaging showed progressive atrophy of the left liver. Finally, 3 months before this writing, he presented with intermittent episodes of cholangitis. A multidisciplinary team decided to perform left hepatectomy with Roux-en-Y hepatojejunostomy via a robotic approach. The left liver was atrophied, and left hepatectomy was performed. Fluorescence imaging was used to identify the right bile duct. At opening of the right bile duct, small stones were found and removed. Antecolic Roux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomy then was performed. RESULTS: The operative time was 335 min. Recovery was uneventful, and the patient was discharged on postoperative day 4. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic repair of bile duct injuries is feasible and safe, even when liver resection is necessary. This video may help oncologic surgeons to perform this complex procedure.

Risk Adjustment in ALPPS Is Associated With a Dramatic Decrease in Early Mortality and Morbidity.

OBJECTIVE: To longitudinally assess whether risk adjustment in Associating Liver Partition and Portal Vein Ligation for Staged Hepatectomy (ALPPS) occurred over time and is associated with postoperative outcome. BACKGROUND: ALPPS is a novel 2-stage hepatectomy enabling resection of extensive hepatic tumors. ALPPS has been criticized for its high mortality, which is reported beyond accepted standards in liver surgery. Therefore, adjustments in patient selection and technique have been performed but have not yet been studied over time in relation to outcome. METHODS: ALPPS centers of the International ALPPS Registry having performed ≥10 cases over a period of ≥3 years were assessed for 90-day mortality and major interstage complications (≥3b) of the longitudinal study period from 2009 to 2015. The predicted prestage 1 and 2 mortality risks were calculated for each patient. In addition, questionnaires were sent to all centers exploring center-specific risk adjustment strategies. RESULTS: Among 437 patients from 16 centers, a shift in indications toward colorectal liver metastases from 53% to 77% and a reverse trend in biliary tumors from 24% to 9% were observed. Over time, 90-day mortality decreased from initially 17% to 4% in 2015 (P = 0.002). Similarly, major interstage complications decreased from 10% to 3% (P = 0.011). The reduction of 90-day mortality was independently associated with a risk adjustment in patient selection (P < 0.001; OR: 1.62; 95% CI: 1.36-1.93) and using less invasive techniques in stage-1 surgery (P = 0.019; OR: 0.39; 95% CI: 0.18-0.86). A survey indicated risk adjustment of patient selection in all centers and ALPPS technique in the majority (80%) of centers. CONCLUSIONS: Risk adjustment of patient selection and technique in ALPPS resulted in a continuous drop of early mortality and major postoperative morbidity, which has meanwhile reached standard outcome measures accepted for major liver surgery.

Laparoscopic Parenchymal-Sparing Liver Resections Using the Intrahepatic Glissonian Approach.

BACKGROUND: One of the main criticisms of laparoscopic liver resection is that it is difficult, or not possible, to perform liver-sparing resections. Our aim was to present short videos where the intrahepatic Glissonian approach was used to perform anatomical liver segmental resections, instead of a larger operation, to avoid unnecessary sacrifice of the liver parenchyma. METHODS: We selected six types of anatomical liver resections to exemplify the use of the intrahepatic Glissonian approach to perform segment-oriented liver resections. These types of hepatectomies were used as an alternative to right or left hepatectomy, or as an alternative to extended liver resections. RESULTS: The intrahepatic Glissonian approach was feasible in all cases. The use of anatomical landmarks previously described was essential to reach and control the Glissonian pedicles. Among the liver-sparing resections, we were able to perform right anterior (S5 + S8) and posterior (S6 + S7) sectionectomies, resection of segments 2, 3, and 4, and mesohepatectomy (S4 + S5 + S8). No patient presented postoperative liver failure. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic liver-sparing resections are feasible and may be a good alternative to hemihepatectomies or extended liver resections. The use of the intrahepatic Glissonian approach can be useful.