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.

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.

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.

Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic technique for the treatment of left-sided colonic diverticular disease: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Minimally invasive surgery has been universally accepted as a valid option for the treatment of diverticular disease, provided specific expertise is available. Over the last decade, there has been a growing interest in the application of robotic approaches for diverticular disease. We aimed at evaluating whether robotic colectomy may offer some advantages over the laparoscopic approach for surgical treatment of diverticular disease by meta-analyzing the available data from the medical literature. METHODS: The PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, and Web Of Sciences electronic databases were searched for literature up to December 2020. Inclusion criteria considered all comparative studies evaluating robotic versus laparoscopic colectomy for diverticulitis eligible. The conversion rate to the open approach was evaluated as the primary outcome. RESULTS: The data of 4177 patients from nine studies were included in the analysis. There were no significant differences in the baseline characteristics. Patients undergoing laparoscopic colectomy compared to those who underwent surgery with a robotic approach had a significantly higher risk of conversion into an open procedure (12.5% vs. 7.4%, p < 0.00001) and abbreviated hospital stay (p < 0.0001) at the price of a longer operating time (p < 0.00001). CONCLUSION: Compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery, the robotic approach offers significant advantages in terms of conversion rate and shortened hospital stay for the treatment of diverticular disease. However, because of the lack of available evidence, it is impossible to draw definitive conclusions.

Impact of COVID-19 outbreak on esophageal cancer surgery in Northern Italy: lessons learned from a multicentric snapshot.

Coronavirus Disease-19 (COVID-19) outbreak has significantly burdened healthcare systems worldwide, leading to reorganization of healthcare services and reallocation of resources. The Italian Society for Study of Esophageal Diseases (SISME) conducted a national survey to evaluate changes in esophageal cancer management in a region severely struck by COVID-19 pandemic. A web-based questionnaire (26 items) was sent to 12 SISME units. Short-term outcomes of esophageal resections performed during the lockdown were compared with those achieved in the same period of 2019. Six (50%) centers had significant restrictions in their activity. However, overall number of resections did not decrease compared to 2019, while a higher rate of open esophageal resections was observed (40 vs. 21.7%; P = 0.034). Surgery was delayed in 24 (36.9%) patients in 6 (50%) centers, mostly due to shortage of anesthesiologists, and occupation of intensive care unit beds from intubated COVID-19 patients. Indications for neoadjuvant chemo (radio) therapy were extended in 14% of patients. Separate COVID-19 hospital pathways were active in 11 (91.7%) units. COVID-19 screening protocols included nasopharyngeal swab in 91.7%, chest computed tomography scan in 8.3% and selective use of lung ultrasound in 75% of units. Postoperative interstitial pneumonia occurred in 1 (1.5%) patient. Recovery from COVID-19 pandemic was characterized by screening of patients in all units, and follow-up outpatient visits in only 33% of units. This survey shows that clinical strategies differed considerably among the 12 SISME centers. Evidence-based guidelines are needed to support the surgical esophageal community and to standardize clinical practice in case of further pandemics.

Robotic enucleation for oesophageal benign and borderline tumours: Less is more?

BACKGROUND: Oesophageal benign to borderline tumours are rare entities, and their optimal treatment strategy remains controversial. Surgical robotic enucleation is an option to optimize their management. METHODS: We prospectively collected data on seven consecutive oesophageal benign to borderline tumours operated robotically over a 4-year period. Patient baseline characteristics, perioperative outcomes and medium-term follow-ups were reviewed and analysed retrospectively. RESULTS: Two patients underwent a robotic oesophagectomy and five underwent a simple enucleation. These last were the objective of the final analysis. Median operative time was 150 min. Neither deaths nor postoperative complications occurred. Median oral feeding started on postoperative day 3.5. The median postoperative stay was 5 days. Final histopathology confirmed two gastrointestinal stromal tumours, two leiomyomas and one simple cyst. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic enucleation of oesophageal benign to borderline tumours is a feasible procedure in a dedicated oesophageal unit, with optimal perioperative outcomes in a small series of cases with limited follow-up.

Robotic esophagectomy: results from a tertiary care Italian center.

There is growing evidence supporting the use of minimally invasive resection in esophageal surgery, mainly due to reduced postoperative morbidity and faster recovery after surgery. In recent years, robot-assisted surgery has shown some potential benefits over conventional laparo-thoracoscopic esophagectomy. The purpose of this study is to report our experience with different esophageal resections with a full-robotic approach for malignant disease. All consecutive patients with resectable esophageal malignancy undergoing robotic esophagectomy over a 6-year time frame by a single surgical team were included in this analysis. Perioperative and clinicopathological outcomes were assessed. A total of 76 patients received robotic esophagectomy. Surgeries included 45 Lewis procedures, 25 McKeown procedures, and six transhiatal resections. There were no intraoperative complications and no conversions occurred. The rate of postoperative morbidity was 41%, while the rate of anastomotic leak was 13%. Overall, eight patients required reintervention. All patients received R0 resection, with a median of harvested lymph nodes of 35. 30-day and 90-day mortality was 3.9 and 7.9%, respectively. Our findings support the safety and oncological efficiency of full-robotic esophagectomy. All procedures of esophageal resection were associated with the expected perioperative morbidity while providing excellent pathological outcomes for patients with malignancy.

Robotic pancreatic surgery: minimally invasive approach to challenging operations.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic surgery is still associated with high perioperative morbidity and mortality. The purpose of this study was to present the short-term outcomes of robot-assisted pancreatic surgery, including pancreaticoduodenectomy (RAPD), distal pancreatectomy (RDP) with or without splenectomy, enucleation (REN), and atypical resection (RAR), for benign, borderline, and malignant lesions at a high-volume center. METHODS: A single-center, prospective database was used to retrospectively analyze the early outcomes of robotic pancreatic procedures completed between 2014 and 2020. Out of 124 attempted operations, 3 patients received palliative robotic surgery (2.4%). Of the remaining 121, 14 (11.6%) were converted to open surgery. The robotic procedures included 107 patients: 56 underwent RAPD, 31 underwent RDP (28 with and 3 without splenectomy), 16 underwent REN, and 4 underwent RAR (2 central and 2 total pancreatectomies). RESULTS: The preoperative baseline characteristics and comorbidities were consistent with those of a Western population. The overall incidence of complications was 43.9%, with the more severe (Clavien-Dindo III-IV) occurring after RAPD (19.6%). We collected 7 (13.1%) postoperative pancreatic fistulae after RAPD, 5 (16.1%) after RADP, and 2 (12.5%) after REN. The two central pancreatectomies developed a biochemical leak without sequelae. Three patients (2.8%) died within 90 days after surgery. Early refeeding was achieved in those who did not experience severe complications, while the median hospital stay was 8 days. The median number of harvested lymph nodes was 22, with non-R1 microscopic residual tumors found. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic pancreatic surgery is a safe and oncologically adequate technique to manage benign and malignant diseases arising from the head, body, and tail of the pancreas.

Robotic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: Is there any difference for frail patients?

BACKGROUND: Old age and frailty are predictors of early postoperative results after pancreatic surgery. We analysed the results of robotic and open pancreatoduodenectomy in elderly and frail patients. METHODS: Data from the local robotic pancreatoduodenectomy database were reviewed and matched with those from open operations during the same period (2014-2020). Both old age and frailty were used to determine any correlation with postoperative outcomes. Elderly patients were defined as patients aged 70 years or more, while frailty was classified according to the validated modified Frailty Index. RESULTS: A total of 118 pancreatoduodenectomies were included in the analysis: 65 (55.1%) robotic and 53 (44.9%) open. More than 50% of patients were frail. Overall, 7.6% of patients experienced grade IV Clavien-Dindo complications, and 3.4% died within 90 days after surgery. Frail patients experienced a similar rate of severe complications after robotic vs. open operations (5.3 vs. 11.6; p = 0.439) but earlier refeeding (3 days vs. 4 days; p = 0.006) and earlier drain removal (6 days vs. 7 days; p = 0.046) when operated on by a robotic approach. The oncological outcomes, including limphnodes retrieval, residual disease, recurrences, and survival, were not influenced by the surgical approach. Non-elderly patients also showed more benefits with the robotic approach (lower complication index, earlier refeeding, and drain removal). CONCLUSIONS: Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy is associated with risks of major complications that are comparable to those of open operation in frail patients. Some perioperative parameters (refeeding, drain removal) seem to favour robotics in frail patients and younger patients, although at the price of longer operating times.