Early experience with robotic pancreatoduodenectomy versus open pancreatoduodenectomy: nationwide propensity-score-matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: Although robotic pancreatoduodenectomy has shown promising outcomes in experienced high-volume centres, it is unclear whether implementation on a nationwide scale is safe and beneficial. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of the early experience with robotic pancreatoduodenectomy versus open pancreatoduodenectomy in the Netherlands. METHODS: This was a nationwide retrospective cohort study of all consecutive patients who underwent robotic pancreatoduodenectomy or open pancreatoduodenectomy who were registered in the mandatory Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit (18 centres, 2014-2021), starting from the first robotic pancreatoduodenectomy procedure per centre. The main endpoints were major complications (Clavien-Dindo grade greater than or equal to III) and in-hospital/30-day mortality. Propensity-score matching (1 : 1) was used to minimize selection bias. RESULTS: Overall, 701 patients who underwent robotic pancreatoduodenectomy and 4447 patients who underwent open pancreatoduodenectomy were included. Among the eight centres that performed robotic pancreatoduodenectomy, the median robotic pancreatoduodenectomy experience was 86 (range 48-149), with a 7.3% conversion rate. After matching (698 robotic pancreatoduodenectomy patients versus 698 open pancreatoduodenectomy control patients), no significant differences were found in major complications (40.3% versus 36.2% respectively; P = 0.186), in-hospital/30-day mortality (4.0% versus 3.1% respectively; P = 0.326), and postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C (24.9% versus 23.5% respectively; P = 0.578). Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with a longer operating time (359 min versus 301 min; P < 0.001), less intraoperative blood loss (200 ml versus 500 ml; P < 0.001), fewer wound infections (7.4% versus 12.2%; P = 0.008), and a shorter hospital stay (11 days versus 12 days; P < 0.001). Centres performing greater than or equal to 20 robotic pancreatoduodenectomies annually had a lower mortality rate (2.9% versus 7.3%; P = 0.009) and a lower conversion rate (6.3% versus 11.2%; P = 0.032). CONCLUSION: This study indicates that robotic pancreatoduodenectomy was safely implemented nationwide, without significant differences in major morbidity and mortality compared with matched open pancreatoduodenectomy patients. Randomized trials should be carried out to verify these findings and confirm the observed benefits of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy versus open pancreatoduodenectomy.

Robotic hepaticojejunostomy training in novices using robotic simulation and dry-lab suturing (ROSIM): randomized controlled crossover trial.

BACKGROUND: Robotic suturing training is in increasing demand and can be done using suture-pads or robotic simulation training. Robotic simulation is less cumbersome, whereas a robotic suture-pad approach could be more effective but is more costly. A training curriculum with crossover between both approaches may be a practical solution. However, studies assessing the impact of starting with robotic simulation or suture-pads in robotic suturing training are lacking. METHODS: This was a randomized controlled crossover trial conducted with 20 robotic novices from 3 countries who underwent robotic suturing training using an Intuitive Surgical® X and Xi system with the SimNow (robotic simulation) and suture-pads (dry-lab). Participants were randomized to start with robotic simulation (intervention group, n = 10) or suture-pads (control group, n = 10). After the first and second training, all participants completed a robotic hepaticojejunostomy (HJ) in biotissue. Primary endpoint was the objective structured assessment of technical skill (OSATS) score during HJ, scored by two blinded raters. Secondary endpoints were force measurements and a qualitative analysis. After training, participants were surveyed regarding their preferences. RESULTS: Overall, 20 robotic novices completed both training sessions and performed 40 robotic HJs. After both trainings, OSATS was scored higher in the robotic simulation-first group (3.3 ± 0.9 vs 2.5 ± 0.8; p = 0.049), whereas the median maximum force (N) (5.0 [3.2-8.0] vs 3.8 [2.3-12.8]; p = 0.739) did not differ significantly between the groups. In the survey, 17/20 (85%) participants recommended to include robotic simulation training, 14/20 (70%) participants preferred to start with robotic simulation, and 20/20 (100%) to include suture-pad training. CONCLUSION: Surgical performance during robotic HJ in robotic novices was significantly better after robotic simulation-first training followed by suture-pad training. A robotic suturing curriculum including both robotic simulation and dry-lab suturing should ideally start with robotic simulation.

Video Grading of Pancreatic Anastomoses During Robotic Pancreatoduodenectomy to Assess Both Learning Curve and the Risk of Pancreatic Fistula: A Post Hoc Analysis of the LAELAPS-3 Training Program.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the learning curve of pancreaticojejunostomy during robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) and to predict the risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) by using the objective structured assessment of technical skills (OSATS), taking the fistula risk into account. BACKGROUND: RPD is a challenging procedure that requires extensive training and confirmation of adequate surgical performance. Video grading, modified for RPD, of the pancreatic anastomosis could assess the learning curve of RPD and predict the risk of POPF. METHODS: Post hoc assessment of patients prospectively included in 4 Dutch centers in a nationwide LAELAPS-3 training program for RPD. Video grading of the pancreaticojejunostomy was performed by 2 graders using OSATS (attainable score: 12-60). The main outcomes were the combined OSATS of the 2 graders and POPF (grade B/C). Cumulative sum analyzed a turning point in the learning curve for surgical skill. Logistic regression determined the cutoff for OSATS. Patients were categorized for POPF risk (ie, low, intermediate, and high) based on the updated alternative fistula risk scores. RESULTS: Videos from 153 pancreatic anastomoses were included. Median OSATS score was 48 (interquartile range: 41-52) points and with a turning point at 33 procedures. POPF occurred in 39 patients (25.5%). An OSATS score below 49, present in 77 patients (50.3%), was associated with an increased risk of POPF (odds ratio: 4.01, P =0.004). The POPF rate was 43.6% with OSATS < 49 versus 15.8% with OSATS ≥49. The updated alternative fistula risk scores category "soft pancreatic texture" was the second strongest prognostic factor of POPF (odds ratio: 3.37, P =0.040). Median cumulative surgical experience was 17 years (interquartile range: 8-21). CONCLUSIONS: Video grading of the pancreatic anastomosis in RPD using OSATS identified a learning curve and a reduced risk of POPF in case of better surgical performance. Video grading may provide a valid method to surgical training, quality control, and improvement.

The Feasibility, Proficiency, and Mastery Learning Curves in 635 Robotic Pancreatoduodenectomies Following a Multicenter Training Program: "Standing on the Shoulders of Giants".

OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility, proficiency, and mastery learning curves for robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) in "second-generation" RPD centers following a multicenter training program adhering to the IDEAL framework. BACKGROUND: The long learning curves for RPD reported from "pioneering" expert centers may discourage centers interested in starting an RPD program. However, the feasibility, proficiency, and mastery learning curves may be shorter in "second-generation" centers that participated in dedicated RPD training programs, although data are lacking. We report on the learning curves for RPD in "second-generation" centers trained in a dedicated nationwide program. METHODS: Post hoc analysis of all consecutive patients undergoing RPD in 7 centers that participated in the LAELAPS-3 training program, each with a minimum annual volume of 50 pancreatoduodenectomies, using the mandatory Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit (March 2016-December 2021). Cumulative sum analysis determined cutoffs for the 3 learning curves: operative time for the feasibility (1) risk-adjusted major complication (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III) for the proficiency, (2) and textbook outcome for the mastery, (3) learning curve. Outcomes before and after the cutoffs were compared for the proficiency and mastery learning curves. A survey was used to assess changes in practice and the most valued "lessons learned." RESULTS: Overall, 635 RPD were performed by 17 trained surgeons, with a conversion rate of 6.6% (n=42). The median annual volume of RPD per center was 22.5±6.8. From 2016 to 2021, the nationwide annual use of RPD increased from 0% to 23% whereas the use of laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy decreased from 15% to 0%. The rate of major complications was 36.9% (n=234), surgical site infection 6.3% (n=40), postoperative pancreatic fistula (grade B/C) 26.9% (n=171), and 30-day/in-hospital mortality 3.5% (n=22). Cutoffs for the feasibility, proficiency, and mastery learning curves were reached at 15, 62, and 84 RPD. Major morbidity and 30-day/in-hospital mortality did not differ significantly before and after the cutoffs for the proficiency and mastery learning curves. Previous experience in laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy shortened the feasibility (-12 RPDs, -44%), proficiency (-32 RPDs, -34%), and mastery phase learning curve (-34 RPDs, -23%), but did not improve clinical outcome. CONCLUSIONS: The feasibility, proficiency, and mastery learning curves for RPD at 15, 62, and 84 procedures in "second-generation" centers after a multicenter training program were considerably shorter than previously reported from "pioneering" expert centers. The learning curve cutoffs and prior laparoscopic experience did not impact major morbidity and mortality. These findings demonstrate the safety and value of a nationwide training program for RPD in centers with sufficient volume.

Outcomes of a Multicenter Training Program in Robotic Pancreatoduodenectomy (LAELAPS-3).

OBJECTIVE: To assess feasibility and safety of a multicenter training program in robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) adhering to the IDEAL framework for implementation of surgical innovation. BACKGROUND: Good results for RPD have been reported from single center studies. However, data on feasibility and safety of implementation through a multicenter training program in RPD are lacking. METHODS: A multicenter training program in RPD was designed together with the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, including an online video bank, robot simulation exercises, biotissue drills, and on-site proctoring. Benchmark patients were based on the criteria of Clavien. Outcomes were collected prospectively (March 2016-October 2019). Cumulative sum analysis of operative time was performed to distinguish the first and second phase of the learning curve. Outcomes were compared between both phases of the learning curve. Trends in nationwide use of robotic and laparoscopic PD were assessed in the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit. RESULTS: Overall, 275 RPD procedures were performed in seven centers by 15 trained surgeons. The recent benchmark criteria for low-risk PD were met by 125 (45.5%) patients. The conversion rate was 6.5% (n = 18) and median blood loss 250ml [interquartile range (IQR) 150-500]. The rate of Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III complications was 44.4% (n = 122), postoperative pancreatic fistula (grade B/C) rate 23.6% (n = 65), 90-day complication-related mortality 2.5% (n = 7) and 90-day cancer-related mortality 2.2.% (n = 6). Median postoperative hospital stay was 12 days (IQR 8-20). In the subgroup of patients with pancreatic cancer (n = 80), the major complication rate was 31.3% and POPF rate was 10%. Cumulative sum analysis for operative time found a learning curve inflection point at 22 RPDs (IQR 10-35) with similar rates of Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III complications in the first and second phase (43.4% vs 43.8%, P = 0.956, respectively). During the study period the nationwide use of laparoscopic PD reduced from 15% to 1%, whereas the use of RPD increased from 0% to 25%. CONCLUSIONS: This multicenter RPD training program in centers with sufficient surgical volume was found to be feasible without a negative impact of the learning curve on clinical outcomes.

Performance with robotic surgery versus 3D- and 2D-laparoscopy during pancreatic and biliary anastomoses in a biotissue model: pooled analysis of two randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: Robotic surgery may improve surgical performance during minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy as compared to 3D- and 2D-laparoscopy but comparative studies are lacking. This study assessed the impact of robotic surgery versus 3D- and 2D-laparoscopy on surgical performance and operative time using a standardized biotissue model for pancreatico- and hepatico-jejunostomy using pooled data from two randomized controlled crossover trials (RCTs). METHODS: Pooled analysis of data from two RCTs with 60 participants (36 surgeons, 24 residents) from 11 countries (December 2017-July 2019) was conducted. Each included participant completed two pancreatico- and two hepatico-jejunostomies in biotissue using 3D-robotic surgery, 3D-laparoscopy, or 2D-laparoscopy. Primary outcomes were the objective structured assessment of technical skills (OSATS: 12-60) rating, scored by observers blinded for 3D/2D and the operative time required to complete both anastomoses. Sensitivity analysis excluded participants with excess experience compared to others. RESULTS: A total of 220 anastomoses were completed (robotic 80, 3D-laparoscopy 70, 2D-laparoscopy 70). Participants in the robotic group had less surgical experience [median 1 (0-2) versus 6 years (4-12), p < 0.001], as compared to the laparoscopic group. Robotic surgery resulted in higher OSATS ratings (50, 43, 39 points, p = .021 and p < .001) and shorter operative time (56.5, 65.0, 81.5 min, p = .055 and p < .001), as compared to 3D- and 2D-laparoscopy, respectively, which remained in the sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSION: In a pooled analysis of two RCTs in a biotissue model, robotic surgery resulted in better surgical performance scores and shorter operative time for biotissue pancreatic and biliary anastomoses, as compared to 3D- and 2D-laparoscopy.

Pan-European survey on the implementation of robotic and laparoscopic minimally invasive liver surgery.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic and robotic minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) is gaining popularity. Recent data and views on the implementation of laparoscopic and robotic MILS throughout Europe are lacking. METHODS: An anonymous survey consisting of 46 questions was sent to all members of the European-African Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 120 surgeons from 103 centers in 24 countries. Median annual center volume of liver resection was 100 [IQR 50-140]. The median annual volume of MILS per center was 30 [IQR 16-40]. For minor resections, laparoscopic MILS was used by 80 (67%) surgeons and robotic MILS by 35 (29%) surgeons. For major resections, laparoscopic MILS was used by 74 (62%) surgeons and robotic MILS by 33 (28%) surgeons. The majority of the surgeons stated that minimum annual volume of MILS per center should be around 21-30 procedures/year. Of the surgeons performing robotic surgery, 28 (70%) felt they missed specific equipment, such as a robotic-CUSA. Seventy (66%) surgeons provided a formal MILS training to residents and fellows. In 5 years' time, 106 (88%) surgeons felt that MILS would have superior value as compared to open liver surgery. CONCLUSION: In the participating European liver centers, MILS comprised about one third of all liver resections and is expected to increase further. Laparoscopic MILS is still twice as common as robotic MILS. Development of specific instruments for robotic liver parenchymal transection might further increase its adoption.

Added value of 3D-vision during robotic pancreatoduodenectomy anastomoses in biotissue (LAEBOT 3D2D): a randomized controlled cross-over trial.

BACKGROUND: We tested the added value of 3D-vision on procedure time and surgical performance during robotic pancreatoduodenectomy anastomoses in biotissue. Robotic surgery has the advantage of articulating instruments and 3D-vision. Consensus is lacking on the added value of 3D-vision during laparoscopic surgery. Given the improved dexterity with robotic surgery, the added value of 3D-vision may be even less with robotic surgery. METHODS: In this experimental randomized controlled cross-over trial, 20 surgeons and surgical residents from 5 countries performed robotic pancreaticojejunostomy and hepaticojejunostomy anastomoses in a biotissue organ model using the da Vinci® system and were randomized to start with either 3D- or 2D-vision. Primary endpoint was the time required to complete both anastomoses. Secondary endpoint was the objective structured assessment of technical skill (OSATS; range 12-60) rating; scored by two observers blinded to 3D/2D. RESULTS: Robotic 3D-vision reduced the combined operative time from 78.1 to 57.3 min (24.6% reduction, p < 0.001; 20.8 min reduction, 95% confidence intervals 12.8-28.8 min). This reduction was consistent for both anastomoses and between surgeons and residents, p < 0.001. Robotic 3D-vision improved OSATS performance by 6.1 points (20.8% improvement, p = 0.003) compared to 2D (39.4 to 45.1 points, ± 5.5). CONCLUSION: 3D-vision has a considerable added value during robotic pancreatoduodenectomy anastomoses in biotissue in both time reduction and improved surgical performance as compared to 2D-vision.

Added value of 3D-vision during laparoscopic biotissue pancreatico- and hepaticojejunostomy (LAELAPS 3D2D): an international randomized cross-over trial.

BACKGROUND: It is currently unclear what the added value is of 3D-laparoscopy during pancreatic and biliary surgery. 3D-laparoscopy could improve procedure time and/or surgical performance, for instance in demanding anastomoses such as pancreatico- and hepaticojejunostomy. The impact of 3D-laparoscopy could be negligible in more experienced surgeons. METHODS: We conducted a randomized controlled cross-over trial including 20 expert laparoscopic surgeons and 20 surgical residents from 9 countries (Argentina, Estonia, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, South Africa, Spain, UK, USA). All participants performed a pancreaticojejunostomy (PJ) and a hepaticojejunostomy (HJ) using 3D- and 2D-laparoscopy on biotissue organ models according to the Pittsburgh method. Primary endpoint was the time required to complete both anastomoses. Secondary endpoint was the objective structured assessment of technical skill (OSATS; range 12-60) rating. Observers were blinded for 3D/2D and expertise. RESULTS: A total of 40 participants completed 144 PJs and HJs. 3D-laparoscopy reduced the operative time with 15.5 min (95%CI 10.2-24.5 min), from 81.0 to 64.4 min, p = 0.001. This reduction was observed for both experts and residents (13.0 vs 22.2 min, intergroup significance p = 0.354). The OSATS improved with 5.1 points, SD ± 6.3, with 3D-laparoscopy, p = 0.001. This improvement was observed for both experts and residents (4.6 vs 5.6 points, p = 0.519). Of all participants, 37/39 participants stated to prefer 3D laparoscopy whereas 14/39 reported side effects. Minor side effects were reported by 10/39 participants whereas 2/39 participants reported severe side effects (both severe eye strain). CONCLUSION: 3D-laparoscopy, as compared to 2D-laparoscopy, reduced the operative time and improved surgical performance for PJ and HJ anastomoses in both experts and residents with mostly minor side effects.

Surgeon Preference and Clinical Outcome of 3D Vision Compared to 2D Vision in Laparoscopic Surgery: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.

Objective: To assess the added value of 3-dimensional (3D) vision, including high definition (HD) technology, in laparoscopic surgery in terms of surgeon preference and clinical outcome. Background: The use of 3D vision in laparoscopic surgery has been suggested to improve surgical performance. However, the added value of 3D vision remains unclear as a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing 3D vision including HD technology in laparoscopic surgery is currently lacking. Methods: A systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines with a literature search up to May 2023 using PubMed and Embase (PROSPERO, CRD42021290426). We included RCTs comparing 3D versus 2-dimensional (2D) vision in laparoscopic surgery. The primary outcome was operative time. Meta-analyses were performed using the random effects model to estimate the pooled effect size expressed in standard mean difference (SMD) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The level of evidence and quality was assessed according to the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Results: Overall, 25 RCTs with 3003 patients were included. Operative time was reduced by 3D vision (-8.0%; SMD, -0.22; 95% CI, -0.37 to -0.06; P = 0.007; n = 3003; 24 studies; I 2 = 75%) compared to 2D vision. This benefit was mostly seen in bariatric surgery (-16.3%; 95% CI, -1.28 to -0.21; P = 0.006; 2 studies; n = 58; I 2 = 0%) and general surgery (-6.7%; 95% CI, -0.34 to -0.01; P = 0.036; 9 studies; n = 1056; I 2 = 41%). Blood loss was nonsignificantly reduced by 3D vision (SMD, -0.33; 95% CI, -0.68 to 0.017; P = 0.060; n = 1830; I 2 = 92%). No differences in the rates of morbidity (14.9% vs 13.5%, P = 0.644), mortality (0% vs 0%), conversion (0.8% vs 0.9%, P = 0.898), and hospital stay (9.6 vs 10.5 days, P = 0.078) were found between 3D and 2D vision. In 15 RCTs that reported on surgeon preference, 13 (87%) reported that the majority of surgeons favored 3D vision. Conclusions: Across 25 RCTs, this systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated shorter operative time with 3D vision in laparoscopic surgery, without differences in other outcomes. The majority of surgeons participating in the RCTs reported in favor of 3D vision.

Learning curve stratified outcomes after robotic pancreatoduodenectomy: International multicenter experience.

BACKGROUND: Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy is increasingly being implemented worldwide, with good results reported from individual expert centers. However, it is unclear to what extent outcomes will continue to improve during the learning curve, as large international studies are lacking. METHODS: An international retrospective multicenter case series, including consecutive patients after robotic pancreatoduodenectomy from 18 centers in 8 countries in Europe, Asia, and South America until December 31, 2019, was conducted. A cumulative sum analysis was performed to determine the inflection points for the feasibility (operative time and blood loss) and proficiency (postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C and major morbidity) learning curves. Outcomes were compared in 3 groups on the basis of the learning curve inflection points. RESULTS: Overall, 2,186 patients after robotic pancreatoduodenectomy were included. The feasibility learning curve was reached after 30-45 robotic pancreatoduodenectomy procedures and the proficiency learning curve after 90 robotic pancreatoduodenectomy procedures. These inflection points created 3 phases, which were associated with major morbidity (24.7%, 23.4%, and 12.3%, P < .001) but not 30-day mortality (2.1%, 2.0%, and 1.5%, P = .670). Other outcomes mostly continued to improve, including median operative time 432, 390, and 300 minutes (P < .0001), conversion 6.0%, 4.7%, and 2.7% (P = .002), bile leakage 7.2%, 4.1%, and 2.4% (P < .001), postpancreatectomy hemorrhage 6.5%, 6.1%, and 1.8% (n = 21) but not R0 resection (pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma only) 78.5%, 73.9%, and 82.8% (P = .35), and 90-day mortality rate 3.1%, 3.5%, and 2.1% (P = .191). Centers performing >20 robotic pancreatoduodenectomies annually had lower rates of conversion, reoperation, and shorter median operative time as compared with centers performing 10-20 robotic pancreatoduodenectomies annually. CONCLUSION: This international multicenter study demonstrates that most outcomes of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy continued to improve during 3 learning curve phases without a negative effect on 90-day mortality. Randomized studies are needed in high-volume centers that have surpassed the first learning curves, to compare these outcomes with the open approach.

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.

Intraoperative Pancreatoscopy During Robotic Pancreatoduodenectomy and Robotic Distal Pancreatectomy for Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Neoplasm with Involvement of the Main Pancreatic Duct.

Background: Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) with involvement of the main pancreatic duct usually requires surgical resection. Consensus is lacking whether to partially or completely resect the pancreatic portion with a dilated main pancreatic duct. Intraoperative pancreatoscopy may be useful to determine the extent of IPMN to tailor surgical resection and was recently studied in a large prospective international study. IPMN is increasingly utilized using a robotic approach. Studies describing the technical approach to intraoperative pancreatoscopy in robotic pancreatoduodenectomy and robotic distal pancreatectomy are lacking. Methods: During robotic pancreatoduodenectomy, pancreatoscopy is performed once the pancreas neck is transected. The scope is advanced via a laparoscopic port into the left and right-sided pancreatic duct, guided by robotic graspers. During robotic distal pancreatectomy, pancreatoscopy is performed before complete parenchymal transection. The scope is advanced through an anterior ductotomy to examine the duct and guide the pancreatic transection line. Tips and tricks how to perform the procedure efficiently without complications are detailed. Results: In total, 28 robot-assisted pancreatoscopies were performed during robotic pancreatoduodenectomy and robotic distal pancreatectomy. No intraoperative complications resulting from the intraoperative pancreatoscopy were noted. In the 2 described procedures, the added time required to perform the pancreatoscopy was 6 and 17 minutes, respectively. Both patients recovered without complication and were discharged on postoperative day 5 for the robotic pancreatoduodenectomy and day 6 for the robotic distal pancreatectomy. Conclusions: Intraoperative pancreatoscopy can be safely performed during both robotic pancreatoduodenectomy and robotic distal pancreatectomy for IPMN with the involvement of the main pancreatic duct. An international prospective study has recently been completed with this technique.

Intraoperative Fluorescence Imaging During Robotic Pancreatoduodenectomy to Detect Suture-Induced Hypoperfusion of the Pancreatic Stump as a Predictor of Postoperative Pancreatic Fistula (FLUOPAN): Prospective Proof-of-concept Study.

Background: A potential downside of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) is the lack of tactile feedback when tying sutures, which could be especially perilous during pancreatic anastomosis. Near-infrared fluorescence imaging with indocyanine green (NIRF-ICG) could detect transpancreatic-suture-induced hypoperfusion of the pancreatic stump during RPD, which may be related to postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) grade B/C, but studies are lacking. Methods: This prospective study included 37 patients undergoing RPD to assess the relation between pancreatic stump hypoperfusion as objectified with NIRF-ICG using Firefly and the rate of POPF grade B/C. In 27 patients, NIRF-ICG was performed after tying down the transpancreatic U-sutures. In 10 'negative control' patients, NIRF-ICG was performed before tying these sutures. Results: Pancreatic stump hypoperfusion was detected using NIRF-ICG in 9/27 patients (33%) during RPD. Hypoperfusion was associated with POPF grade B/C (67% [6/9 patients] versus 17% [3/18 patients], P = 0.026). No hypoperfusion was objectified in 10 'negative controls'. Conclusions: Transpancreatic-suture-induced pancreatic stump hypoperfusion can be detected using NIRF-ICG during RPD and was associated with POPF grade B/C. Surgeons could use NIRF-ICG to adapt their suturing approach during robotic pancreatico-jejunostomy. Further larger prospective studies are needed to validate the association between transpancreatic-suture-induced hypoperfusion and POPF.

Robotic Pancreatoduodenectomy for Pancreatic Head Cancer: a Case Report of a Standardized Technique.

Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) for pancreatic cancer is a challenging procedure. Aberrant vasculature may increase the technical difficulty. Several studies have described the safety of RPD in case of a replaced or aberrant right hepatic artery, but detailed video descriptions of the approach are lacking. This case report describes a step--by--step technical video in case of a replaced right hepatic artery. A 58-year-old woman presented with an incidental finding of a 1.7 cm pancreatic head mass. RPD was performed using the da Vinci Xi system and involves a robotic-assisted pancreatico- and hepatico-jejunostomy and open gastro-jejunostomy at the specimen extraction site. The operation time was 410 min with 220 mL of blood loss. The patient had an uncomplicated postoperative course and was discharged after 5 days. Pathology revealed a pancreatic head cancer. RPD is a feasible and safe procedure in case of a replaced hepatic artery when performed in selected patients in high-volume centers by experienced surgeons.

Robotic Central Pancreatectomy with Roux-en-Y Pancreaticojejunostomy.

Central pancreatectomy is a parenchyma-sparing alternative to distal pancreatectomy in patients with a benign or low-grade malignant tumor in the body of the pancreas. The aim of central pancreatectomy is to prevent postoperative life-long endocrine and exocrine insufficiency. The downside of central pancreatectomy is the high rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula, which is the main reason that many surgeons do not routinely use central pancreatectomy in eligible patients. Most studies report open or laparoscopic central pancreatectomy with a pancreatico-gastrostomy anastomosis in adults. This is the first description of a standardized approach to robotic central pancreatectomy with Roux-en-Y pancreaticojejunostomy reconstruction in an adolescent (16-year-old boy) with a pseudopapillary tumor in the body of the pancreas. The operation time was 248 min with 20 mL of blood loss. The postoperative course was uneventful except for the short-term medical treatment for a grade B pancreatic fistula. Robotic central pancreatectomy can be safely applied in selected patients in experienced centers.

Laparoscopic Radical Left Pancreatectomy for Pancreatic Cancer: Surgical Strategy and Technique Video.

Radical resection margins, resection of Gerota's (perirenal) fascia, and adequate lymph node dissection are crucial for an adequate oncological resection of left-sided pancreatic cancer. Several surgical techniques have been described in recent years, but few were specifically designed for minimally invasive approaches. This study describes and demonstrates a standardized and reproducible technique for an adequate oncological resection of pancreatic cancer: laparoscopic radical left pancreatectomy (LRLP). A 61-year-old woman presented with an incidental finding of a 3 cm mass in the left pancreas suspect for malignancy. Imaging did not reveal distant metastases, central vascular involvement, or morbid obesity, hence the patient was suitable for LRLP. This study describes the main steps of LRLP for pancreatic cancer. First, the lesser sac is opened by transecting the gastrocolic ligament. The splenic flexure of the colon is mobilized and the inferior border of the pancreas including Gerota's fascia is dissected down to the inferior border of the spleen. The pancreas is tunneled and hung, including Gerota's fascia with a vessel loop. At the pancreatic neck, a tunnel is created between the pancreas and the portal vein, likewise a vessel loop is passed. The pancreas is then transected using the graded compression technique with an endostapler. Both the splenic vein and artery are transected before completing the resection. The entire specimen is extracted in a retrieval bag via a small Pfannenstiel incision. Duration of the surgery was 210 min with 250 mL blood loss. Pathology revealed a R0-resection (>1 mm) of a well-to-moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma originating from an intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm. A total of 15 tumor-negative lymph nodes were resected. This is a detailed description of LRLP for left-sided pancreatic cancer as is currently being used within the international, multicenter randomized DIPLOMA (Distal Pancreatectomy Minimally Invasive or Open for PDAC) trial.

Robotic Lateral Pancreaticojejunostomy for Chronic Pancreatitis.

Lateral pancreaticojejunostomy (LPJ) has shown good postoperative outcomes in patients with painful, morphine dependent, chronic pancreatitis (CP). The recent rise of robotic and laparoscopic pancreatic surgery has found benefits such as reduced time to functional recovery. Few studies have reported on the feasibility, technique and outcome of robotic LPJ, especially including transection of the gastroduodenal artery. The present study describes the main steps for robotic LPJ in a patient with painful chronic pancreatitis with a dilated main pancreatic duct. The patient underwent robotic LPJ. The LPJ anastomosis is performed using a running suture technique in a longitudinal side-to-side manner. Routinely, the gastroduodenal artery is transected to drain the entire length of the main pancreatic duct. The patient is in French position; 7 trocars are placed (4 robotic, 2 laparoscopic assistants, 1 liver-retractor). After docking of the robot system, the omental bursa is opened, and the right gastroepiploic artery and vein are ligated at their base at the lower border of the pancreas. Intraoperative ultrasonography is performed in order to determine trajectory of the dilated main pancreatic duct which is opened for its entire length after the gastroduodenal artery has been suture ligated both cranially and caudally from the main pancreatic duct. A Roux limb is created, and a latero-lateral PJ is fashioned using several 3-0 barbed sutures. A stapled jejuno-jejunostomy is created at sufficient distance from the pancreatic anastomosis, aided by a 50 cm suture. The described technique for robotic LPJ is a complex but feasible operation for patients with treatment refractory CP and a dilated main pancreatic duct. Due to its complexity, implementation in high volume centers with extensive experience with CP surgery may improve outcomes.