A comparative analysis of robotic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy in octogenarians.

Old age is a predictor of increased morbidity following pancreatic operations. This study was undertaken to compare the peri-operative variables between robotic and 'open' pancreaticoduodenectomy, in octogenarians (≥ 80 years of age). Since 2012, with IRB approval, we retrospectively followed 69 patients, who underwent robotic (n = 42) and 'open' (n = 27) pancreaticoduodenectomy. Statistical analysis was performed using chi-square test and Student's t test. Data are presented as median(mean ± SD), and significance accepted with 95% probability. Patients who underwent the robotic approach had a greater Charlson Comorbidity Index [6 (6 ± 1.6) vs 5 (5 ± 1.0), (p = 0.01)] and previous abdominal operations [n = 24 (57%) vs n = 9 (33%), (p = 0.04)]. The robotic approach led to longer operative time [426 (434 ± 95.8) vs 240 (254 ± 71.1) minutes, (p < 0.0001)], decreased blood loss [200 (291 ± 289.2) vs 426 (434 ± 95.8) mL (p = 0.008)], and decreased intraoperative blood transfusions (p < 0.05). Patients who underwent robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy had comparable and at times superior outcomes, consistent with the literature regarding robotic and 'open' pancreaticoduodenectomy. This study indicates that robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy continues to offer same benefits for patients of advanced age and demonstrates age should not be a preclusion to robotic operations.

Deconstructing the Operative Times of Robotic Pancreaticoduodenectomy.

INTRODUCTION: Despite numerous benefits offered, robotic procedures take longer than "open" procedures. With the intent to reduce operative duration, we examined the degree each operative step contributes to operative duration in robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: With IRB approval, we prospectively followed 88 patients to determine the duration of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy, and the duration of 12 key steps. Each operative step was regressed against the operation date, from most distant to most recent operation date. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD) for illustrative purposes. RESULTS: Patients were 73 (71 ± 10.2) years old; 53% were men. Total time patient spent in the operating room was 471 (488 ± 93.3) minutes. Total operative time was 399 (421 ± 90.7) minutes. Total console time was 293 (297 ± 68.0) minutes. The 3 longest portions of the operation were (1) mobilization of the specimen and specimen extraction; (2) construction of the duodenojejunostomy; and (3) closure. CONCLUSION: A third of the operative time is spent off the console. Over half of the steps required more than 20 minutes each to complete. Since robotic operations are associated with shorter LOS and without increased complication rates relative to "open" operations, salutary benefit can be gained by decreasing operative times of robotic procedures. Operative duration is an important metric that needs to be addressed. We need to target the most time-consuming steps, and break them into smaller pieces, to reach optimal efficiency and provide the benefits of decreased operative duration to the patients, hospitals, and providers.

Survival and Robotic Approach for Pancreaticoduodenectomy: A Propensity Score-Match Study.

BACKGROUND: Robotic surgery is a burgeoning minimally invasive approach to pancreaticoduodenectomy. This study was undertaken to compare survival after robotic vs "open" pancreaticoduodenectomy for ductal adenocarcinoma using propensity score-matched patients. STUDY DESIGN: With institutional review board approval, we prospectively followed 521 patients who underwent robotic (n = 311) or open (n = 210) pancreaticoduodenectomy. Patients who underwent robotic (n = 75) or open (n = 75) pancreaticoduodenectomy were propensity score-matched by age, sex, and American Joint Committee on Cancer stage. Neoadjuvant therapy was rarely administered, and adjuvant therapy was stressed (FOLFIRINOX for patients <70 years of age and gemcitabine + nab-paclitaxel for patients >70 years of age). Data are presented as median (mean ± SD). RESULTS: Operative duration was longer and estimated blood loss and length of stay were less with robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (421 [409 ± 94.0] vs 267 [254 ± 81.2] minutes; 307 [(150 ± 605.3] vs 444 [255 ± 353.1] mL; 7 [5 ± 5.1] vs 11 [8 ± 9.5] days; p < 0.00001 for all). There were no differences in complications (Clavien-Dindo class ≥III, p = 0.30), in-hospital mortality (p = 0.61), or 30-day readmission rates (p = 0.19). Median survival after robotic vs open pancreaticoduodenectomy was 37 vs 24 months (p = 0.08). For propensity score-matched patients, operative duration for robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy was longer (442 [438 ± 117.7] vs 261 [249 ± 67.1] minutes) and estimated blood loss was less (269 [200 ± 296.1] vs 468 [300 ± 394.9] mL), as was length of stay (7 [5 ± 5.1] vs 10 [7 ± 8.6] days; p < 0.00001 for all). There were no differences in complication rates (Clavien-Dindo class ≥ III, p = 0.31) or in-hospital mortality (p = 0.40); 30-day readmissions were fewer after robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (7% vs 20%, p = 0.03). Median survival for the robotic vs the open approach was 41 vs 17 months (p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Patients that underwent robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy had longer operations, less estimated blood loss, shorter length of stay, and fewer 30-day readmissions; they lived much longer than patients who underwent open pancreaticoduodenectomy. We believe that robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy provides salutary and survival benefits for reasons yet unknown.