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.

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.

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.

ROBOTIC LIVER RESECTION. REPORT OF THE FIRST 50 CASES.

BACKGROUND: Robotic surgery has gained growing acceptance in recent years, expanding to liver resection. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper is to report the experience with our first fifty robotic liver resections. METHODS: This was a single-cohort, retrospective study. From May 2018 to December 2020, 50 consecutive patients underwent robotic liver resection in a single center. All patients with indication for minimally invasive liver resection underwent robotic hepatectomy. The indication for the use of minimally invasive technique followed practical guidelines based on the second international laparoscopic liver consensus conference. RESULTS: The proportion of robotic liver resection was 58.8% of all liver resections. Thirty women and 20 men with median age of 61 years underwent robotic liver resection. Forty-two patients were operated on for malignant diseases. Major liver resection was performed in 16 (32%) patients. Intrahepatic Glissonian approach was used in 28 patients for anatomical resection. In sixteen patients, the robotic liver resection was a redo hepatectomy. In 10 patients, previous liver resection was an open resection and in six it was minimally invasive resection. Simultaneous colon resection was done in three patients. One patient was converted to open resection. Two patients received blood transfusion. Four (8%) patients presented postoperative complications. No 90-day mortality was observed. CONCLUSION: The use of the robot for liver surgery allowed to perform increasingly difficult procedures with similar outcomes of less difficult liver resections.

Hepatectomia robótica. Relato dos primeiros 50 casos / Robotic liver resection. report of the first 50 cases

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Robotic surgery has gained growing acceptance in recent years, expanding to liver resection. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper is to report the experience with our first fifty robotic liver resections. METHODS: This was a single-cohort, retrospective study. From May 2018 to December 2020, 50 consecutive patients underwent robotic liver resection in a single center. All patients with indication for minimally invasive liver resection underwent robotic hepatectomy. The indication for the use of minimally invasive technique followed practical guidelines based on the second international laparoscopic liver consensus conference. RESULTS: The proportion of robotic liver resection was 58.8% of all liver resections. Thirty women and 20 men with median age of 61 years underwent robotic liver resection. Forty-two patients were operated on for malignant diseases. Major liver resection was performed in 16 (32%) patients. Intrahepatic Glissonian approach was used in 28 patients for anatomical resection. In sixteen patients, the robotic liver resection was a redo hepatectomy. In 10 patients, previous liver resection was an open resection and in six it was minimally invasive resection. Simultaneous colon resection was done in three patients. One patient was converted to open resection. Two patients received blood transfusion. Four (8%) patients presented postoperative complications. No 90-day mortality was observed. CONCLUSION: The use of the robot for liver surgery allowed to perform increasingly difficult procedures with similar outcomes of less difficult liver resections.

RESUMO CONTEXTO: A cirurgia robótica tem tido aceitação crescente nos últimos anos, expandindo-se para a ressecção hepática. OBJETIVO: Relatar a experiência com as primeiras cinquenta ressecções hepáticas robóticas. MÉTODOS: Trata-se de análise retrospectiva de dados coletados prospectivamente. De maio de 2018 a dezembro de 2020, 50 pacientes consecutivos foram submetidos à ressecção hepática robótica em um único centro. Todos os pacientes com indicação de ressecção hepática minimamente invasiva foram submetidos à hepatectomia robótica. A indicação de técnica minimamente invasiva seguiu as diretrizes práticas baseadas na segunda conferência internacional de consenso laparoscópico hepático. RESULTADOS: A proporção de ressecções hepáticas robóticas foi de 58,8% de todas as ressecções hepáticas. Trinta mulheres e 20 homens com idade mediana de 61 anos foram submetidos à ressecção hepática robótica. Quarenta e dois pacientes foram operados por doenças malignas. Ressecção hepática maior foi realizada em 16 (32%) pacientes. A abordagem Glissoniana intra-hepática foi usada em 28 pacientes para ressecção anatômica. Em 16 pacientes, a ressecção hepática robótica foi uma re-hepatectomia. Em 10, a hepatectomia prévia foi aberta e em seis foi por via minimamente invasiva. Ressecção simultânea do cólon foi feita em três pacientes. Um paciente foi convertido para ressecção aberta. Dois pacientes receberam transfusão sanguínea. Quatro (8%) pacientes apresentaram complicações pós-operatórias. Mortalidade em 90 dias foi nula. CONCLUSÃO: O uso do robô permitiu realizar procedimentos progressivamente mais complexos com resultados semelhantes às hepatectomias menos complexas.

Robotic Resection and Reconstruction of the Superior Mesenteric Vein Without Graft During Pancreatoduodenectomy (with Video).

BACKGROUND: Pancreatoduodenectomy is the procedure of choice for tumors in the head of the pancreas. Invasion of major vessels is a relative contraindication for minimally invasive approach. We present a video of a robotic resection and reconstruction of the superior mesenteric vein (SMV) without the use of a graft during pancreatoduodenectomy. METHODS: A 56-year-old female with ductal adenocarcinoma is referred for treatment. CT scan and endoscopic ultrasound showed a 3-cm tumor in the pancreatic head with contact with SMV. The multidisciplinary team decided for upfront surgery. Robotic superior mesenteric artery first approach was used to release the head of the pancreas, so the whole surgical specimen is only attached by the tumor invasion of the SM. After the partial resection of the SMV, its extension precluded lateral suture and a transverse anastomosis was necessary to minimize the risk of narrowing of the SMV. After completion of the venous anastomosis, reconstruction of the alimentary tract was done as usual. RESULTS: Operative time was 430 min. Time of clamping was 30 min and the time for the SMV suture is 23 min. Estimated blood loss was 370 mL. Pathology confirmed a T3N1 ductal adenocarcinoma with free margins. The patient was discharged on the 7th postoperative day. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic resection and reconstruction of the SMV is safe and feasible without graft during pancreatoduodenectomy in patients with invasion but not encasing of the portal vein or SMV. The proposed technique should be used in cases where the invasion requires extended resection that precludes simple lateral suture.

Robotic Resection of Postero-Superior Liver Segments (7,8) (with Video).

BACKGROUND: Surgical resection is the standard treatment for colorectal liver metastases. Parenchyma-sparing technique should always be attemptedto prevent postoperative liver failure and increase the opportunity to perform repeated resections in cases of recurrent malignancy. Postero-superior liverresection is defined as the anatomical removal of liver segments 7 and 8, however, minimally invasive resection of postero-superior liver segments isconsidered a difficult and complex operation and thus is rarely reported. METHODS: We present the video of a robotic postero-superior liver resection in a 54-year-old male patient with a synchronous, single, and large colorectal metastasis in the postero-superior liver sector. The Da Vinci Xi system was used. The right liver was mobilized with exposure of the inferior vena cava (IVC), following by intraoperative ultrasound, used to locate the tumor and establish its relationship to the right hepatic vein and portal pedicles fromsegments 7 and 8. A thick hepatic vein draining directly to the IVC was controlled with hem-o-lock and the right hepatic vein was divided using anendoscopic stapler. The surgical specimen was removed through a supra-pubic incision. RESULTS: Operative time was 205 minutes, and the estimated blood loss was 310 mL. The patient's recovery was uneventful with no need for admission tothe intensive care unit or for blood transfusion. Pathology confirmed colorectal metastasis with free surgical margins. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic resection of postero-superior liver segments is feasible and safe and may have some advantages over laparoscopic and openapproaches. This video may help gastrointestinal surgeons 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.

Drainage after distal pancreatectomy: Still an unsolved problem.

BACKGROUND: The use of intraperitoneal drainage after distal pancreatectomy is still controversial. Its use increases fistula risk, but its absence increases the severity of the fistula. Therefore, since 2014, we have systematically used two drains. METHODS: This study examined consecutive patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy. Two drains were routinely used. One closed-suction-type drain is placed in the left subphrenic space with the aim to avoid the accumulation of any fluid coming from the pancreatic stump. The second is a tubulo-laminar drain placed near the pancreatic stump. These patients were compared with a cohort of patients (n = 94) before the adoption of this strategy (control group). RESULTS: 127 patients underwent distal pancreatectomy. 48 patients presented no POPF, 60 patients presented biochemical leak and in 19 patients (14.9%), drain amylase level was high and the drain was removed at 4 weeks, classified as grade-B according to the Revised 2016 ISGPS or B1 according to grade-B subclass. No grade-C was observed. The comparison with the 94 patients in the control group with single drainage, the occurrence of POPF was not different. However, in the control group, POPF severity was statistically higher (grade-B 14.9% vs 33%; grade-C 0% vs 3,2%; P = 0.00026). CONCLUSIONS: Since changing the drainage strategy, we have observed a dramatic decrease in pancreatic abscess formation and fluid collections needing percutaneous drainage. The results of this study show that the strategy of double drainage after distal pancreatectomy may reduce the severity of POPF, thus avoiding reoperation or further interventions.