Does minimally invasive surgery have a different impact on recurrence and overall survival in patients with pancreatic head versus body/tail cancer?

OBJECTIVE: This study sought to investigate the impact of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) on recurrence and overall survival between patients with pancreatic head versus body/tail cancers. METHODS: The risk factors associated with recurrence and long-term outcomes were analyzed according to tumor location and operative modality. RESULTS: A total of 288 and 87 patients underwent surgical resection for pancreatic head cancer and body/tail cancer, respectively. The perioperative outcomes and histopathologic results were comparable in open and MIS approach in both head and body/tail groups. There was no difference in local or systemic recurrence patterns and disease-free and overall survival rates according to primary tumor location and surgical modality. During subgroup analysis by stage; however, patients with stage III pancreatic head cancer in the MIS group had a decreased disease-free survival compared with those in the open surgery group (p = 0.020). On multivariate analysis, MIS was not a risk factor of total or local recurrences. CONCLUSIONS: Recurrence patterns and overall survival rates of patients did not differ according to tumor location and surgical approach. However, patients with stage III pancreatic head cancer in the MIS group showed inferior disease-free survival relative to patients who underwent open surgery.

Risk factors and outcomes in patients undergoing minimally invasive hepatectomy with unplanned conversion: a contemporary NSQIP analysis.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive techniques are growing for hepatectomies. Laparoscopic and robotic liver resections have been shown to differ in conversions. We hypothesize that robotic approach will have decreased conversion to open and complications despite being a newer technique than laparoscopy. METHODS: ACS NSQIP study using the targeted Liver PUF from 2014 to 2020. Patients grouped based on hepatectomy type and approach. Multivariable and propensity scored matching (PSM) was used to analyze the groups. RESULTS: Of 7767 patients who underwent hepatectomy, 6834 were laparoscopic and 933 were robotic. The rate of conversions was significantly lower in robotic vs laparoscopic (7.8% vs 14.7%; p < 0.001). Robotic hepatectomy was associated with decreased conversion for minor (6.2% vs 13.1%; p < 0.001), but not major, right, or left hepatectomy. Operative factors associated with conversion included Pringle (OR = 2.09 [95% CI 1.05-4.19]; p = 0.0369), and a laparoscopic approach (OR = 1.96 [95% CI 1.53-2.52]; p < 0.001). Undergoing conversion was associated with increases in bile leak (13.7% vs 4.9%; p < 0.001), readmission (11.5% vs 6.1%; p < 0.001), mortality (2.1% vs 0.6%; p < 0.001), length of stay (5 days vs 3 days; p < 0.001), and surgical (30.5% vs 10.1%; p < 0.001), wound (4.9% vs 1.5%; p < 0.001) and medical (17.5% vs 6.7%; p < 0.001) complications. CONCLUSION: Minimally invasive hepatectomy with conversion is associated with increased complications, and conversion is increased in the laparoscopic compared to a robotic approach.

Extended postoperative thromboprophylaxis after pancreatic resection for pancreatic cancer is associated with decreased risk of venous thromboembolism in the minimally invasive approach.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is associated with increased venous thromboembolism (VTE). We sought to compare rates of bleeding complications and VTE in patients receiving extended postoperative thromboprophylaxis (EPT) to those who did not, and identify risk factors for VTE after pancreatectomy for PDAC. METHODS: This is a retrospective review of pancreatectomies for PDAC. EPT was defined as 28 days of low molecular weight heparin. Multivariable analysis (MVA) was performed to identify independent risk factors of VTE. RESULTS: Of 269 patients included, 142 (52.8%) received EPT. Of those who received EPT, 7 (4.9%) suffered bleeding complications, compared to 6 (4.7%) of those who did not (p = 0.938). There was no significant difference in VTE rate at 90 days (2.8% vs. 2.4%, p = 0.728) or at 1 year (6.3% vs. 7.9%, p = 0.624). On MVA, risk factors for VTE included worse performance status, lower preoperative hematocrit, R1/R2 resection, and minimally invasive (MIS) approach. Among those who received EPT, there was no difference in VTE rate between MIS and open approach. CONCLUSIONS: EPT was not associated with a difference in VTE risk or bleeding complications. MIS approach was associated with a higher risk of VTE; however, this was significantly lower among those who received EPT.

Bile leak incidence, risk factors and associated outcomes in patients undergoing hepatectomy: a contemporary NSQIP propensity matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: Despite advances in surgical technique, bile leak remains a common complication following hepatectomy. We sought to identify incidence of, risk factors for, and outcomes associated with biliary leak. STUDY DESIGN: This is an ACS-NSQIP study. Distribution of bile leak stratified by surgical approach and hepatectomy type were identified. Univariate and multivariate factors associated with bile leak and outcomes were evaluated. RESULTS: Robotic hepatectomy was associated with less bile leak (5.4% vs. 11.4%; p < 0.001) compared to open. There were no significant differences in bile leak between robotic and laparoscopic hepatectomy (5.4% vs. 5.3%; p = 0.905, respectively). Operative factors risk factors for bile leak in patients undergoing robotic hepatectomy included right hepatectomy [OR 4.42 (95% CI 1.74-11.20); p = 0.002], conversion [OR 4.40 (95% CI 1.39-11.72); p = 0.010], pringle maneuver [OR 3.19 (95% CI 1.03-9.88); p = 0.044], and drain placement [OR 28.25 (95% CI 8.34-95.72); p < 0.001]. Bile leak was associated with increased reoperation (8.7% vs 1.7%, p < 0.001), 30-day readmission (26.6% vs 6.8%, p < 0.001), 30-day mortality (2% vs 0.9%, p < 0.001), and complications (67.2% vs 23.4%, p < 0.001) for patients undergoing MIS hepatectomy. CONCLUSION: While MIS confers less risk for bile leak than open hepatectomy, risk factors for bile leak in patients undergoing MIS hepatectomy were identified. Bile leaks were associated with multiple additional complications, and the robotic approach had an equal risk for bile leak than laparoscopic in this time period.

Robotic Central Bisectionectomy for Centrally Located Hepatic Malignant Tumor.

INTRODUCTION: Laparoscopic hepatectomies for centrally located tumors are classified as advanced and complex surgical procedures.1-3 Because of some limitations in robotic liver surgery,4,5 robotic central bisectionectomy has rarely been performed.6,7 We introduce useful tips for robotic central bisectionectomy in this multimedia article. METHODS: A 67-year-old male with a 4.4-cm-sized, hepatocellular carcinoma involving segments IV and VIII underwent robotic central bisectionectomy. This video demonstrates technique of determination of resection line,3 traction methods,8 effective use of robotic instruments for parenchymal transection, application of Pringle's maneuver, and indocyanine-green fluorescence image in robotic central bisectionectomy. RESULTS: Total operative time was 320 min and intraoperative blood loss was 200 ml without transfusion. The postoperative course was uneventful and the patient was discharged on the seventh postoperative day in good condition. Pathological assessment indicated that the mass was a hepatocellular carcinoma 4.5 cm in size with a surgical margin of 1.5 cm. CONCLUSIONS: Central bisectionectomy is one of the most demanding surgical procedures with long operative times. However, robotic central bisectionectomy can be safely performed with proper exposure technique and an appropriate combination of several useful technical tips.

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy decreases the risk of clinically relevant post-operative pancreatic fistula: a propensity score matched NSQIP analysis.

BACKGROUND: A single-institution study demonstrated robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) was protective against clinically-relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) compared to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD). We sought to compare the national rate of CR-POPF by approach. METHODS: Procedure-targeted pancreatectomy Participant User Data File was queried from 2014 to 2017 for all patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy. A modified fistula risk score was calculated and patients were stratified into risk categories. Multivariate logistic regression and propensity score matching was used. RESULTS: The rate of CR-POPF (15.6% vs. 11.9%; p = 0.026) was higher in OPD compared to RPD. On subgroup analysis, OPD had higher CR-POPF in high risk patients (32.9% vs. 19.4%; p = 0.007). On multivariable analysis OPD was a predictor of increased CR-POPF (Odds Ratio [OR] = 1.61 [1.15-2.25]; p = 0.005). Other operative factors associated with increased CR-POPF included soft pancreatic texture (OR = 2.65 [2.27-3.09]; p < 0.001) and concomitant visceral resection (OR = 1.41 [1.03-1.93]; p = 0.031). Increased duct size (reference <3 mm) was predictive of decreased CR-POPF: 3-6 mm (OR = 0.70 [0.61-0.81]; p < 0.001) and ≥6 mm (OR = 0.47 [0.37-0.60]; p < 0.001). Following propensity score matching, RPD continued to be protective against the occurrence of CR-POPF (OR = 1.54 [1.09-2.17]; p = 0.013). CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest multicenter study to evaluate the impact of RPD on POPF. It suggests that RPD can be protective against POPF, especially for high risk patients.

Risk factors for complications in patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy: A NSQIP analysis with propensity score matching.

BACKGROUND: Reports on the safety of minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy compared to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) have demonstrated mixed results. One study comparing robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) vs OPD demonstrated decreased complications associated with RPD. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the morbidity of RPD vs OPD using a national data set. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study from 2014 to 2017. Factors associated with complications in patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy were evaluated using multivariate logistic regression (MVA) and propensity score matching (PSM). RESULTS: Of 13 110 PDs performed over the study period, 12 612 (96.2%) were OPD and 498 (3.8%) were RPD. Patients who underwent RPD vs OPD were less likely to have any complications (46.8% vs 53.3%; P = .004), surgical complications (42.6% vs 48.6%; P = .008), wound complications (6.2% vs 9.1%; P = .029), clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistulas (11.9% vs 15.6%; P = .026), sepsis (6.2% vs 9.3%; P = .019), and pneumonia (1.6% vs 3.8%; P = .012). On MVA, OPD was associated with increased complications compared with RPD. On PSM analysis, OPD remained a significant predictor for any (OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.03-1.61; P = .029) and surgical (OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.00-1.58; P = .048) complications. CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest multicenter study to evaluate the impact of RPD on morbidity and suggests RPD is associated with decreased morbidity.