Robotic Versus Open Pancreatoduodenectomy With Vein Resection and Reconstruction: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.

Objective: This study aimed to compare robotic pancreatoduodenectomy with vein resection (PD-VR) based on the incidence of severe postoperative complications (SPC). Background: Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy has been gaining momentum in recent years. Vein resection is frequently required in this operation, but no study has compared robotic and open PD-VR using a matched analysis. Methods: This was an intention-to-treat study designed to demonstrate the noninferiority of robotic to open PD-VR (2011-2021) based on SPC. To achieve a power of 80% (noninferiority margin:10%; α error: 0.05; ß error: 0.20), a 1:1 propensity score-matched analysis required 35 pairs. Results: Of the 151 patients with PD-VR (open = 115, robotic = 36), 35 procedures per group were compared. Elective conversion to open surgery was required in 1 patient with robotic PD-VR (2.9%). One patient in both groups experienced partial vein thrombosis. SPC occurred in 7 (20.0%) and 6 patients (17.1%) in the robotic and open PD-VR groups, respectively (P = 0.759; OR: 1.21 [0.36-4.04]). Three patients died after robotic PD-VR (8.6%) and none died after open PD-VR (P = 0.239). Robotic PD-VR was associated with longer operative time (611.1 ± 13.9 minutes vs 529.0 ± 13.0 minutes; P < 0.0001), more type 2 vein resection (28.6% vs 5.7%; P = 0.0234) and less type 3 vein resection (31.4% vs 71.4%; P = 0.0008), longer vein occlusion time (30 [25.3-78.3] minutes vs 15 [8-19.5] minutes; P = 0.0098), less blood loss (450 [200-750] mL vs 733 [500-1070.3] mL; P = 0.0075), and fewer blood transfusions (intraoperative: 14.3% vs 48.6%; P = 0.0041) (perioperative: 14.3% vs 60.0%; P = 0.0001). Conclusions: In this study, robotic PD-VR was noninferior to open PD-VR for SPC. Robotic and open PD-VR need to be compared in randomized controlled trials.

REDISCOVER guidelines for borderline-resectable and locally advanced pancreatic cancer: management algorithm, unanswered questions, and future perspectives.

The REDISCOVER guidelines present 34 recommendations for the selection and perioperative care of borderline-resectable (BR-PDAC) and locally advanced ductal adenocarcinoma of the pancreas (LA-PDAC). These guidelines represent a significant shift from previous approaches, prioritizing tumor biology over anatomical features as the primary indication for resection. Condensed herein, they provide a practical management algorithm for clinical practice. However, the guidelines also highlight the need to redefine LA-PDAC to align with modern treatment strategies and to solve some contradictions within the current definition, such as grouping "difficult" and "impossible" to resect tumors together. Furthermore, the REDISCOVER guidelines highlight several areas requiring urgent research. These include the resection of the superior mesenteric artery, the management strategies for patients with LA-PDAC who are fit for surgery but unable to receive multi-agent neoadjuvant chemotherapy, the approach to patients with LA-PDAC who are fit for surgery but demonstrate high serum Ca 19.9 levels even after neoadjuvant treatment, and the optimal timing and number of chemotherapy cycles prior to surgery. Additionally, the role of primary chemoradiotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in LA-PDAC, the timing of surgical resection post-neoadjuvant/primary chemoradiotherapy, the efficacy of ablation therapies, and the management of oligometastasis in patients with LA-PDAC warrant investigation. Given the limited evidence for many issues, refining existing management strategies is imperative. The establishment of the REDISCOVER registry ( https://rediscover.unipi.it/ ) offers promise of a unified research platform to advance understanding and improve the management of BR-PDAC and LA-PDAC.

REDISCOVER International Guidelines on the Perioperative Care of Surgical Patients With Borderline-resectable and Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: The REDISCOVER consensus conference aimed at developing and validating guidelines on the perioperative care of patients with borderline-resectable (BR-) and locally advanced (LA) pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). BACKGROUND: Coupled with improvements in chemotherapy and radiation, the contemporary approach to pancreatic surgery supports the resection of BR-PDAC and, to a lesser extent, LA-PDAC. Guidelines outlining the selection and perioperative care for these patients are lacking. METHODS: The Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) methodology was used to develop the REDISCOVER guidelines and create recommendations. The Delphi approach was used to reach a consensus (agreement ≥80%) among experts. Recommendations were approved after a debate and vote among international experts in pancreatic surgery and pancreatic cancer management. A Validation Committee used the AGREE II-GRS tool to assess the methodological quality of the guidelines. Moreover, an independent multidisciplinary advisory group revised the statements to ensure adherence to nonsurgical guidelines. RESULTS: Overall, 34 recommendations were created targeting centralization, training, staging, patient selection for surgery, possibility of surgery in uncommon scenarios, timing of surgery, avoidance of vascular reconstruction, details of vascular resection/reconstruction, arterial divestment, frozen section histology of perivascular tissue, extent of lymphadenectomy, anticoagulation prophylaxis, and role of minimally invasive surgery. The level of evidence was however low for 29 of 34 clinical questions. Participants agreed that the most conducive means to promptly advance our understanding in this field is to establish an international registry addressing this patient population ( https://rediscover.unipi.it/ ). CONCLUSIONS: The REDISCOVER guidelines provide clinical recommendations pertaining to pancreatectomy with vascular resection for patients with BR-PDAC and LA-PDAC, and serve as the basis of a new international registry for this patient population.

Practical implications of tumor proximity to landmark vessels in minimally invasive radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy.

Careful preoperative planning is key in minimally invasive radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (MI-RAMPS). This retrospective study aims to show the practical implications of computed tomography distance between the right margin of the tumor and either the left margin of the spleno-mesenteric confluence (d-SMC) or the gastroduodenal artery (d-GDA). Between January 2011 and June 2022, 48 minimally invasive RAMPS were performed for either pancreatic cancer or malignant intraductal mucinous papillary neoplasms. Two procedures were converted to open surgery (4.3%). Mean tumor size was 31.1 ± 14.7 mm. Mean d-SMC was 21.5 ± 18.5 mm. Mean d-GDA was 41.2 ± 23.2 mm. A vein resection was performed in 10 patients (20.8%) and the pancreatic neck could not be divided by an endoscopic stapler in 19 operations (43.1%). In patients requiring a vein resection, mean d-SMC was 10 mm (1.5-15.5) compared to 18 mm (10-37) in those without vein resection (p = 0.01). The cut-off of d-SMC to perform a vein resection was 17 mm (AUC 0.75). Mean d-GDA was 26 mm (19-39) mm when an endoscopic stapler could not be used to divide the pancreas, and 46 mm (30-65) when the neck of the pancreas was stapled (p = 0.01). The cut-off of d-GDA to safely pass an endoscopic stapler behind the neck of the pancreas was 43 mm (AUC 0.75). Computed tomography d-SMC and d-GDA are key measurements when planning for MI-RAMPS.

The PD-ROBOSCORE: A difficulty score for robotic pancreatoduodenectomy.

BACKGROUND: Difficulty scoring systems are important for the safe, stepwise implementation of new procedures. We designed a retrospective observational study for building a difficulty score for robotic pancreatoduodenectomy. METHODS: The difficulty score (PD-ROBOSCORE) aims at predicting severe postoperative complications after robotic pancreatoduodenectomy. The PD-ROBOSCORE was developed in a training cohort of 198 robotic pancreatoduodenectomies and was validated in an international multicenter cohort of 686 robotic pancreatoduodenectomies. Finally, all centers tested the model during the early learning curve (n = 300). Growing difficulty levels (low, intermediate, high) were defined using cut-off values set at the 33rd and 66th percentile (NCT04662346). RESULTS: Factors included in the final multivariate model were a body mass index of ≥25 kg/m2 for males and ≥30 kg/m2 for females (odds ratio:2.39; P < .0001), borderline resectable tumor (odd ratio:1.98; P < .0001), uncinate process tumor (odds ratio:1.69; P < .0001), pancreatic duct size <4 mm (odds ratio:1.59; P < .0001), American Society of Anesthesiologists class ≥3 (odds ratio:1.59; P < .0001), and hepatic artery originating from the superior mesenteric artery (odds ratio:1.43; P < .0001). In the training cohort, the absolute score value (odds ratio = 1.13; P = .0089) and difficulty groups (odds ratio = 2.35; P = .041) predicted severe postoperative complications. In the multicenter validation cohort, the absolute score value predicted severe postoperative complications (odds ratio = 1.16, P < .001), whereas the difficulty groups did not (odds ratio = 1.94, P = .082). In the learning curve cohort, both absolute score value (odds ratio:1.078, P = .04) and difficulty groups (odds ratio: 2.25, P = .017) predicted severe postoperative complications. Across all cohorts, a PD-ROBOSCORE of ≥12.51 doubled the risk of severe postoperative complications. The PD-ROBOSCORE score also predicted operative time, estimated blood loss, and vein resection. The PD-ROBOSCORE predicted postoperative pancreatic fistula, delayed gastric emptying, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage, and postoperative mortality in the learning curve cohort. CONCLUSION: The PD-ROBOSCORE predicts severe postoperative complications after robotic pancreatoduodenectomy. The score is readily available via www.pancreascalculator.com.

Tips and tricks for robotic pancreatoduodenectomy with superior mesenteric/portal vein resection and reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Open pancreatoduodenectomy with vein resection (OPD-VR) is now standard of care in patients who responded to neoadjuvant therapies. Feasibility of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) with vein resection (RPD-VR) was shown, but no study provided a detailed description of the technical challenges associated with this formidable operation. Herein, we describe the trips and tricks for technically successful RPD-VR. METHODS: The vascular techniques used in RPD-VR were borrowed from OPD-VR, as well as from our experience with robotic transplantation of both kidney and pancreas. Vein resection was classified into 4 types according to the international study group of pancreatic surgery. Each type of vein resection was described in detail and shown in a video. RESULTS: Between October 2008 and November 2021, a total of 783 pancreatoduodenectomies were performed, including 233 OPDs-VR (29.7%). RPD was performed in 256 patients (32.6%), and RPDs-VR in 36 patients (4.5% of all pancreatoduodenectomies; 15.4% of all pancreatoduodenectomies with vein resection; 14.0% of all RPDs). In RPD-VR vein resections were: 4 type 1 (11.1%), 10 type 2 (27.8%), 12 type 3 (33.3%) and 10 type 4 (27.8%). Vascular patches used in type 2 resections were made of peritoneum (n = 8), greater saphenous vein (n = 1), and deceased donor aorta (n = 1). Interposition grafts used in type 4 resections were internal left jugular vein (n = 8), venous graft from deceased donor (n = 1) and spiral saphenous vein graft (n = 1). There was one conversion to open surgery (2.8%). Ninety-day mortality was 8.3%. There was one (2.8%) partial vein thrombosis, treated with heparin infusion. CONCLUSIONS: We have reported 36 technically successful RPDs-VR. We hope that the tips and tricks provided herein can contribute to safer implementation of RPD-VR. Based on our experience, and according to data from the literature, we strongly advise that RPD-VR is performed by expert surgeons at high volume centers.

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute calculous cholecystitis in elderly. More complex but equally safe and effective.

AIM: Acute calculous cholecystitis (ACC) is one of the most common pathologies in the elderly. Laparoscopy is the gold standard for ACC treatment, regardless of age. This study aimed to compare different classes of elderly patients affected by ACC and assess whether laparoscopy has the same safety and effectiveness as younger patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients aging ≠ 70 y-o presenting with ACC treated with laparoscopic cholecystectomy were prospectively enrolled from 2010 to 2020. Three groups were identified: age 70-75 (Group 1); age 76-80 (Group 2); Age > 80 (Group 3). Major postoperative complications were considered as more than grade II according to the Clavien and Dindo classification. Demographic, intra-, and postoperative outcomes were compared. A multivariate analysis was also performed to identify predictive factors of morbidity. RESULTS: We reviewed 832 patients: 302 (36.3%) were ≠ 70 y-o. Group 1 accounted for 124 patients (41.1%), group 2 for 74 (24.5%) and group 3 for 104 (34.3%). Male gender was significantly less represented with increasing ages (p<0.001). ASA score >2 (p=0.010), CACI score (p<0.001), and ERD score (p<0.001) were more frequent in group 3. No significant differences were found about AAST distribution and comorbidities. Conversion to open rate was significantly higher in group 1 (6.5%) and group 3 (8.7%) (p=0.019). Common bile duct stones rate was higher in group 3 (14.5% vs 13.5% vs 31.7%; p<0.001). Median postoperative hospital length of stay was increasingly longer (p<0.001). AAST grade ≠ 3 (OR 3.187; 95% CI 1.356-7.489; p=0.008), age ≠ 70 y-o (OR 3.358; p<0.001), and CBD stones (OR 2.912; 95% CI 1.456-5.824; p=0.003) were identified as predictive factors of morbidity between < and ≠ 70 ys. Among the three groups of elderly, age > 80 ys was associated with an increase of OR of postoperative complication by 2.94 (95% CI 1.099-7.912; p = 0.032). CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopy can be safely offered in elderly patients, although longer postoperative hospital stay. The presence of associated CBD stones may increase the risk of morbidity. KEY WORDS: Acute calculous cholecystitis, Cholecystectomy, Common bile duct lithiasis, Elderly, Frailty, Laparoscopy.