Effect of robotic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy on postoperative length of hospital stay and complications for pancreatic head or periampullary tumours: a multicentre, open-label randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The flexibility of the robotic system in resection and reconstruction provides potential benefits in pancreaticoduodenectomy. Increasingly, robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) has been reported with favourable outcomes, but high-level evidence is still scarce. We aimed to compare the short-term postoperative outcomes of RPD with those of open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD), and hypothesised that postoperative length of hospital stay would be shorter after RPD than after OPD. METHODS: This multicentre, open-label randomised controlled trial was conducted at three high-volume hospitals in China. Patients were considered for participation in this trial if they were aged 18-75 years, had a resectable benign, premalignant, or malignant tumour in the pancreatic head or periampullary region; and were suitable for both RPD and OPD. Patients with distant metastases were excluded. Block randomisation was done with random block sizes of four, stratified by centre. Allocation was concealed via individual, sequentially numbered, opaque sealed envelopes. Eligible patients were randomly assigned to the RPD group or the OPD group in a 1:1 ratio by a masked research assistant. Surgeons and patients were not masked to trial group, but data collectors, postoperative outcome assessors, and data analysts were. All patients underwent RPD or OPD according to previously reported techniques. Participating surgeons had surpassed the learning curves of at least 40 RPD and 60 OPD procedures. The primary outcome was postoperative length of hospital stay, which was analysed in the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population. This trial is registered with the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2200056809) and is complete. FINDINGS: Between March 5 and Dec 20, 2022, 292 patients were screened for eligibility, of whom 164 were enrolled and randomly assigned to the RPD group (n=82) or the OPD group (n=82). 161 patients who underwent surgical resection were included in the mITT analysis (81 in the RPD group and 80 in the OPD group). 94 (58%) participants were male and 67 (42%) were female. Postoperative length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the RPD group than in the OPD group (median 11·0 days [IQR 9·0 to 19·5] vs 13·5 days [11·5 to 18·0]; median difference -2·0 [95% CI -4·0 to 0·0]; p=0·029). During a follow-up period of 90 days, six (7%) of 81 patients in the RPD group and five (6%) of 80 patients in the OPD group required readmission. Reasons for readmission were intra-abdominal haemorrhage (one in each group), vomiting (two in the RPD group and one in the OPD group), electrolyte disturbance (one in each group), and fever (two in each group). There were two (1%) in-hospital deaths within 90 days of surgery, one in each group. The postoperative 90-day mortality rate (difference -0·02% [-5·6 to 5·5]; p=1·00) and the incidence of severe complications (ie, Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3; difference -1·5% [-14·5 to 11·4]; p=0·82) were similar between the two groups. INTERPRETATION: For surgeons who had passed the learning curve, RPD was safe and feasible with the advantage of shorter postoperative length of hospital stay than OPD. Future research should focus on the medium-term and long-term outcomes between RPD and OPD. FUNDING: None.

Short- and long-term outcomes of robotic versus open radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy: a retrospective propensity score-matched cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Robotic distal pancreatectomy has increasingly been accepted as it has overcome some of the limitations of open distal pancreatectomy, whilst the outcomes following robotic radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (RAMPS) in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) are still uncertain. This study aimed to evaluate the short and long-term outcomes of robotic RAMPS and open RAMPS for PDAC. METHODS: The patients who underwent robotic RAMPS and open RAMPS for PDAC at our clinical centre between January 2017 and December 2021 were reviewed. After a propensity score matching (PSM) at a 1:1 ratio, the perioperative and pathological outcomes in the both groups were reviewed. Univariable and multivariable Cox regression analyses were used to identify independent prognosis factors for overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) of these patients. RESULTS: 318 cases were recorded in robotic and open groups. The robotic group showed advantages in operative time [205.00 (166.00, 240.00) min vs 235 (184.75, 270.00) min, P = 0.002], estimated blood loss [100 (50, 100) ml vs 300 (100, 400) ml, P < 0.001], delayed gastric emptying [0 vs 5.03%, P = 0.007] and postoperative hospital stay [7.00 (5.00, 10.00) days vs 11.00 (8.00, 14.00) days, P < 0.001]. There were no significant differences in rate of severe postoperative complications between the robotic group and the open group. Multivariable analysis showed that carbohydrate antigen 19-9, estimated blood loss, N stage, tumour differentiation, chemotherapy and vascular invasion were independent risk factors for OS and RFS of these patients. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic RAMPS was safe and had some advantages over open RAMPS for PDAC. There were no significantly differences in oncological outcomes and long-term survival rates between the robotic and open groups. Robotic RAMPS expanded the indications for minimally invasive surgeries for PDAC to a certain extent.

Outcomes of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Pancreatoduodenectomy Following Learning Curves of Surgeons: A Multicenter Study on 2255 Patients.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) with laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) in operative and oncologic outcomes. BACKGROUND: Previous studies comparing RPD with LPD have only been carried out in small, single-center studies with variable quality. METHODS: Consecutive patients from nine centers in China who underwent RPD or LPD between 2015 and 2022 were included. A 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) was used to minimize bias. RESULTS: Of the 2,255 patients, 1158 underwent RPD and 1097 underwent LPD. Following PSM, 1006 patients were enrolled in each group. The RPD group had significantly shorter operative time (270.0 vs. 305.0 minutes, P<0.001), lower intraoperative blood transfusion rate (5.9% vs. 12.0%, P<0.001), lower conversion rate (3.8% vs. 6.7%, P=0.004), and higher vascular reconstruction rate (7.9% vs. 5.6%, P=0.040) than the LPD group. There were no significant differences in estimated blood loss, postoperative length of stay, perioperative complications, and 90-day mortality. Patients who underwent vascular reconstruction had similar outcomes between the two groups, although they had significantly lower estimated blood loss (300.0 vs. 360.0 mL; P=0.021) in the RPD group. Subgroup analysis on pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) found no significant differences between the two groups in median recurrence-free survival (14.3 vs. 15.3 mo, P=0.573) and overall survival (24.1 vs. 23.7 mo, P=0.710). CONCLUSIONS: In experienced hands, both RPD and LPD are safe and feasible procedures with similar surgical outcomes. RPD had the perioperative advantage over LPD especially in vascular reconstruction. For PDAC patients, RPD resulted in similar oncological and survival outcomes as LPD.

Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for sporadic benign insulinoma: Short- and long-term outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive surgery is the optimal treatment for insulinoma. The present study aimed to compare short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic surgery for sporadic benign insulinoma. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of patients who underwent laparoscopic or robotic surgery for insulinoma at our center between September 2007 and December 2019 was conducted. The demographic, perioperative and postoperative follow-up results were compared between the laparoscopic and robotic groups. RESULTS: A total of 85 patients were enrolled, including 36 with laparoscopic approach and 49 with robotic approach. Enucleation was the preferred surgical procedure. Fifty-nine patients (69.4%) underwent enucleation; among them, 26 and 33 patients underwent laparoscopic and robotic surgery, respectively. Robotic enucleation had a lower conversion rate to laparotomy (0 vs. 19.2%, P = 0.013), shorter operative time (102.0 vs. 145.5 min, P = 0.008) and shorter postoperative hospital stay (6.0 vs. 8.5 d, P = 0.002) than laparoscopic enucleation. There were no differences between the groups in terms of intraoperative blood loss, the rates of postoperative pancreatic fistula and complications. After a median follow-up of 65 months, two patients in the laparoscopic group developed a functional recurrence and none of the patients in the robotic group had a recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic enucleation can reduce the conversion rate to laparotomy and shorten operative time, which might lead to a reduction in postoperative hospital stay.

Early and late recurrence patterns of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Survival after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains poor because of high incidences of recurrence. The risk factors, patterns, and long-term prognosis in patients with early recurrence and late recurrence (ER and LR) for PDAC after PD were studied. METHODS: Data from patients who underwent PD for PDAC were analyzed. Recurrence was divided into ER (ER ≤1 years) and LR (LR >1 years) using the time to recurrence after surgery. Characteristics and patterns of initial recurrence, and postrecurrence survival (PRS) were compared between patients with ER and LR. RESULTS: Among the 634 patients, 281 (44.3%) and 249 (39.3%) patients developed ER and LR, respectively. In the multivariate analysis, preoperative CA19-9 levels, resection margin status, and tumor differentiation were significantly associated with both ER and LR, while lymph node metastasis and perineal invasion were associated with LR. Patients with ER, when compared with patients with LR, showed a significantly higher proportion of liver-only recurrence ( P <0.05), and worse median PRS (5.2 vs. 9.3 months, P <0.001). Lung-only recurrence had a significantly longer PRS when compared with liver-only recurrence ( P <0.001). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that ER and irregular postoperative recurrence surveillance were independently associated with a worse prognosis ( P <0.001). CONCLUSION: The risk factors for ER and LR after PD are different for PDAC patients. Patients who developed ER had worse PRS than those who developed LR. Patients with lung-only recurrence had a significantly better prognosis than those with other recurrent sites.

Perioperative and Oncological Outcomes of Robotic Versus Open Pancreaticoduodenectomy in Low-Risk Surgical Candidates: A Multicenter Propensity Score-Matched Study.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to perform a multicenter comparison between robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD). BACKGROUND: Previous comparisons of RPD versus OPD have only been carried out in small, single-center studies of variable quality. METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent RPD (n = 1032) or OPD (n = 1154) at 7 centers in China between July 2012 and July 2020 were included. A 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) was performed. RESULTS: After PSM, 982 patients in each group were enrolled. The RPD group had significantly lower estimated blood loss (EBL) (190.0 vs 260.0 mL; P < 0.001), and a shorter postoperative 1length of hospital stay (LOS) (12.0 (9.0-16.0) days vs 14.5 (11.0-19.0) days; P < 0.001) than the OPD group. There were no significant differences in operative time, major morbidity including clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF), bile leakage, delayed gastric emptying, postoperative pancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), reoperation, readmission or 90-day mortality rates. Multivariable analysis showed R0 resection, CR-POPF, PPH and reoperation to be independent risk factors for 90-day mortality. Subgroup analysis on patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) (n = 326 in each subgroup) showed RPD had advantages over OPD in EBL and postoperative LOS. There were no significant differences in median disease-free survival (15.2 vs 14.3 months, P = 0.94) or median overall survival (24.2 vs 24.1 months, P = 0.88) between the 2 subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: RPD was comparable to OPD in feasibility and safety. For patients with PDAC, RPD resulted in similar oncologic and survival outcomes as OPD.

Intraoperative Ultrasound Guided Robotic Pancreatic Enucleation, Does a Distance of 3mm Still Matters?

Background: A minimal distance of 3 mm to main pancreatic duct (MPD) was generally considered to be necessary for pancreatic enucleation (PE). This study was designed to report the safety and feasibility of PE for tumors located in 3 mm to MPD Under the intraoperative ultrasound (IOUS) guidance.Methods: The data of patients who received IOUS guided robotic PE from January 2018 to May 2019 in the second department of hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery were reviewed in this study. According to the distance to MPD (less than 3 mm or not), patients were divided in 2 groups, and the short-term operative outcomes were compared.Statistics: Students' t-test and Mann-Whitney U test were used for comparing continuous variables, and Chi-squared test was used for comparing categorical variables.Results: And a total of 56 patients were analyzed, and a minimal distance less than 3 mm between the tumor and pancreatic duct measured by IOUS was found in 12 patients. The tumors and MPD were clearly revealed intraoperatively in all the cases. The operative duration was significantly longer in patients with tumors located in 3 mm from MPD (143.25 ± 40.89 min vs 107.14 ± 37.73 min, t = 2.756, P=.014). There was no significant difference between the rate of post-operative pancreatic fistula and other complications in the different groups (χ2 =.924, P=.48).Discussion and conclusion: robotic PE could be safely performed under IOUS guidance for benign or low-grade malignant tumors located less than 3 mm to the MPD.

A novel online calculator to predict early recurrence and long-term survival of patients with resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma after pancreaticoduodenectomy: A multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is prone to relapse even after radical pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) (including robotic, laparoscopic and open approach). This study aimed to develop an online nomogram calculator to predict early recurrence (ER) (within one year after surgery) and long-term survival in patients with PDAC. METHODS: Patients with PDAC after radical PD were included. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to identify independent risk factors. An online nomogram calculator was developed based on independent risk factors in the training cohort and then tested in the internal and external validation cohorts. RESULTS: Of the 569 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 310, 155, and 104 patients were in the training, internal and external validation cohorts, respectively. Multivariate analysis revealed that preoperative carbohydrate antigen19-9 (CA19-9) [Odds Ratio (OR) 1.002; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.001-1.003; P = 0.001], fibrinogen/albumin (FAR) (OR 1.132; 95% CI 1.012-1.266; P = 0.029), N stage (OR 2.291; 95% CI 1.283-4.092; P = 0.005), and tumor differentiation (OR 3.321; 95% CI 1.278-8.631; P = 0.014) were independent risk factors for ER. Nomogram based on the above four factors achieved good C-statistics of 0.772, 0.767 and 0.765 in predicting ER in the training, internal and external validation cohorts, respectively. Time-dependent ROC analysis (timeROC) and decision curve analysis (DCA) revealed that the nomogram provided superior diagnostic capacity and net benefit compared with other staging systems. CONCLUSION: This multi-center study developed and validated an online nomogram calculator that can predict ER and long-term survival in patients with PDAC with high degrees of stability and accuracy.

Single-port (SP) robotic pancreatic surgery using the da Vinci SP system: A retrospective study on prospectively collected data in a consecutive patient cohort.

BACKGROUND: Single-port (SP) robotic systems have the advantages of multi-jointed wristed instruments and a fully wristed three-dimensional high-definition camera. SP robotic pancreatic surgery (SPRPS) is rarely reported because of its complexity and technical challenges. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of SPRPS using the new da Vinci SP system. METHODS: The demographics and short-term outcomes of a consecutive series of patients who underwent SP robotic pancreatic enucleation, distal pancreatectomy, and pancreaticoduodenectomy between December 24, 2021, and February 23, 2022, were analyzed. RESULTS: Twenty-three patients (eight men and 15 women; mean age, 39.7 years) were included in the study; 11 underwent SP robotic pancreatic enucleation, 11 underwent SP robotic distal pancreatectomy, and one underwent SP robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. The mean operative time was 156.5 min, and the median estimated blood loss was 40.0 (interquartile range, 20.0-50.0) mL. No patient required conversion to laparotomy or blood transfusions. One patient in each of the three groups had grade B postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) and abdominal infection; they all recovered after conservative treatment. No patient had postoperative complications of grade C POPF, pancreatectomy hemorrhage, or major complications (Clavien grade ≥3). The mean length of postoperative length of hospital stay was 4.0 days. Pathological examination showed that all tumors were benign, and the mean largest tumor diameter was 2.8 cm. CONCLUSIONS: SPRPS using the da Vinci SP system is safe and feasible in selected patients. Further research and more surgical experience are needed to determine the indications for SPRPS.

Robotic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for distal cholangiocarcinoma: a multicenter propensity score-matched study.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatoduodenectomy is the only potentially curative treatment for distal cholangiocarcinoma (DCC). In this study, we sought to compare the perioperative and oncological outcomes of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) based on a multicenter propensity score-matched study. METHODS: Consecutive patients with DCC who underwent RPD or OPD from five centers in China between January 2014 and June 2019 were included. A 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) was performed. Univariable and multivariable Cox regression analyses were used to identify independent prognosis factors for overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) of these patients. RESULTS: A total of 217 patients and 228 patients underwent RPD and OPD, respectively. After PSM, 180 patients in each group were enrolled. There were no significant differences in operative time, lymph node harvest, intraoperative transfusion, vascular resection, R0 resection, postoperative major morbidity, reoperation, 90-day mortality, and long-term survival between the two groups before and after PSM. Whereas, compared with the OPD group, the RPD group had significantly lower estimated blood loss (150.0 ml vs. 250.0 ml; P < 0.001), and a shorter postoperative length of stay (LOS) (12.0 days vs. 15.0 days; P < 0.001). Multivariable analysis showed carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9), R0 resection, N stage, perineural invasion, and tumor differentiation significantly associated with OS and RFS of these patients. CONCLUSIONS: RPD was comparable to OPD in feasibility and safety. For patients with DCC, RPD resulted in similar oncologic and survival outcomes as OPD.

Evaluating the learning curve of robotic radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy: A retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (RAMPS), a new surgical approach for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma of the body and tail, has become increasingly accepted and performed in recent years. Robotic surgery has advantages over open and laparoscopic surgeries in terms of surgical vision and instrument flexibility. However, the lack of comprehension of the learning curve has limited its generalization. This study aimed to evaluate the learning curve of robotic posterior RAMPS. METHODS: Patients who underwent robotic posterior RAMPS between February 2017 and April 2021 at our institution were included in this study. Data on patient characteristics, perioperative outcomes, and pathological outcomes were summarized and analyzed. The cumulative sum (CUSUM) method was used to assess the learning curve and inflection points based on operation time and estimated blood loss. RESULTS: One hundred consecutive patients who underwent robotic posterior RAMPS were enrolled. The median operation time was 235.0 (interquartile range [IQR], 210.0-270.0) min, and the estimated blood loss was 210.0 (IQR, 165.0-245.0) mL. The grade 3/4 Clavien-Dindo complication rate was 8% (8/100). According to the CUSUM plot, the inflection points of the learning curve were 25 and 65 cases, dividing the case series into the learning (1-25 cases), plateau (26-65 cases), and maturation (66-100 cases) phases. The operation time was relatively high in the learning phase, reached a plateau between 25 and 65 cases (270.0 min vs. 220.0 min, p < 0.01), and decreased significantly in the maturation phase (p < 0.01). Estimated blood loss improved in the maturation phase compared to the learning phase (150.0 vs. 245.0 mL, p < 0.01). No significant differences in conversion rate, complications, or mortality were observed among the three phases. CONCLUSION: The inflection points of the learning and plateau phases were the 25th and 65th cases, respectively. Robotic RAMPS is safe and feasible even in the learning phase.

A novel online calculator to predict recurrence risk in patients with distal cholangiocarcinoma after radical pancreaticoduodenectomy.

BACKGROUND: Patients with distal cholangiocarcinoma (DCC) are prone to relapse even after radical pancreaticoduodenectomy. In this study, we sought to create an online nomogram calculator to accurately predict the recurrence risk of DCC. METHODS: A total of 184 patients were included. Multivariate Cox regression analysis was used to identify independent prognosis factors for recurrence-free survival and overall survival. A nomogram was constructed according to the prognostic factors in the training cohort and then tested in the validation cohort. RESULTS: Multivariate Cox analysis showed preoperative carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (p < 0.001), maximum tumor size (p = 0.076), perineural invasion (p = 0.044), and N stage (p = 0.076) were independent prognostic factors for DCC relapse. We then constructed a nomogram with these four factors. The consistency index (C-index) of the nomogram in the training and validation cohorts were 0.703 and 0.665, respectively. Time-dependent receiver operating characteristic and decision curve analyses revealed that the nomogram provided higher diagnostic power and net benefit compared with other staging systems. CONCLUSION: In this study, we developed an online nomogram calculator that can accurately predict the recurrence risk of DCC and identify patients with a high risk of recurrence in a simple and convenient manner.

Development and validation of an online calculator to predict early recurrence and long-term survival in patients with distal cholangiocarcinoma after pancreaticoduodenectomy.

BACKGROUND: Distal cholangiocarcinoma (DCC) is a malignancy associated with a short survival time. In this study, we aimed to create an online nomogram calculator to predict early recurrence and long-term survival in patients with DCC after pancreaticoduodenectomy. METHODS: A total of 486 patients with DCC were included. An online nomogram calculator was developed and validated in training, internal validation and external validation cohorts, respectively. RESULTS: Of the 486 patients who met the inclusion criteria, we allocated 240, 120, and 126 patients to the training, internal validation, and external validation cohorts, respectively. Multivariable analysis showed that preoperative CA19-9, maximum tumor diameter, perineural invasion, and tumor differentiation were significant risk factors for early recurrence in patients with DCC. Incorporating these four factors, the nomogram achieved good AUC values of 0.788, 0.771, and 0.723 for predicting early recurrence in the training, internal validation, and external validation cohorts, respectively. Notably, this nomogram also had good power to predict overall survival. The discrimination ability of the nomogram was evaluated by dividing the predicted probabilities of early recurrence and survival into two risk groups in the training cohort (low risk ≤ 132; high risk > 132; P < .001). Time-dependent ROC and decision curve analysis further revealed that the nomogram provided higher diagnostic capacity and superior net benefit compared to other staging systems. CONCLUSION: This study developed and validated a web-based nomogram calculator that was capable of predicting early recurrence and long-term prognosis in patients with DCC after pancreaticoduodenectomy with high degrees of stability and accuracy.

The standardized technique and surgical video of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy at the Chinese PLA General Hospital.

The technical complexity of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) and lack of technical surgical standardization have slowed its widespread application. RPD is only routinely performed in a few highly specialized centers. This study describes in detail the standard steps and core techniques of an experienced robotic center in China. We took advantage of our single experience to provide a step-by-step technique and surgical video of our RPD standardized procedure. We divided RPD into 18 key steps. Demographics and perioperative outcomes of consecutive 20 patients who underwent the RPD standardized procedure were analyzed. For the 20 consecutive patients, the mean operative time was 253.6 min, and the median estimated blood loss was 210.0 mL. One patient required conversion to laparotomy due to the need for PV reconstruction. One patient had grade 3 complication. The median postoperative hospital stay was 11.0 days. No 90-day mortality was observed. By simplifying and optimizing the surgical techniques, the RPD procedure can be standardized and modeled to improve feasibility and repeatability.

Robotic resection of duodenal gastrointestinal stromal tumour: Preliminary experience from a single centre.

BACKGROUND: Experience in minimally invasive surgery in the treatment of duodenal gastrointestinal stromal tumors (DGISTs) is accumulating, but there is no consensus on the choice of surgical method. AIM: To summarize the technique and feasibility of robotic resection of DGISTs. METHODS: The perioperative and demographic outcomes of a consecutive series of patients who underwent robotic resection and open resection of DGISTs between May 1, 2010 and May 1, 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. The patients were divided into the open surgery group and the robotic surgery group. Pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) or limited resection was performed based on the location of the tumour and the distance between the tumour and duodenal papilla. Age, sex, tumour location, tumour size, operation time (OT), estimated blood loss (EBL), postoperative hospital stay (PHS), tumour mitosis, postoperative risk classification, postoperative recurrence and recurrence-free survival were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: Of the 28 patients included, 19 were male and 9 were female aged 51.3 ± 13.1 years. Limited resection was performed in 17 patients, and PD was performed in 11 patients. Eleven patients underwent open surgery, and 17 patients underwent robotic surgery. Two patients in the robotic surgery group underwent conversion to open surgery. All the tumours were R0 resected, and there was no significant difference in age, sex, tumour size, operation mode, PHS, tumour mitosis, incidence of postoperative complications, risk classification, postoperative targeted drug therapy or postoperative recurrence between the two groups (P > 0.05). OT and EBL in the robotic group were significantly different to those in the open surgery group (P < 0.05). All the patients survived during the follow-up period, and 4 patients had recurrence and metastasis. No significant difference in recurrence-free survival was noted between the open surgery group and the robotic surgery group (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Robotic resection is safe and feasible for patients with DGISTs, and its therapeutic effect is equivalent to open surgery.

A comparative study of end-to-end pancreatic anastomosis versus pancreaticojejunostomy after robotic central pancreatectomy.

Robotic central pancreatectomy has been applied for 20 years with the advantage of minimally invasive surgery. The general pancreatic reconstruction approaches include pancreaticojejunostomy and pancreaticogastrostomy. Recently, our group reported a few preliminary cases of application of end-to-end pancreatic anastomosis in robotic central pancreatectomy. This novel approach has not been compared with the conventional approach on a large scale. The objective of this study is to compare end-to-end pancreatic anastomosis with pancreaticojejunostomy after robotic central pancreatectomy based on the perioperative and long-term outcomes. Clinical data consist of demographics, clinicopathologic characteristics, perioperative and long-term outcomes of patients who underwent robotic central pancreatectomy from March 2015 to December 2019 were collected and analyzed. Seventy-four patients received a robotic central pancreatectomy with either end-to-end pancreatic anastomosis (n = 52) or pancreaticojejunostomy (n = 22). End-to-end pancreatic anastomosis was associated with shorter operative time and reduced blood loss. Despite a higher incidence of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (69.2% vs. 36.4%, p = 0.009), the newer anastomotic technique was also associated with earlier removal of nasogastric tube and resumption of oral intake. Long-term results, in terms of either endocrine or exocrine function, were not affected by the anastomotic technique. We have shown the feasibility of robotic central pancreatectomy with end-to-end pancreatic anastomosis. Despite streamlined technique, the newer anastomosis appears to improve early post-operative results while preserving endocrine and exocrine functions in the long-term period. Evaluation of the true potential of robotic central pancreatectomy with end-to-end pancreatic anastomosis requires a prospective and randomized study enrolling a large number of patients.

The standardized technique in robotic radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy using the flip-up approach.

PURPOSE: Radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (RAMPS) was first introduced in 2003. It has been accepted as an alternative technique for pancreatic cancer of the body and tail. However, robotic RAMPS is not yet popular because of its technical difficulty and lack of standardized technique. This study describes in detail the standard steps of robotic RAMPS using the flip-up approach with the benefit of a robotic view when treating pancreatic cancer of the body and tail. METHOD: We took advantage of our single-center experience to provide a step-by-step technique of robotic RAMPS procedure using the da Vinci Si system. RESULTS: We divided the procedure into 11 key steps. The surgical steps are optimized to achieve margin-negative curative resection and sufficient regional lymphadenectomy. The artery-first approach is usually used to determine tumor resectability early before performing an irreversible operative step. We also determine the borders of surgical resection and divide the splenic artery after dividing the pancreatic neck and the splenic vein, which facilitates a complete lymphadenectomy around the celiac axis with a bottom-up view. CONCLUSION: Robotic RAMPS using the flip-up approach is safe and feasible in performing curative resection for well-selected pancreatic cancer of the body and tail. A randomized controlled trial comparing open and robotic RAMPS is needed in the future.

Robotic pancreatectomy for intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm of the pancreas: A large-scale study.

BACKGROUND: Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) of the pancreas is a mucin-producing tumor that develops from the epithelial lining of the main pancreatic duct or branch pancreatic ducts. Here, we assessed the feasibility and safety of various robotic pancreatectomy approaches to treating IPMN, and short- and long-term outcomes of robotic IPMN resection. METHODS: Data from patients who underwent robotic pancreatectomy for IPMN between 2012 and 2019 at our hospital were retrospectively analyzed. The survival outcomes for patients were compared using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: Of the 174 patients who underwent robotic pancreatectomy, 120 and 54 patients had benign or malignant tumors, respectively. Patients with malignant IPMN had lost more weight in the 6 months prior to surgery (P = .008), and a higher serum level of CA19-9 (P < .001) and CEA (P < .001). Postoperative pancreatic or biliary fistula occurred in 17 or 6 patients overall, respectively. The pathology of the IPMN (P = .030), tumor diameter (P = .016), mural nodule (P = .023), tumor capsule (P = .003) and CA19-9 (P = .024) values were all independent risk factors for survival. The median OS time after surgical resection for the malignant IPMN group was 29.0 months (range, 21.6-36.4). The OS was significantly different in patients with IPMN according to their different pathology, tumor capsule, mural nodule group, CA19-9 level, or tumor diameter. CONCLUSIONS: This large-scale survey of 174 patients indicated that various robotic pancreatectomy approaches were feasible and safe for IPMN. Patients had an acceptable prognosis, indicating that robotic pancreatectomy represents a feasible potential therapeutic strategy for IPMN.

Novel Technique for Single-Layer Pancreatojejunostomy is Not Inferior to Modified Blumgart Anastomosis in Robotic Pancreatoduodenectomy: Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: A novel technique of single-layer continuous suturing (SCS) for pancreaticojejunostomy (PJ) during robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD), a technically straightforward procedure, has been shown to produce promising results in a previous study. The present RCT aims to show that SCS during RPD does not increase the incidence of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) when compared with modified Blumgart anastomosis (MBA). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between January 2019 and September 2019, consecutive patients (ASA score ≤ 2) who underwent RPD were enrolled and randomized to the SCS or the MBA group. The primary endpoint was the rate of CR-POPF. A noninferiority margin of 10% was chosen. RESULTS: Of the 186 patients, 4 were excluded because PJ was not performed. The remaining 182 patients were randomized to the SCS group (n = 89) or MBA group (n = 93). CR-POPF rate was not inferior in the SCS group [SCS: 6.7%, MBA: 11.8%; 95% confidence interval (- 0.76, - 0.06), P = 0.0002]. PJ duration was significantly lower in the SCS group (P < 0.01). No significant differences were found between the two groups in operative time, estimated blood loss, postoperative hospital stay, or rates of conversion to laparotomy, morbidity, reoperation, or mortality. On subgroup analysis of patients with a soft pancreas and small main pancreatic duct, SCS significantly reduced the duration of PJ. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that SCS was not inferior to MBA in terms of the CR-POPF rate during RPD. Registration number: ChiCTR1800020086 ( www.Chictr.org.cn ).

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy in elderly and younger patients: A retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) has gradually been accepted as it has overcome some of the limitations of laparoscopic surgery. Outcomes following RPD in elderly patients are still uncertain. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and feasibility of RPD in elderly patients. METHODS: The demographics and perioperative outcomes of a consecutive series of patients who underwent RPD between January 2018 and September 2019, were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were divided into 2 groups: elderly patients (≥75 years) and younger patients (<75 years). RESULTS: Of 431 patients who were included in this study, 77 were elderly patients and 354 were younger patients. Elderly patients had a significantly higher ASA score than younger patients (P < 0.001). There were no significant differences in operative time, estimated blood loss and blood transfusion rate between groups (P > 0.05). Elderly patients had significantly higher morbidity and longer postoperative hospital stay than younger patients (49.3% vs. 31.1%, P = 0.002; 22.8 vs. 13.3 days, P < 0.001, respectively). However, the reoperation, 90-day readmission and mortality rates were comparable in the two groups (P > 0.05). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that a higher ASA score was the only independent factor for postoperative morbidity (OR 2.02, 95% CI 1.06-3.88, P = 0.03), while old age was not (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.36-1.81, P = 0.80). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that RDP was safe and feasible in elderly patients. Age should not be a contraindication to RPD. Elderly patients with careful patient selection should be considered for RPD.