Impact of shifting from laparoscopic to robotic surgery during 600 minimally invasive pancreatic and liver resections.

BACKGROUND: Many centers worldwide are shifting from laparoscopic to robotic minimally invasive hepato-pancreato-biliary resections (MIS-HPB) but large single center series assessing this process are lacking. We hypothesized that the introduction of robot-assisted surgery was safe and feasible in a high-volume center. METHODS: Single center, post-hoc assessment of prospectively collected data including all consecutive MIS-HPB resections (January 2010-February 2022). As of December 2018, all MIS pancreatoduodenectomy and liver resections were robot-assisted. All surgeons had participated in dedicated training programs for laparoscopic and robotic MIS-HPB. Primary outcomes were in-hospital/30-day mortality and Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3 complications. RESULTS: Among 1875 pancreatic and liver resections, 600 (32%) were MIS-HPB resections. The overall rate of conversion was 4.3%, Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3 complications 25.7%, and in-hospital/30-day mortality 1.8% (n = 11). When comparing the period before and after the introduction of robotic MIS-HPB (Dec 2018), the overall use of MIS-HPB increased from 25.3 to 43.8% (P < 0.001) and blood loss decreased from 250 ml [IQR 100-500] to 150 ml [IQR 50-300] (P < 0.001). The 291 MIS pancreatic resections included 163 MIS pancreatoduodenectomies (52 laparoscopic, 111 robotic) with 4.3% conversion rate. The implementation of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with reduced operation time (450 vs 361 min; P < 0.001), reduced blood loss (350 vs 200 ml; P < 0.001), and a decreased rate of delayed gastric emptying (28.8% vs 9.9%; P = 0.009). The 309 MIS liver resections included 198 laparoscopic and 111 robotic procedures with a 3.6% conversion rate. The implementation of robotic liver resection was associated with less overall complications (24.7% vs 10.8%; P = 0.003) and shorter hospital stay (4 vs 3 days; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The introduction of robotic surgery was associated with greater implementation of MIS-HPB in up to nearly half of all pancreatic and liver resections. Although mortality and major morbidity were not affected, robotic surgery was associated with improvements in some selected outcomes. Ultimately, randomized studies and high-quality registries should determine its added value.

Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: multicentre analysis.

BACKGROUND: The role of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy is still unclear, and whether robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) offers benefits over laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is unknown because large multicentre studies are lacking. This study compared perioperative outcomes between RDP and LDP. METHODS: A multicentre international propensity score-matched study included patients who underwent RDP or LDP for any indication in 21 European centres from six countries that performed at least 15 distal pancreatectomies annually (January 2011 to June 2019). Propensity score matching was based on preoperative characteristics in a 1 : 1 ratio. The primary outcome was the major morbidity rate (Clavien-Dindo grade IIIa or above). RESULTS: A total of 1551 patients (407 RDP and 1144 LDP) were included in the study. Some 402 patients who had RDP were matched with 402 who underwent LDP. After matching, there was no difference between RDP and LDP groups in rates of major morbidity (14.2 versus 16.5 per cent respectively; P = 0.378), postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C (24.6 versus 26.5 per cent; P = 0.543) or 90-day mortality (0.5 versus 1.3 per cent; P = 0.268). RDP was associated with a longer duration of surgery than LDP (median 285 (i.q.r. 225-350) versus 240 (195-300) min respectively; P < 0.001), lower conversion rate (6.7 versus 15.2 per cent; P < 0.001), higher spleen preservation rate (81.4 versus 62.9 per cent; P = 0.001), longer hospital stay (median 8.5 (i.q.r. 7-12) versus 7 (6-10) days; P < 0.001) and lower readmission rate (11.0 versus 18.2 per cent; P = 0.004). CONCLUSION: The major morbidity rate was comparable between RDP and LDP. RDP was associated with improved rates of conversion, spleen preservation and readmission, to the detriment of longer duration of surgery and hospital stay.

Risk of conversion to open surgery during robotic and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy and effect on outcomes: international propensity score-matched comparison study.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) is increasingly being performed because of perceived patient benefits. Whether conversion of MIPD to open pancreatoduodenectomy worsens outcome, and which risk factors are associated with conversion, is unclear. METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of a European multicentre retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing MIPD (2012-2017) in ten medium-volume (10-19 MIPDs annually) and four high-volume (at least 20 MIPDs annually) centres. Propensity score matching (1 : 1) was used to compare outcomes of converted and non-converted MIPD procedures. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify risk factors for conversion, with results presented as odds ratios (ORs) with 95 per cent confidence intervals (c.i). RESULTS: Overall, 65 of 709 MIPDs were converted (9.2 per cent) and the overall 30-day mortality rate was 3.8 per cent. Risk factors for conversion were tumour size larger than 40 mm (OR 2.7, 95 per cent c.i.1.0 to 6.8; P = 0.041), pancreatobiliary tumours (OR 2.2, 1.0 to 4.8; P = 0.039), age at least 75 years (OR 2.0, 1.0 to 4.1; P = 0.043), and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (OR 5.2, 2.5 to 10.7; P < 0.001). Medium-volume centres had a higher risk of conversion than high-volume centres (15.2 versus 4.1 per cent, P < 0.001; OR 4.1, 2.3 to 7.4, P < 0.001). After propensity score matching (56 converted MIPDs and 56 completed MIPDs) including risk factors, rates of complications with a Clavien-Dindo grade of III or higher (32 versus 34 per cent; P = 0.841) and 30-day mortality (12 versus 6 per cent; P = 0.274) did not differ between converted and non-converted MIPDs. CONCLUSION: Risk factors for conversion during MIPD include age, large tumour size, tumour location, laparoscopic approach, and surgery in medium-volume centres. Although conversion during MIPD itself was not associated with worse outcomes, the outcome in these patients was poor in general which should be taken into account during patient selection for MIPD.

Laparoscopic versus open extended radical left pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: an international propensity-score matched study.

BACKGROUND: A radical left pancreatectomy in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) may require extended, multivisceral resections. The role of a laparoscopic approach in extended radical left pancreatectomy (ERLP) is unclear since comparative studies are lacking. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes after laparoscopic vs open ERLP in patients with PDAC. METHODS: An international multicenter propensity-score matched study including patients who underwent either laparoscopic or open ERLP (L-ERLP; O-ERLP) for PDAC was performed (2007-2015). The ISGPS definition for extended resection was used. Primary outcomes were overall survival, margin negative rate (R0), and lymph node retrieval. RESULTS: Between 2007 and 2015, 320 patients underwent ERLP in 34 centers from 12 countries (65 L-ERLP vs. 255 O-ERLP). After propensity-score matching, 44 L-ERLP could be matched to 44 O-ERLP. In the matched cohort, the conversion rate in L-ERLP group was 35%. The L-ERLP R0 resection rate (matched cohort) was comparable to O-ERLP (67% vs 48%; P = 0.063) but the lymph node yield was lower for L-ERLP than O-ERLP (median 11 vs 19, P = 0.023). L-ERLP was associated with less delayed gastric emptying (0% vs 16%, P = 0.006) and shorter hospital stay (median 9 vs 13 days, P = 0.005), as compared to O-ERLP. Outcomes were comparable for additional organ resections, vascular resections (besides splenic vessels), Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ III complications, or 90-day mortality (2% vs 2%, P = 0.973). The median overall survival was comparable between both groups (19 vs 20 months, P = 0.571). Conversion did not worsen outcomes in L-ERLP. CONCLUSION: The laparoscopic approach may be used safely in selected patients requiring ERLP for PDAC, since morbidity, mortality, and overall survival seem comparable, as compared to O-ERLP. L-ERLP is associated with a high conversion rate and reduced lymph node yield but also with less delayed gastric emptying and a shorter hospital stay, as compared to O-ERLP.

Predictors for Survival in an International Cohort of Patients Undergoing Distal Pancreatectomy for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Surgical factors, including resection of Gerota's fascia, R0-resection, and lymph node yield, may be associated with survival after distal pancreatectomy (DP) for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), but evidence from large multicenter studies is lacking. This study aimed to identify predictors for overall survival after DP for PDAC, especially those related to surgical technique. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data from an international retrospective cohort including patients from 11 European countries and the USA who underwent DP for PDAC (2007-2015) were analyzed. Cox proportional hazard analyses were performed and included Gerota's fascia resection, R0 resection, lymph node ratio, extended resection, and a minimally invasive approach. RESULTS: Overall, 1200 patients from 34 centers with median follow-up of 15 months [interquartile range (IQR) 5-31 months] and median survival period of 30 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 27-33 months] were included. Gerota's fascia resection [hazard ratio (HR) 0.74; p = 0.019], R0 resection (HR 0.70; p = 0.006), and decreased lymph node ratio (HR 0.28; p < 0.001) were associated with improved overall survival, whereas extended resection (HR 1.75; p < 0.001) was associated with worse overall survival. A minimally invasive approach did not improve survival as compared with an open approach (HR 1.14; p = 0.350). Adjuvant chemotherapy (HR 0.67; p = 0.003) was also associated with improved overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: This international cohort identified Gerota's fascia resection, R0 resection, and decreased lymph node ratio as factors associated with improved overall survival during DP for PDAC. Surgeons should strive for R0 resection and adequate lymphadenectomy and could also consider Gerota's fascia resection in their routine surgical approach.

Multicentre observational cohort study of implementation and outcomes of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is increasingly being performed as an alternative to open surgery. Whether the implementation and corresponding learning curve of LDP have an impact on patient outcome is unknown. The aim was to investigate the temporal trends in practice across UK centres. METHODS: This was a retrospective multicentre observational cohort study of LDP in 11 tertiary referral centres in the UK between 2006 and 2016. The learning curve was analysed by pooling data for the first 15 consecutive patients who had LDP and examining trends in surgical outcomes in subsequent patients. RESULTS: In total, 570 patients underwent LDP, whereas 888 underwent open resection. For LDP the median duration of operation was 240 min, with 200 ml blood loss. The conversion rate was 12·1 per cent. Neuroendocrine tumours (26·7 per cent) and mucinous cystic neoplasms (19·7 per cent) were commonest indications. The proportion of LDPs increased from 24·4 per cent in 2006-2009 (P1) to 46·0 per cent in 2014-2016 (P3) (P < 0·001). LDP was increasingly performed for patients aged 70 years or more (16 per cent in P1 versus 34·4 per cent in P3; P = 0·002), pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (6 versus 19·1 per cent; P = 0·005) and advanced malignant tumours (27 versus 52 per cent; P = 0·016). With increasing experience, there was a trend for a decrease in blood transfusion rate (14·1 per cent for procedures 1-15 to 3·5 per cent for procedures 46-75; P = 0·008), ICU admissions (32·7 to 19·2 per cent; P = 0·021) and median duration of hospital stay (7 (i.q.r. 5-9) to 6 (4-7) days; P = 0·002). After 30 procedures, a decrease was noted in rates of both overall morbidity (57·7 versus 42·2 per cent for procedures 16-30 versus 46-75 respectively; P = 0·009) and severe morbidity (18·8 versus 9·7 per cent; P = 0·031). CONCLUSION: LDP has increased as a treatment option for lesions of the distal pancreas as indications for the procedure have expanded. Perioperative outcomes improved with the number of procedures performed.

ANTECEDENTES: Cada día se utiliza más la pancreatectomía distal laparoscópica (laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy, LDP) como una alternativa a la cirugía abierta. Se desconoce si la implementación y la correspondiente curva de aprendizaje de la LDP tienen impacto en los resultados. El objetivo fue investigar las tendencias relacionadas con su implementación en los centros del Reino Unido a los largo del tiempo. MÉTODOS: Se realizó el estudio observacional retrospectivo y multicéntrico de una cohorte de LDP en once centros de referencia terciarios del Reino Unido entre 2006-2016. Se analizó la curva de aprendizaje agrupando los 15 primeros pacientes consecutivos de LDP y se compararon los resultados quirúrgicos con los obtenidos en los pacientes subsiguientes. RESULTADOS: En total, se incluyeron 570 pacientes con LDP y 888 con resección abierta. Para el LDP, la mediana de tiempo operatorio fue de 240 minutos con 200 ml de pérdida de sangre. La tasa de conversión fue del 12,2%. Las indicaciones más frecuentes fueron los tumores neuroendocrinos (26,7%) y las neoplasias quísticas mucinosas (19,7%). La proporción de LDP aumentó del 24% al 46% (de 2006-2009 a 2014-2016; P < 0,001). La LDP se realizó cada vez con mayor frecuencia en pacientes de ≥ 70 años (15,8% versus 34,4%, P = 0,002), en pacientes con adenocarcinoma ductal pancreático (6,5% versus 19,1%, P = 0,005) y en pacientes con tumores malignos avanzados (27,3% versus 51,85%, P = 0,016). Con el aumento de la experiencia, disminuyeron las tendencias de la tasa de transfusión sanguínea (14,1% al 3,5%, P = 0,008), los ingresos en la UCI (32,7% a 19,2%, P = 0.021) y la mediana de la duración de la estancia hospitalaria (7 (rango intercuartílico 5-9) a 6 (rango intercuartilico 4-7) días, P = 0,002). Tras 30 procedimientos, disminuyeron tanto la morbilidad global (57,7% versus 42,2%, P = 0,009) como las tasas de morbilidad grave (21,5% versus 14,6%, P = 0,022). CONCLUSIÓN: La pancreatectomía distal laparoscópica se ha incrementado como una opción de tratamiento para las lesiones del páncreas distal a medida que se han ido ampliando las indicaciones del procedimiento. Los resultados perioperatorios mejoran con el número de procedimientos realizados.

Validation of non-invasive arterial pressure monitoring during carotid endarterectomy.

BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy require strict arterial blood pressure (BP) control to maintain adequate cerebral perfusion. In this study we tested whether non-invasive beat-to-beat Nexfin finger BP (BPfin) can replace invasive beat-to-beat radial artery BP (BPrad) in this setting. METHODS: In 25 consecutive patients (median age 71 yr) scheduled for carotid endarterectomy and receiving general anaesthesia, BPfin and BPrad were monitored simultaneously and ipsilaterally during the 30-min period surrounding carotid artery cross-clamping. Validation was guided by the standard set by the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation (AAMI), which considers a BP monitor adequate when bias (precision) is <5 (8) mm Hg, respectively. RESULTS: BPfin vs BPrad bias (precision) was -3.3 (10.8), 6.1 (5.7) and 3.5 (5.2) mm Hg for systolic, diastolic, and mean BP, respectively. One subject was excluded due to a poor quality BP curve. In another subject, mean BPfin overestimated mean BPrad by 13.5 mm Hg. CONCLUSION: Mean BPfin could be considered as an alternative for mean BPrad during a carotid endarterectomy, based on the AAMI criteria. In 23 of 24 patients, the use of mean BPfin would not lead to decisions to adjust mean BPrad values outside the predefined BP threshold. CLINICALTRIALSGOV: NCT01451294.

The haemodynamic effects of unsupplemented nitrous oxide-oxygen-relaxant anaesthesia in cardiac patients.

The effect on the systemic and pulmonary circulation of unsupplemented nitrous oxide in about 30% oxygen, with and without IPPV, was investigated in five cardiac patients and compared with control periods at rest with air breathing. The results of this investigation show that nitrous oxide in conventional oxygen concentration does not cause any great haemodynamic changes. During tracheal intubation, however, significant increases in both systemic and pulmonary blood pressures were registered. However, these pressures reverted to the control values immediately after the tracheal intubation. The results of this study support many earlier clinicaly good experiences obtained when using this conventional nitrous oxide-oxygen mixture in cardiac patients.