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.

Prophylactic abdominal drainage or no drainage after distal pancreatectomy (PANDORINA): a binational multicenter randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Prophylactic abdominal drainage is current standard practice after distal pancreatectomy (DP), with the aim to divert pancreatic fluid in case of a postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) aimed to prevent further complications as bleeding. Whereas POPF after pancreatoduodenectomy, by definition, involves infection due to anastomotic dehiscence, a POPF after DP is essentially sterile since the bowel is not opened and no anastomoses are created. Routine drainage after DP could potentially be omitted and this could even be beneficial because of the hypothetical prevention of drain-induced infections (Fisher, Surgery 52:205-22, 2018). Abdominal drainage, moreover, should only be performed if it provides additional safety or comfort to the patient. In clinical practice, drains cause clear discomfort. One multicenter randomized controlled trial confirmed the safety of omitting abdominal drainage but did not stratify patients according to their risk of POPF and did not describe a standardized strategy for pancreatic transection. Therefore, a large pragmatic multicenter randomized controlled trial is required, with prespecified POPF risk groups and a homogeneous method of stump closure. The objective of the PANDORINA trial is to evaluate the non-inferiority of omitting routine intra-abdominal drainage after DP on postoperative morbidity (Clavien-Dindo score ≥ 3), and, secondarily, POPF grade B/C. METHODS/DESIGN: Binational multicenter randomized controlled non-inferiority trial, stratifying patients to high and low risk for POPF grade B/C and incorporating a standardized strategy for pancreatic transection. Two groups of 141 patients (282 in total) undergoing elective DP (either open or minimally invasive, with or without splenectomy). Primary outcome is postoperative rate of morbidity (Clavien-Dindo score ≥ 3), and the most relevant secondary outcome is grade B/C POPF. Other secondary outcomes include surgical reintervention, percutaneous catheter drainage, endoscopic catheter drainage, abdominal collections (not requiring drainage), wound infection, delayed gastric emptying, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage as defined by the international study group for pancreatic surgery (ISGPS) (Wente et al., Surgery 142:20-5, 2007), length of stay (LOS), readmission within 90 days, in-hospital mortality, and 90-day mortality. DISCUSSION: PANDORINA is the first binational, multicenter, randomized controlled non-inferiority trial with the primary objective to evaluate the hypothesis that omitting prophylactic abdominal drainage after DP does not worsen the risk of postoperative severe complications (Wente etal., Surgery 142:20-5, 2007; Bassi et al., Surgery 161:584-91, 2017). Most of the published studies on drain placement after pancreatectomy focus on both pancreatoduodenectomy and DP, but these two entities present are associated with different complications and therefore deserve separate evaluation (McMillan et al., Surgery 159:1013-22, 2016; Pratt et al., J Gastrointest Surg 10:1264-78, 2006). The PANDORINA trial is innovative since it takes the preoperative risk on POPF into account based on the D-FRS and it warrants homogenous stump closing by using the same graded compression technique and same stapling device (de Pastena et al., Ann Surg 2022; Asbun and Stauffer, Surg Endosc 25:2643-9, 2011).

[Wearing surgical masks in the operation theatre: yes or no?] / Wel of geen mondmaskers dragen op de OK?

OBJECTIVE: In the Netherlands, the surgical mask is part of the standard surgical attire even for the non-sterile personnel in the operation theatre. Solid evidence on the effect on postoperative infection rates is missing. Due to a national scarcity in surgical masks during the first wave of the COVID-19 crisis the usage of these masks was decreased. In our tertiary referral centre for Surgical Oncology, this led to the decision that, for a period of ten weeks, the surgical masks were only being used by the sterile surgical team and not by non-sterile operation theatre personnel. This retrospective study evaluates the influence of this intervention in terms of postoperative wound infection rates. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. METHOD: Consecutive patients undergoing surgery during the first COVID-19 wave (2-3-2020 until 11-05-2020) were compared with patients undergoing surgery in the same period a year earlier. Patients undergoing surgery for soft-tissue malignancies were included. Intra-abdominal surgery was excluded. Primary outcome measurement was wound infection rate within 30 days following surgery. Secondary, a cost reduction analysis was made. RESULTS: In the COVID-19 wave, a total of 219 patients underwent surgery for soft-tissue malignancies, compared to 241 a year earlier. The incidence of postoperative wound infection was 58/460 (12.6%) for the total cohort. There was no difference in infection rate between the COVID-19 period and the same period in 2019; 25/219 (11,4%; 95% CI: 7,8-16,4)) vs. 33/241 (13,7%; 95% CI: 9,8-18,6), p = 0,46) respectively. During the COVID-19 wave, a total of 6.400 of surgical masks were used by the personnel in the operation theatre complex, compared to a total of 11.000 in the same period in 2019. This resulted in a reduction of 42% in usage of surgical masks. CONCLUSION: Based on this mono-centric, explorative retrospective cohort study, it seems that omitting the surgical mask for the non-sterile operation theatre personnel does not influence the postoperative wound infection rate. Despite the fact that our sample size is small, the impressive reduction in usage of 42% demands further research initiatives on a larger scale.

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.

Costs and quality of life in a randomized trial comparing minimally invasive and open distal pancreatectomy (LEOPARD trial).

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy decreases time to functional recovery compared with open distal pancreatectomy, but the cost-effectiveness and impact on disease-specific quality of life have yet to be established. METHODS: The LEOPARD trial randomized patients to minimally invasive (robot-assisted or laparoscopic) or open distal pancreatectomy in 14 Dutch centres between April 2015 and March 2017. Use of hospital healthcare resources, complications and disease-specific quality of life were recorded up to 1 year after surgery. Unit costs of hospital healthcare resources were determined, and cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses were performed. Primary outcomes were the costs per day earlier functional recovery and per quality-adjusted life-year. RESULTS: All 104 patients who had a distal pancreatectomy (48 minimally invasive and 56 open) in the trial were included in this study. Patients who underwent a robot-assisted procedure were excluded from the cost analysis. Total medical costs were comparable after laparoscopic and open distal pancreatectomy (mean difference €-427 (95 per cent bias-corrected and accelerated confidence interval €-4700 to 3613; P = 0·839). Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy was shown to have a probability of at least 0·566 of being more cost-effective than the open approach at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €0 per day of earlier recovery, and a probability of 0·676 per additional quality-adjusted life-year at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €80 000. There were no significant differences in cosmetic satisfaction scores (median 9 (i.q.r. 5·75-10) versus 7 (4-8·75); P = 0·056) and disease-specific quality of life after minimally invasive (laparoscopic and robot-assisted procedures) versus open distal pancreatectomy. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy was at least as cost-effective as open distal pancreatectomy in terms of time to functional recovery and quality-adjusted life-years. Cosmesis and quality of life were similar in the two groups 1 year after surgery.

Management of disappearing colorectal liver metastases.

The development of new potent systemic treatment modalities has led to a significant increase in survival of patients with colorectal liver metastases. In the neo-adjuvant setting, these modalities can be used for patient selection, down staging, and conversion from non-resectable to resectable liver metastases. In addition, complete radiological disappearance of metastases can occur, the phenomenon of disappearing liver metastases. Because only a small percentage of these patients (0-8%) have a complete radiological response of all liver metastases, most patients will undergo surgery. At laparotomy, local residual disease at the site of the disappeared metastasis is still found in 11-67%, which highlights the influence of the imaging modalities used at (re)staging. When the region of the disappeared liver metastasis was resected, microscopically residual disease was found in up to 80% of the specimens. Alternatively, conservative management of radiologically disappeared liver metastases resulted in 19-74% local recurrence, mostly within two years. Obviously, these studies are highly dependent on the quality of the imaging modalities utilised. Most studies employed CT as the modality of choice, while MRI and PET was only used in selective series. Overall, the phenomenon of disappearing liver metastases seems to be a radiological rather than an actual biological occurrence, because the rates of macroscopic and microscopic residual disease are high as well as the local recurrence rates. Therefore, the disappeared metastases still require an aggressive surgical approach and standard (re)staging imaging modalities should include at least CT and MRI.