Early experience with robotic pancreatoduodenectomy versus open pancreatoduodenectomy: nationwide propensity-score-matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: Although robotic pancreatoduodenectomy has shown promising outcomes in experienced high-volume centres, it is unclear whether implementation on a nationwide scale is safe and beneficial. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of the early experience with robotic pancreatoduodenectomy versus open pancreatoduodenectomy in the Netherlands. METHODS: This was a nationwide retrospective cohort study of all consecutive patients who underwent robotic pancreatoduodenectomy or open pancreatoduodenectomy who were registered in the mandatory Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit (18 centres, 2014-2021), starting from the first robotic pancreatoduodenectomy procedure per centre. The main endpoints were major complications (Clavien-Dindo grade greater than or equal to III) and in-hospital/30-day mortality. Propensity-score matching (1 : 1) was used to minimize selection bias. RESULTS: Overall, 701 patients who underwent robotic pancreatoduodenectomy and 4447 patients who underwent open pancreatoduodenectomy were included. Among the eight centres that performed robotic pancreatoduodenectomy, the median robotic pancreatoduodenectomy experience was 86 (range 48-149), with a 7.3% conversion rate. After matching (698 robotic pancreatoduodenectomy patients versus 698 open pancreatoduodenectomy control patients), no significant differences were found in major complications (40.3% versus 36.2% respectively; P = 0.186), in-hospital/30-day mortality (4.0% versus 3.1% respectively; P = 0.326), and postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C (24.9% versus 23.5% respectively; P = 0.578). Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with a longer operating time (359 min versus 301 min; P < 0.001), less intraoperative blood loss (200 ml versus 500 ml; P < 0.001), fewer wound infections (7.4% versus 12.2%; P = 0.008), and a shorter hospital stay (11 days versus 12 days; P < 0.001). Centres performing greater than or equal to 20 robotic pancreatoduodenectomies annually had a lower mortality rate (2.9% versus 7.3%; P = 0.009) and a lower conversion rate (6.3% versus 11.2%; P = 0.032). CONCLUSION: This study indicates that robotic pancreatoduodenectomy was safely implemented nationwide, without significant differences in major morbidity and mortality compared with matched open pancreatoduodenectomy patients. Randomized trials should be carried out to verify these findings and confirm the observed benefits of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy versus open pancreatoduodenectomy.

Implementation and outcome of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy in Europe: a registry-based retrospective study - a critical appraisal of the first 3 years of the E-MIPS registry.

BACKGROUND: International multicenter audit-based studies focusing on the outcome of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) are lacking. The European Registry for Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Surgery (E-MIPS) is the E-AHPBA endorsed registry aimed to monitor and safeguard the introduction of MIPD in Europe. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A planned analysis of outcomes among consecutive patients after MIPD from 45 centers in 14 European countries in the E-MIPS registry (2019-2021). The main outcomes of interest were major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3) and 30-day/in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: Overall, 1336 patients after MIPD were included [835 robot-assisted (R-MIPD) and 501 laparoscopic MIPD (L-MIPD)]. Overall, 20 centers performed R-MIPD, 15 centers L-MIPD, and 10 centers both. Between 2019 and 2021, the rate of centers performing L-MIPD decreased from 46.9 to 25%, whereas for R-MIPD this increased from 46.9 to 65.6%. Overall, the rate of major morbidity was 41.2%, 30-day/in-hospital mortality 4.5%, conversion rate 9.7%, postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C 22.7%, and postpancreatectomy hemorrhage grade B/C 10.8%. Median length of hospital stay was 12 days (IQR 8-21). A lower rate of major morbidity, postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage grade B/C, delayed gastric emptying grade B/C, percutaneous drainage, and readmission was found after L-MIPD. The number of centers meeting the Miami Guidelines volume cut-off of ≥20 MIPDs annually increased from 9 (28.1%) in 2019 to 12 (37.5%) in 2021 ( P =0.424). Rates of conversion (7.4 vs. 14.8% P <0.001) and reoperation (8.9 vs. 15.1% P <0.001) were lower in centers, which fulfilled the Miami volume cut-off. CONCLUSION: During the first 3 years of the pan-European E-MIPS registry, morbidity and mortality rates after MIPD were acceptable. A shift is ongoing from L-MIPD to R-MIPD. Variations in outcomes between the two minimally invasive approaches and the impact of the volume cut-off should be further evaluated over a longer time period.

Impact of Neoadjuvant Therapy for Pancreatic Cancer: Transatlantic Trend and Postoperative Outcomes Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The introduction of modern chemotherapy a decade ago has led to increased use of neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). A recent North American study demonstrated increased use of NAT and improved operative outcomes in patients with PDAC. The aims of this study were to compare the use of NAT and short-term outcomes in patients with PDAC undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) among registries from the US and Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden. STUDY DESIGN: Databases from 2 multicenter (voluntary) and 2 nationwide (mandatory) registries were queried from 2018 to 2020. Patients undergoing PD for PDAC were compared based on the use of upfront surgery vs NAT. Adoption of NAT was measured in each country over time. Thirty-day outcomes, including the composite measure (ideal outcomes), were compared by multivariable analyses. Sensitivity analyses of patients undergoing vascular resection were performed. RESULTS: Overall, 11,402 patients underwent PD for PDAC with 33.7% of patients receiving NAT. The use of NAT increased steadily from 28.3% in 2018 to 38.5% in 2020 (p < 0.0001). However, use of NAT varied widely by country: the US (46.8%), the Netherlands (44.9%), Sweden (11.0%), and Germany (7.8%). On multivariable analysis, NAT was significantly (p < 0.01) associated with reduced rates of serious morbidity, clinically relevant pancreatic fistulae, reoperations, and increased ideal outcomes. These associations remained on sensitivity analysis of patients undergoing vascular resection. CONCLUSIONS: NAT before PD for pancreatic cancer varied widely among 4 Western audits yet increased by 26% during 3 years. NAT was associated with improved short-term outcomes.

Long-term quality of life is better after laparoscopic compared to open pancreatoduodenectomy.

BACKGROUND: Three randomized controlled trials have reported improved functional recovery after Laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD), as compared to open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD). Long-term results regarding quality of life (QoL) are lacking. The aim of this study was to compare long-term QoL of LPD versus OPD. METHODS AND PATIENTS: A monocentric retrospective cross-sectional study was performed among patients < 75 years old who underwent LPD or OPD for a benign or premalignant pathology in a high-volume center (2011-2021). An electronic three-part questionnaire was sent to eligible patients, including two diseases specific QoL questionnaires (the European Organization for Research and Treatment in Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire for cancer (QLQ-C30) and a pancreatic cancer module (PAN26) and a body image questionnaire. Patient demographics and postoperative data were collected and compared between LPD and OPD. RESULTS: Among 948 patients who underwent PD (137 LPD, 811 OPD), 170 were eligible and 111 responded (58 LPD and 53 OPD). LPD versus OPD showed no difference in mean age (51 vs. 55 years, p = 0.199) and female gender (40% vs. 45%, p = 0.631), but LPD showed lower BMI (24 vs 26; p = 0.028) and higher preoperative pancreatitis (29% vs 13%; p = 0.041). The postoperative outcome showed similar Clavien-Dindo ≥ III morbidity (19% vs. 23%; p = 0.343) and length of stay (24 vs. 21 days, p = 0.963). After a similar median follow-up (3 vs. 3 years; p = 0.122), LPD vs OPD patients reported higher QoL (QLQ-C30: 49.6 vs 56.3; p = 0.07), better pancreas specific health status score (PAN20: 50.5 vs 55.5; p = 0.002), physical functioning (p = 0.002), and activities limitations (p = 0.02). Scar scores were better after LPD regarding esthetics (p = 0.001), satisfaction (p = 0.04), chronic pain at rest (p = 0.036), moving (p = 0.011) or in daily activities (p = 0.02). There was no difference in digestive symptoms (p = 0.995). CONCLUSION: This monocentric study found improved long-term QoL in patients undergoing LPD, as compared to OPD, for benign and premalignant diseases. These results could be considered when choosing the surgical approach in these patients.

Minimally invasive versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic and peri-ampullary neoplasm (DIPLOMA-2): study protocol for an international multicenter patient-blinded randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) aims to reduce the negative impact of surgery as compared to open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) and is increasingly becoming part of clinical practice for selected patients worldwide. However, the safety of MIPD remains a topic of debate and the potential shorter time to functional recovery needs to be confirmed. To guide safe implementation of MIPD, large-scale international randomized trials comparing MIPD and OPD in experienced high-volume centers are needed. We hypothesize that MIPD is non-inferior in terms of overall complications, but superior regarding time to functional recovery, as compared to OPD. METHODS/DESIGN: The DIPLOMA-2 trial is an international randomized controlled, patient-blinded, non-inferiority trial performed in 14 high-volume pancreatic centers in Europe with a minimum annual volume of 30 MIPD and 30 OPD. A total of 288 patients with an indication for elective pancreatoduodenectomy for pre-malignant and malignant disease, eligible for both open and minimally invasive approach, are randomly allocated for MIPD or OPD in a 2:1 ratio. Centers perform either laparoscopic or robot-assisted MIPD based on their surgical expertise. The primary outcome is the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI®), measuring all complications graded according to the Clavien-Dindo classification up to 90 days after surgery. The sample size is calculated with the following assumptions: 2.5% one-sided significance level (α), 80% power (1-ß), expected difference of the mean CCI® score of 0 points between MIPD and OPD, and a non-inferiority margin of 7.5 points. The main secondary outcome is time to functional recovery, which will be analyzed for superiority. Other secondary outcomes include post-operative 90-day Fitbit™ measured activity, operative outcomes (e.g., blood loss, operative time, conversion to open surgery, surgeon-reported outcomes), oncological findings in case of malignancy (e.g., R0-resection rate, time to adjuvant treatment, survival), postoperative outcomes (e.g., clinically relevant complications), healthcare resource utilization (length of stay, readmissions, intensive care stay), quality of life, and costs. Postoperative follow-up is up to 36 months. DISCUSSION: The DIPLOMA-2 trial aims to establish the safety of MIPD as the new standard of care for this selected patient population undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy in high-volume centers, ultimately aiming for superior patient recovery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN27483786. Registered on August 2, 2023.

The Feasibility, Proficiency, and Mastery Learning Curves in 635 Robotic Pancreatoduodenectomies Following a Multicenter Training Program: "Standing on the Shoulders of Giants".

OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility, proficiency, and mastery learning curves for robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) in "second-generation" RPD centers following a multicenter training program adhering to the IDEAL framework. BACKGROUND: The long learning curves for RPD reported from "pioneering" expert centers may discourage centers interested in starting an RPD program. However, the feasibility, proficiency, and mastery learning curves may be shorter in "second-generation" centers that participated in dedicated RPD training programs, although data are lacking. We report on the learning curves for RPD in "second-generation" centers trained in a dedicated nationwide program. METHODS: Post hoc analysis of all consecutive patients undergoing RPD in 7 centers that participated in the LAELAPS-3 training program, each with a minimum annual volume of 50 pancreatoduodenectomies, using the mandatory Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit (March 2016-December 2021). Cumulative sum analysis determined cutoffs for the 3 learning curves: operative time for the feasibility (1) risk-adjusted major complication (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III) for the proficiency, (2) and textbook outcome for the mastery, (3) learning curve. Outcomes before and after the cutoffs were compared for the proficiency and mastery learning curves. A survey was used to assess changes in practice and the most valued "lessons learned." RESULTS: Overall, 635 RPD were performed by 17 trained surgeons, with a conversion rate of 6.6% (n=42). The median annual volume of RPD per center was 22.5±6.8. From 2016 to 2021, the nationwide annual use of RPD increased from 0% to 23% whereas the use of laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy decreased from 15% to 0%. The rate of major complications was 36.9% (n=234), surgical site infection 6.3% (n=40), postoperative pancreatic fistula (grade B/C) 26.9% (n=171), and 30-day/in-hospital mortality 3.5% (n=22). Cutoffs for the feasibility, proficiency, and mastery learning curves were reached at 15, 62, and 84 RPD. Major morbidity and 30-day/in-hospital mortality did not differ significantly before and after the cutoffs for the proficiency and mastery learning curves. Previous experience in laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy shortened the feasibility (-12 RPDs, -44%), proficiency (-32 RPDs, -34%), and mastery phase learning curve (-34 RPDs, -23%), but did not improve clinical outcome. CONCLUSIONS: The feasibility, proficiency, and mastery learning curves for RPD at 15, 62, and 84 procedures in "second-generation" centers after a multicenter training program were considerably shorter than previously reported from "pioneering" expert centers. The learning curve cutoffs and prior laparoscopic experience did not impact major morbidity and mortality. These findings demonstrate the safety and value of a nationwide training program for RPD in centers with sufficient volume.

Evidence-Based Medicine Course in Combination With Journal Clubs to Promote Evidence-Based Surgery.

Introduction To provide high-quality surgical care, surgeons must critically appraise medical literature to adapt their clinical practice whenever convincing evidence emerges. This will promote evidence-based surgery (EBS). Over the last decade, we have organized monthly journal clubs (JCs) and more extensive quarterly EBS courses for surgical residents and PhD students, supervised by surgical staff. We evaluated the participation, satisfaction, and knowledge gained by this EBS program, to make the program future-proof and aid other educators. Materials and methods An anonymous digital survey was distributed via email among residents, PhD students, and surgeons of the Amsterdam University Medical Centers' (UMC) surgical department in April 2022. The survey included general questions on EBS education, specific course-oriented questions for the residents and PhD students, and questions about supervision for surgeons. Results The survey was completed by 47 respondents from the surgery department of the Amsterdam UMC University Hospital, of whom 63.8% (n=30) were residents or PhD students and 36.2% (n=17) were surgeons. During one year of the combined EBS course and JCs, the EBS course was attended by 40.0% (n=12) of PhD students and was rated with a mean score of 7.6/10. JCs were attended by 86.6% (n=26) of residents or PhD students and received a mean score of 7.4/10. Reported strengths of the JCs were their easy accessibility and the acquisition of critical appraisal skills and scientific knowledge. A reported point of improvement was to focus more deeply on specific epidemiological topics per meeting. Of the surgeons, 64.7% (n=11) had supervised at least one JC and gave a mean score of 8.5/10. The main reasons to supervise JCs were the distribution of knowledge (45.5%), scientific discussion (36.3%), and contact with PhD students (18.1%). Conclusion Our EBS educational program, including JCs and EBS courses, was well appreciated by residents, PhD students, and staff. This format is advocated for other centers aiming to better implement EBS in surgical practice.

Post Surgical Management of WHO Grade II Meningiomas: Our Experience, the Role of Gamma Knife and a Literature Review.

Purpose: Grade II meningiomas are rarer than Grade I, and when operated on, bear a higher risk of local recurrence, with a 5-year progression free survival (PFS) ranging from 59 to 90%. Radiotherapy (RT) or radiosurgery, such as Gamma Knife radiosurgery (GKRS) can reduce the risk of relapse in patients with residual disease, even if their role, particularly after gross total resection (GTR), is still under debate. Main goal of this study was to compare the outcomes of different post-surgical management of grade II meningiomas, grouped by degree of surgical removal (Simpson Grade); next in order we wanted to define the role of GKRS for the treatment of residual disease or relapse. Methods: from November 2016 to November 2020 all patients harboring grade II meningiomas, were divided into three groups, based on post-surgical management: (1) wait and see, (2) conventional adjuvant radiotherapy and (3) stereotactic GKRS radiosurgery. Relapse rate and PFS were registered at the time of last follow up and results were classified as stable, recurrence next to or distant from the surgical cavity. In the second part of the study we collected data of all patients who underwent GKRS in our Centers from November 2017 to November 2020. Results: A total of 37 patients were recruited, including seven patients with multiple meningiomas. Out of 47 meningiomas, 33 (70.2%) were followed with a wait and see strategy, six (12.7%) were treated with adjuvant radiotherapy, and 8 patients (17.0%) with adjuvant GKRS. Follow up data were available for 43 (91.4%) meningiomas. Within the wait and see group, recurrence rates differed based on Simpson grades, lower recurrence rates being observed in three Simpson I cases (30%) compared to twelve relapses (60%) in patients with Simpson grade II/III. Finally, out of the 24 meningiomas undergoing GKRS (8 residual and 16 recurrence), 21 remained stable at follow up. Conclusions: Gross total resection (GTR) Simpson II and III have a significantly worse outcome as compared to Simpson I. The absence of adjuvant treatment leads to significant worsening of the disease progression curve. Adjuvant radiotherapy, especially GKRS, provides good local control of the disease and should be considered as an adjuvant treatment in all cases where Simpson I resection is not possible.

The Landmark Series: Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Resection.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic resections are among the most technically demanding procedures, including a high risk of potentially life-threatening complications and outcomes strongly correlated to hospital volume and individual surgeon experience. Minimally invasive pancreatic resections (MIPRs) have become a part of standard surgical practice worldwide over the last decade; however, in comparison with other surgical procedures, the implementation of minimally invasive approaches into clinical practice has been rather slow. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to highlight and summarize the available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the role of minimally invasive approaches in pancreatic surgery. METHODS: A WHO trial registry and Pubmed database literature search was performed to identify all RCTs comparing MIPRs (robot-assisted and/or laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy [DP] or pancreatoduodenectomy [PD]) with open pancreatic resections (OPRs). RESULTS: Overall, five RCTs on MIPR versus OPR have been published and seven RCTs are currently recruiting. For DP, the results of two RCTs were in favor of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) in terms of shorter hospital stay and less intraoperative blood loss, with comparable morbidity and mortality. Regarding PD, two RCTs showed similar advantages for MIPD. However, concerns were raised after the early termination of the third multicenter RCT on MIPD versus open PD due to higher complication-related mortality in the laparoscopic group and no clear other demonstrable advantages. No RCTs on robot-assisted pancreatic procedures are available as yet. CONCLUSION: At the current level of evidence, MIDP is thought to be safe and feasible, although oncological safety should be further evaluated. Based on the results of the RCTs conducted for PD, MIPD cannot be proclaimed as the superior alternative to open PD, although promising outcomes have been demonstrated by experienced centers. Future studies should provide answers to the role of robotic approaches in pancreatic surgery and aim to identity the subgroups of patients or indications with the greatest benefit of MIPRs.