Robotic Pancreatoduodenectomy: Increasing Complexity and Decreasing Complications with Experience: Single-Center Results from 150 Consecutive Patients.

BACKGROUND: This report describes the authors' experience with 150 consecutive robotic pancreatoduodenectomies. METHODS: The study enrolled 150 consecutive patients who underwent robotic pancreatoduodenectomy between 2018 and 2023. Pre- and intraoperative variables such as age, gender, indication, operation time, diagnosis, and tumor size were analyzed. The patients were divided into two groups. Group 1 comprised the first 75 patients, and group 2 comprised the last 75 cases. The median age of the patients was 62.4 years and did not differ between the two groups. RESULTS: Morbidity was lower in group 2. The mortality rate was 0.7% at 30 days and 1.3% at 90 days, and there was no difference between the groups. There was a significant reduction (p < 0.05) in operative time, resection time, reconstruction time, and conversion to open surgery in group 2. Partial resection of the portal vein was performed in 17 patients and more common in group 2 (p < 0.01). The number of resected lymph nodes was higher in group 2. The indication for pancreatoduodenectomy did not differ between the two groups. There was no difference in tumor size or clinical characteristics of the patients. CONCLUSIONS: The robotic platform is useful for pancreatoduodenectomy, facilitates adequate lymphadenectomy, and is helpful for digestive tract reconstruction after resection. Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy is safe and feasible for selected patients. It should be performed in specialized centers by surgeons experienced in open and minimally invasive pancreatic surgery.

Robotic Hepatic Bisegmentectomy (s4b + s5) and Hilar Lymphadenectomy for Incidental Gallbladder Cancer Using Glissonian Approach.

BACKGROUND: Gallbladder carcinoma is a rare cancer with a poor prognosis and the most common biliary tract malignancy. This video shows robotic treatment of a patient with incidental gallbladder cancer diagnosed after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The operation consisted of a robotic bisegmentectomy (liver segments 4b and 5) using a Glissonian approach and a hilar lymphadenectomy. METHODS: A 73-year-old woman with no relevant history underwent a laparoscopic cholecystectomy at another hospital facility. The pathology revealed a gallbladder carcinoma. The patient was then referred for further treatment. Pathologic revision confirmed T2a carcinoma and staging was negative for distant metastases. The multidisciplinary team decided on a radical resection that will consist of a hilar lymphadenectomy and a frozen section of the cystic stump along the resection of segments 4b and 5. A robotic approach was proposed, and consent was obtained. RESULTS: The operation time was 300 min and was performed 21 days after the cholecystectomy. Estimated blood loss was 120 mL with no transfusions required during or after the procedure. The postoperative recovery was uneventful, and the patient was discharged on the fourth postoperative day. The final pathology showed no residual disease in the liver specimen and no metastases among 16 removed lymph nodes. CONCLUSIONS: The robotic approach is safe and feasible for radical treatment after incidentally discovered gallbladder cancer. The Glissonian approach is useful for anatomic resection of liver segments 4b and 5. This video can help oncologic surgeons to perform this challenging procedure.

Bovine Pericardial Graft for Portomesenteric Reconstruction During Robotic Pancreatoduodenectomy.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) is one of the most complex procedures in oncologic surgery. We present a video of robotic portomesenteric reconstruction with bovine pericardial graft during PD. METHODS: A 52-year-old woman was referred with a mass in the head of the pancreas. The tumor was in contact with the portomesenteric axis. The multidisciplinary team decided to perform an upfront resection. The surgery was performed as a pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy with lymphadenectomy. The superior mesenteric artery first approach was used to expose the head of the pancreas, so that the entire surgical specimen was attached only through the tumor invasion of the portomesenteric axis. After resection of the invaded portomesenteric axis, its large extension precluded primary reconstruction, so a bovine pericardial graft was used for venous reconstruction. After completion of the venous anastomosis, reconstruction of the digestive tract was performed as usual. RESULTS: Surgical time was 430 min; clamp time was 55 min; and portomesenteric reconstruction took 41 min. Estimated blood loss was 320 mL without transfusion. Pathology confirmed T3N1 ductal adenocarcinoma with free margins. No pancreatic or biliary fistula was observed, and she was discharged on postoperative day 8. A postoperative examination confirmed the patency of the graft. The patient is doing well 6 months after surgery and has no signs of the disease. CONCLUSIONS: A bovine pericardial graft is useful for reconstruction and readily available, eliminating the need to harvest an autologous vein or use synthetic grafts. This procedure can be safely performed with the robotic platform.

Robotic ALPPS.

BACKGROUND: The associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy (ALPPS) procedure is a useful strategy to treat patients with advanced liver tumors and small future liver remnants. This video presents a robotic ALPPS procedure to treat synchronous colorectal liver metastases. METHODS: A 71-year-old man with liver metastases from sigmoid cancer was referred. A multidisciplinary team decided on chemotherapy followed by liver resection (first), then colon resection. After four cycles, objective response was observed and the multidisciplinary team then chose the ALPPS procedure. The future liver remnant (segments 3 and 4 and the Spiegel lobe) was 24%. A robotic approach was proposed. Colon resection was performed after the ALPPS procedure, also using the robotic approach. RESULTS: The duration of the first stage was 293 min, and the technique used in the first stage was partial ALPPS (parenchymal transection deep to 2 cm above the inferior vena cava) with preservation of the right hepatic duct. The patient was discharged on the fourth day. The second stage of the procedure took 245 min. Recovery was uneventful and the patient was discharged on the fourth day. Finally, the patient underwent robotic resection of the primary colorectal neoplasm. The surgery lasted 182 min, recovery was uneventful, and the patient was discharged on the fifth postoperative day. Final pathology disclosed a T3N1bM1 adenocarcinoma. Liver pathology confirmed colorectal metastases with partial response. All surgical margins were free. Currently, the patient is well, with no signs of disease 5 months post-procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic ALPPS is feasible and safe. The robotic approach may have some advantages over the laparoscopic and open ALPPS approaches. This video may help oncological surgeons to perform this complex procedure.

Laparoscopic Parenchymal-Sparing Liver Resections Using the Intrahepatic Glissonian Approach.

BACKGROUND: One of the main criticisms of laparoscopic liver resection is that it is difficult, or not possible, to perform liver-sparing resections. Our aim was to present short videos where the intrahepatic Glissonian approach was used to perform anatomical liver segmental resections, instead of a larger operation, to avoid unnecessary sacrifice of the liver parenchyma. METHODS: We selected six types of anatomical liver resections to exemplify the use of the intrahepatic Glissonian approach to perform segment-oriented liver resections. These types of hepatectomies were used as an alternative to right or left hepatectomy, or as an alternative to extended liver resections. RESULTS: The intrahepatic Glissonian approach was feasible in all cases. The use of anatomical landmarks previously described was essential to reach and control the Glissonian pedicles. Among the liver-sparing resections, we were able to perform right anterior (S5 + S8) and posterior (S6 + S7) sectionectomies, resection of segments 2, 3, and 4, and mesohepatectomy (S4 + S5 + S8). No patient presented postoperative liver failure. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic liver-sparing resections are feasible and may be a good alternative to hemihepatectomies or extended liver resections. The use of the intrahepatic Glissonian approach can be useful.

A new instrument for intrahepatic access of Glissonian pedicles during anatomical liver resections.

The knowledge of liver anatomy has led to a rapid evolution based on the intrahepatic distribution of the portal pedicle. One great advance in liver surgery was the used of segment-based liver resections. Techniques based with intrahepatic Glissonian access of portal pedicles were described to safely perform anatomical liver resections. We have earlier described a standardized intrahepatic access to right and left liver segments' pedicles without hilar dissection for anatomical hepatectomies. To improve the intrahepatic Glissonian technique, we designed a new atraumatic instrument for liver pedicle retrieval based on the anatomical liver landmarks. This new instrument was successfully employed in seventeen consecutive liver resections with minimum blood loss and without any complications related to its use. This new instrument, atraumatic retriever, replaces the right angle dissector or Gray clamp. The new instrument can slide easily and smoothly around Glissonian pedicle with a simple movement. This new instrument is a useful adjunct for performing intrahepatic access for liver resections. It can also be used to compass delicate anatomical structures such as esophagus and major abdominal vessels. The retriever can further be used in other common situations, including access for Pringle maneuver, encircling proximal esophagus during total gastrectomies or esophagectomies, and access for total vascular exclusion of the liver. This instrument can also be adapted to be used for laparoscopic liver resections.

Video. One-stage laparoscopic bisegmentectomy 7-8 and bisegmentectomy 2-3 for bilateral colorectal liver metastases.

BACKGROUND: Bisegmentectomy 7-8 is feasible even in the absence of a large inferior right hepatic vein. To our knowledge, this operation has never been performed by laparoscopy. This study was designed to present video of pure laparoscopic bisegmentectomy 7-8 and bisegmentectomy 2-3 in one-stage operation for bilateral liver metastasis. METHODS: A 67-year-old man with metachronous bilobar colorectal liver metastasis was referred for surgical treatment after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. CT scan disclosed two liver metastases: one located between segments 7 and 8 and another one in segment 2. At liver examination, another metastasis was found on segment 3. We decided to perform a bisegmentectomy 7-8 along with bisegmentectomy 2-3 in a single procedure. The operation began with mobilization of the right liver with complete dissection of retrohepatic vena cava. Inferior right hepatic vein was absent. Right hepatic vein was dissected and encircled. Upper part of right liver, containing segment 7 and 8, was marked with cautery. Selective hemi-Pringle maneuver was performed and right hepatic vein was divided with stapler. At this point, liver rotation to the left allowed direct view and access to the superior aspect of the right liver. Liver transection was accomplished with harmonic scalpel and endoscopic stapling device. Bisegmentectomy 2-3 was performed using the intrahepatic Glissonian approach. The specimens were extracted through a suprapubic incision. Liver raw surfaces were reviewed for bleeding and bile leaks. RESULTS: Operative time was 240 minutes with no need for transfusion. Recovery was uneventful. Patient was discharged on the fifth postoperative day. Patient is well with no evidence of disease 14 months after liver resection. Tumor markers are within normal range. CONCLUSIONS: Bisegmentectomy 7-8 may increase resectability rate in patients with bilateral lesions. This operation can be performed safely by laparoscopy. Preservation of segments 5 and 6 permitted simultaneous resection of segments 2 and 3 with adequate liver remnant.

Robotic Resection of Postero-Superior Liver Segments (7,8) (with Video).

BACKGROUND: Surgical resection is the standard treatment for colorectal liver metastases. Parenchyma-sparing technique should always be attemptedto prevent postoperative liver failure and increase the opportunity to perform repeated resections in cases of recurrent malignancy. Postero-superior liverresection is defined as the anatomical removal of liver segments 7 and 8, however, minimally invasive resection of postero-superior liver segments isconsidered a difficult and complex operation and thus is rarely reported. METHODS: We present the video of a robotic postero-superior liver resection in a 54-year-old male patient with a synchronous, single, and large colorectal metastasis in the postero-superior liver sector. The Da Vinci Xi system was used. The right liver was mobilized with exposure of the inferior vena cava (IVC), following by intraoperative ultrasound, used to locate the tumor and establish its relationship to the right hepatic vein and portal pedicles fromsegments 7 and 8. A thick hepatic vein draining directly to the IVC was controlled with hem-o-lock and the right hepatic vein was divided using anendoscopic stapler. The surgical specimen was removed through a supra-pubic incision. RESULTS: Operative time was 205 minutes, and the estimated blood loss was 310 mL. The patient's recovery was uneventful with no need for admission tothe intensive care unit or for blood transfusion. Pathology confirmed colorectal metastasis with free surgical margins. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic resection of postero-superior liver segments is feasible and safe and may have some advantages over laparoscopic and openapproaches. This video may help gastrointestinal surgeons perform this complex procedure.

Robotic Resection and Reconstruction of the Superior Mesenteric Vein Without Graft During Pancreatoduodenectomy (with Video).

BACKGROUND: Pancreatoduodenectomy is the procedure of choice for tumors in the head of the pancreas. Invasion of major vessels is a relative contraindication for minimally invasive approach. We present a video of a robotic resection and reconstruction of the superior mesenteric vein (SMV) without the use of a graft during pancreatoduodenectomy. METHODS: A 56-year-old female with ductal adenocarcinoma is referred for treatment. CT scan and endoscopic ultrasound showed a 3-cm tumor in the pancreatic head with contact with SMV. The multidisciplinary team decided for upfront surgery. Robotic superior mesenteric artery first approach was used to release the head of the pancreas, so the whole surgical specimen is only attached by the tumor invasion of the SM. After the partial resection of the SMV, its extension precluded lateral suture and a transverse anastomosis was necessary to minimize the risk of narrowing of the SMV. After completion of the venous anastomosis, reconstruction of the alimentary tract was done as usual. RESULTS: Operative time was 430 min. Time of clamping was 30 min and the time for the SMV suture is 23 min. Estimated blood loss was 370 mL. Pathology confirmed a T3N1 ductal adenocarcinoma with free margins. The patient was discharged on the 7th postoperative day. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic resection and reconstruction of the SMV is safe and feasible without graft during pancreatoduodenectomy in patients with invasion but not encasing of the portal vein or SMV. The proposed technique should be used in cases where the invasion requires extended resection that precludes simple lateral suture.

ROBOTIC LIVER RESECTION. REPORT OF THE FIRST 50 CASES.

BACKGROUND: Robotic surgery has gained growing acceptance in recent years, expanding to liver resection. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper is to report the experience with our first fifty robotic liver resections. METHODS: This was a single-cohort, retrospective study. From May 2018 to December 2020, 50 consecutive patients underwent robotic liver resection in a single center. All patients with indication for minimally invasive liver resection underwent robotic hepatectomy. The indication for the use of minimally invasive technique followed practical guidelines based on the second international laparoscopic liver consensus conference. RESULTS: The proportion of robotic liver resection was 58.8% of all liver resections. Thirty women and 20 men with median age of 61 years underwent robotic liver resection. Forty-two patients were operated on for malignant diseases. Major liver resection was performed in 16 (32%) patients. Intrahepatic Glissonian approach was used in 28 patients for anatomical resection. In sixteen patients, the robotic liver resection was a redo hepatectomy. In 10 patients, previous liver resection was an open resection and in six it was minimally invasive resection. Simultaneous colon resection was done in three patients. One patient was converted to open resection. Two patients received blood transfusion. Four (8%) patients presented postoperative complications. No 90-day mortality was observed. CONCLUSION: The use of the robot for liver surgery allowed to perform increasingly difficult procedures with similar outcomes of less difficult liver resections.

Laparoscopic enucleation of liver tumors. Corkscrew technique revisited.

BACKGROUND: Enucleation of small lesions located near the hepatic surface can be achieved with low morbidity and mortality. This article describes a simple laparoscopic technique for enucleation of liver tumors. METHODS: After inspection and intraoperative ultrasonography, Glisson's capsule is marked with eletrocautery 2 cm away from the tumor margin. Ultrasonography is used to ascertain surgical margin right before liver transection. Hemihepatic ischemia is applied and marked area is anchored by stitches. The suture is held together by metallic clips and upward traction is performed, facilitating the transection of the parenchyma and correct identification of vascular and biliary structures. RESULTS: This technique has been successfully employed in six consecutive patients. There were four men and two women, mean age 50.3 years. Four patients underwent liver resection for malignant disease and two for benign liver neoplasm. Pathologic surgical margins were free in all cases and mean hospital stay was 2 days. No postoperative mortality was observed. CONCLUSION: This technique may facilitate laparoscopic nonanatomical liver resection and reduce risk of positive surgical margins. It is also useful in combination with anatomical laparoscopic liver resections such as right or left hemihepatectomies in patients with bilateral liver tumors as occurred in one of our patients.

Drainage after distal pancreatectomy: Still an unsolved problem.

BACKGROUND: The use of intraperitoneal drainage after distal pancreatectomy is still controversial. Its use increases fistula risk, but its absence increases the severity of the fistula. Therefore, since 2014, we have systematically used two drains. METHODS: This study examined consecutive patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy. Two drains were routinely used. One closed-suction-type drain is placed in the left subphrenic space with the aim to avoid the accumulation of any fluid coming from the pancreatic stump. The second is a tubulo-laminar drain placed near the pancreatic stump. These patients were compared with a cohort of patients (n = 94) before the adoption of this strategy (control group). RESULTS: 127 patients underwent distal pancreatectomy. 48 patients presented no POPF, 60 patients presented biochemical leak and in 19 patients (14.9%), drain amylase level was high and the drain was removed at 4 weeks, classified as grade-B according to the Revised 2016 ISGPS or B1 according to grade-B subclass. No grade-C was observed. The comparison with the 94 patients in the control group with single drainage, the occurrence of POPF was not different. However, in the control group, POPF severity was statistically higher (grade-B 14.9% vs 33%; grade-C 0% vs 3,2%; P = 0.00026). CONCLUSIONS: Since changing the drainage strategy, we have observed a dramatic decrease in pancreatic abscess formation and fluid collections needing percutaneous drainage. The results of this study show that the strategy of double drainage after distal pancreatectomy may reduce the severity of POPF, thus avoiding reoperation or further interventions.