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.

Minimally Invasive Resection of the Uncinate Process of the Pancreas: Anatomical Considerations and Surgical Technique.

BACKGROUND: Low-grade lesions may benefit from pancreatic-sparing techniques. Resection of the uncinate process is rarely performed and reported due to its complexity that requires careful patient selection and accurate knowledge of the pancreatic anatomy. This study describes relevant anatomical elements to safely perform this complex operation in the minimally invasive setting. METHODS: In this study, consecutive patients undergoing resection of the uncinate process of the pancreas were studied. Patients undergoing open approach were used for comparison. Preoperative and intraoperative variables were recorded, and the diagnosis and tumor size were determined from the pathology reports. Immediate postoperative results and hospital stay were analyzed. Follow-up was used to assess long-term complications and endocrine and exocrine functions. RESULTS: Twenty-nine patients underwent resection of the uncinate process. The median age was 57 years. There were 21 males and eight females. Twenty patients underwent minimally invasive resection (14 laparoscopic and six by robotic approach) and nine were operated by open approach. A clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula was observed in one patient (3.4%). Biochemical leakage was present in 44.8% of our patients. Mean follow-up was 62 months (3-147). Two patients needed reoperation during follow-up. No patient presented exocrine or endocrine insufficiency during late follow-up. CONCLUSION: Minimally invasive resection of the uncinate process of the pancreas is a complex but a feasible procedure that preserves the pancreatic endocrine and exocrine functions. This pancreas-sparing procedure is an interesting alternative to pancreaticoduodenectomy in selected patients.

Mesopancreas Excision and Triangle Operation During Robotic Pancreatoduodenectomy.

BACKGROUND: The retropancreatic space between the superior mesenteric artery, celiac axis, and portal vein is called the mesopancreas. Total mesopancreas excision and skeletonization of both celiac axis and superior mesenteric artery are used to reduce R1 resection in high-risk patients and in those with locally advanced disease. The aim of this study was to present a series of video clips from several patients showing the mesopancreas excision and the triangle operation with a detailed technical description of both techniques with different approaches. METHODS: Video clips were compiled from several robotic pancreatoduodenectomies to demonstrate the total mesopancreas excision and triangle operation technique, as follows: (1) main steps for mesopancreas excision and triangle operation, (2) anterior approach for mesopancreas excision, and (3) triangle operation. RESULTS: A total of 87 patients underwent robotic PD at our center between March 2018 and March 2021. Of these, 22 patients underwent robotic mesopancreas excision. This technique was used for patients at high risk for R1 resection in 18 patients and triangle operation in four patients. Partial portal vein resection was necessary in 6 cases. One patient had R1 resection and was treated with adjuvant therapy. The remaining patients presented free surgical margins. The mean number of harvested lymph nodes was 40 (range: 27-77). The median interval between the operation and chemotherapy was 23 days. CONCLUSIONS: The robotic total mesopancreas excision and the triangle operation are feasible and safe for selected patients. The indication for this radical operation is the presence of a high risk for R1 resection and for those with locally advanced disease. The presented video may help oncological surgeons to perform these techniques.

Robotic Artery-First Approach During Pancreatoduodenectomy.

BACKGROUND: Surgical resection with adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy is the only curative modality for treatment of patients with pancreatic and periampullary tumors. With the increasing use of minimally invasive techniques, laparoscopic and robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) has become more common, but laparoscopic artery-first techniques have been described in few studies. The aim of this study is to describe our robotic artery-first technique. METHODS: Video clips were compiled from several robotic PDs to demonstrate the artery-first technique. This technique consists of early retroperitoneal dissection of the superior mesenteric artery from the pancreatic head. RESULTS: Overall, 73 patients underwent robotic PD at our center between March 2018 and August 2020. Of these, 24 patients underwent the robotic artery-first approach. Indication for its use included proximity of the tumor to the portal vein or SMV in six cases. In three cases, partial resection of the portomesenteric axis was necessary, and the artery-first approach allowed for safe venous resection and reconstruction. In three other cases, the tumor was in close contact with the vein, but it could be resected with free margins without venous resection. In the remaining 18 patients, the approach was systematically used regardless of tumor proximity to the portomesenteric axis. CONCLUSIONS: This robotic artery-first approach is feasible and safe for PD. The approach could facilitate robotic PD, and its systematical use could provide some important advantages during the resection phase. The videos could also help oncological surgeons to perform this complex yet important maneuver.

Robotic Resection of Hilar Cholangiocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Hilar cholangiocarcinoma is the most common malignant neoplasm of the biliary tract. Surgical resection is the only curative modality of treatment. The aim of this video is to present a robotic left hepatectomy extended to caudate lobe, combined with bile duct resection, lymphadenectomy, and Roux-en-Y biliary reconstruction. METHODS: A 76-year-old female presented with progressive jaundice due to hilar cholangiocarcinoma. She underwent chemoradiation and after 5 months of treatment was referred for second opinion; imaging reevaluation showed objective response and no arterial invasion. Multidisciplinary team decided for radical treatment, which consisted in robotic left hepatectomy, caudate lobe resection, resection of bile duct, lymphadenectomy, and hepaticojejunostomy. RESULTS: Operative time was 8 h. Estimated blood loss was 740 mL (received 2 U). The patient's recovery was complicated by drainage clogging resulting in fever and perihepatic fluid collection, successfully treated by change of drainage. Pathology confirmed cholangiocarcinoma with free surgical margins (T1aN0). The patient is well, with no signs of disease 5 months after the procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic resection of hilar cholangiocarcinoma is feasible and safe. The robotic approach has some technical advantages over laparoscopic approach. This video may help oncological surgeons to perform this complex procedure.

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.

Robotic Left Hepatectomy and Roux-en-Y Hepaticojejunostomy After Bile Duct Injury.

BACKGROUND: Bile duct injuries after cholecystectomy remain a major concern because their incidence has not changed through the years despite technical advances. This video presents a robotic left hepatectomy and Roux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomy as a treatment for a complex bile duct injury after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. METHODS: A 52-year-old man underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy at another institution 8 years previously, which resulted in a bile duct injury. His postoperative period was complicated by jaundice and cholangitis. He was treated with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and multiple endoprostheses for 3 years, after which the endoprostheses were removed, and he was sent to the authors' institution. Computed tomography showed that the left liver had signs of disturbed perfusion and dilation of the left intrahepatic bile duct. The patient was asymptomatic and refused any further attempt at surgical correction of the lesion. He was accompanied for 5 years. Magnetic resonance imaging showed progressive atrophy of the left liver. Finally, 3 months before this writing, he presented with intermittent episodes of cholangitis. A multidisciplinary team decided to perform left hepatectomy with Roux-en-Y hepatojejunostomy via a robotic approach. The left liver was atrophied, and left hepatectomy was performed. Fluorescence imaging was used to identify the right bile duct. At opening of the right bile duct, small stones were found and removed. Antecolic Roux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomy then was performed. RESULTS: The operative time was 335 min. Recovery was uneventful, and the patient was discharged on postoperative day 4. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic repair of bile duct injuries is feasible and safe, even when liver resection is necessary. This video may help oncologic surgeons to perform this complex procedure.

Robotic Repeat Right Hepatectomy for Recurrent Colorectal Liver Metastasis.

BACKGROUND: Repeat hepatectomy often is required for primary and metastatic tumors. The purpose of this video was to present a robotic repeat hepatectomy for recurrent colorectal metastasis after multiple previous open surgeries. PATIENT: A 64-year-old man underwent open left colectomy complicated by anastomotic leak. He was reoperated for colostomy, which was reverted. One year later, he underwent open metastasectomy. Recently, he presented a recurrence in the right liver, and a robotic right hepatectomy was indicated. TECHNIQUE: This approach used five trocars. The operation began with adhesiolysis. The next step was to dissect and divide the right hepatic artery and the right portal vein. A retrohepatic tunnel is created on the right side of the inferior vena cava for a modified liver hanging maneuver. The liver was pulled upwards and liver transection resumed towards the right hepatic vein. The liver was divided with bipolar forceps under continuous saline irrigation. The right hepatic duct was found inside the liver and was divided. Finally, the right hepatic vein was divided inside the liver parenchyma using a vascular stapler, and robotic right hepatectomy was completed. RESULTS: The operative time for docking was 10 min; adhesiolysis took 90 min while robotic right hepatectomy was completed in 240 min. The Pringle maneuver was not used. Estimated blood loss was 150 mL with no need for transfusion. Recovery was uneventful, and the patient was discharged on the fifth postoperative day. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic repeat hepatectomy is feasible and safe in experienced hands and may have some advantages over laparoscopic and open repeat liver resections.

Evolution in the surgical management of colorectal liver metastases: Propensity score matching analysis (PSM) on the impact of specialized multidisciplinary care across two institutional eras.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Liver metastases are indicators of advanced disease in patients with colorectal cancer. Liver resection offers the best possibility of long-term survival. Surgical strategies have evolved in complexity in order to offer resection to a greater number of patients, requiring specialized multidisciplinary care. The current paper focused on analyzing outcomes of patients treated after the development of a dedicated cancer center in our institution. METHODS: Patients operated on for CLM from our databank were paired through propensity score matching (PSM), and the initial experience of surgery for CLM was compared with the treatment performed after specialized multidisciplinary management. The demographic, oncological, and surgical features were analyzed between groups. RESULTS: Overall, 355 hepatectomies were performed in 336 patients. Patients operated on during the second era of had greater use of preoperative chemotherapy (P < 0.001) as well as exposure to more effective oxaliplatin-based regimens (P < 0.001). Surgical management also changed, with minor (P = 0.002) and non-anatomic (P = 0.006) resections preferred over major operations. We also noted an increased number of minimally invasive resections (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Treatment in a multidisciplinary cancer center led to changes in oncological and surgical management. Perioperative chemotherapy was frequently employed, and surgeons adopted a conservative approach to liver parenchyma.

Transition from open to laparoscopic ALPPS for patients with very small FLR: the initial experience.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic ALPPS (Associating Liver Partition and Portal vein ligation for Staged hepatectomy) has previously been reported but has been the authors' default option since 2015 in patients with small future liver remnant. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of all consecutive patients undergoing ALPPS at a single referral center was performed using a prospective database from July 2011 to June 2016. Feasibility was studied by assessing conversions. The 90-day mortality and complications were analyzed using a Dindo-Clavien score and the comprehensive complication index. Operative time, blood loss, volumetric growth, and hospital stay were examined. The CUSUM analysis was performed. RESULTS: ALPPS was performed in 30 patients, 10 of whom underwent a laparoscopic approach. There was no mortality and no complication grade ≥3A observed in laparoscopic ALPPS. In open ALPPS, 10 of 20 patients experienced complications grade ≥3A (p = 0.006) and one patient died. Liver failure was not observed after laparoscopic ALPPS, but two patients in the open ALPPS group developed complications that precluded the second stage. The total hospital stay was shorter in the laparoscopic ALPPS group. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic ALPPS is feasible as the default procedure for patients with very small FLR, and it is not inferior to the open approach. Surgeons experienced with complex laparoscopy should be encouraged to use a laparoscopic approach to ALPPS.