Robot-Assisted Pancreaticoduodenectomy Using the Anterior Superior Mesenteric Artery-First Approach for Pancreatic Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The superior mesenteric artery (SMA)-first approach for pancreatic cancer (PC) is common surgical technique in pancreaticoduodenectomy. To date, few studies have reported SMA-first approach in robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD). Herein, we present the anterior SMA-first approach for PC during RPD. PATIENT AND METHOD: A 75-year-old man with resectable PC underwent RPD after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. As pancreatic head tumor contacted with the superior mesenteric vein (SMV), the anterior SMA approach was applied. After the mesenteric Kocher maneuver, the jejunum was divided and the left side of the SMA was dissected. Subsequently, the anterior plane of the SMA was dissected. Following the division of branches from the mesenteric vessels, the SMA was taped, and the circumferential dissection around the SMA was performed to detach the pancreatic neck from the SMA completely. Finally, the dissection between the SMV and the tumor was performed under vascular control to remove the specimen. CONCLUSIONS: The anterior SMA-first approach can be optional in patients with PC undergoing RPD. This unique approach allows for the circumferential dissection around the SMA during RPD.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy for Pancreatic Cancer: Evaluation and Analysis of Surgical Efficacy.

BACKGROUND: Evidence is limited for the treatment of pancreatic cancer among minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy. METHODS: This retrospective analysis evaluated patients who underwent robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) or laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) from April 2016 to April 2023. Their baseline and perioperative data, including operative time, R0 resection rates, and severe complications rates, were analyzed, and the follow-up data, such as disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS), were collected. RESULTS: A total of 253 cases of LPD and RPD were performed, and 101 cases with pancreatic cancer were included, of which 54 were LPD and 47 were RPD. The conversion rate (4.3% vs. 29.6%, p = 0.001) and blood loss (400 vs. 575 mL, p < 0.05) were lower in the RPD group. No significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of operative time, vessel resection rates, and TNM-stage diagnosis; however, R0 resection rates (80.9% vs. 70.4%) and lymph node harvest (24.2 vs. 21.9) had a higher tendency in the RPD group, and postoperative length of stay was shorter in the RPD cohort (11 vs. 13 days). Moreover, improved 1- to 3-years DFS (75.7%, 61.7%, and 36.0% vs. 59.0%, 35.6%, and 21.9%) and OS (94.7%, 84.7%, and 50.8% vs. 84.1%, 63.6%, and 45.5%) was found in the RPD group in comparison with the LPD group. CONCLUSIONS: RPD had advantages in surgical safety and oncological outcomes compared with LPD, but was similar to the latter in perioperative outcomes. Long-term outcomes require further study.

Impact of hepatic artery variation on surgical and oncological outcomes in robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy.

BACKGROUND: In patients with hepatic artery variation (HAV), feasibility and justification of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) for periampullary lesions have been not been well established. METHODS: A total of 600 patients with periampullary lesions receiving RPD or open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) were identified from our prospectively collected computer database. Surgical outcomes, oncological radicality, and survival outcomes after RPD in HAV ( +) and (-) patients were compared. RESULTS: The incidence of HAV was 16%, including 12.7% in patients with RPD and 23.0% in those with OPD. In the HAV ( +) group, vascular injury rate had no statistical difference between the RPD (3.7%) and OPD (9.1%) patients, P = 0.404. Among the RPD patients, those with HAV ( +) had longer operation time (8.5 ± 2.5 vs. 7.7 ± 2.0 h, P = 0.013) and higher vascular injury (3.8% vs. 0.6%, P = 0.024) when compared with the HAV (-) patients. There was no significant difference between the HAV ( +) and (-) patients with RPD regarding blood loss, open conversion, vascular resection, and surgical mortality and morbidity. There was no survival difference between the HAV ( +) and (-) patients with pancreatic head adenocarcinoma after RPD. There was no survival difference between RPD and OPD in the HAV ( +) group. CONCLUSIONS: When compared with OPD, RPD is feasible and justifiable without increasing vascular injury rate for patients with HAV ( +). Hepatic artery variation has no negative impact on surgical, oncological, and survival outcomes following an RPD, if it is accurately identified pre-operatively and appropriately managed intraoperatively.

Reduced-port robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy with optimized surgical field deployment: early results of single-site plus-two ports method.

BACKGROUND: The adoption of Robotic Pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) is increasing globally. Meanwhile, reduced-port RPD (RPRPD) remains uncommon, requiring robot-specific techniques not possible with laparoscopy. We introduce a unique RPRPD technique optimizing surgical field exposure. METHODS: Our RPRPD utilizes a single-site plus-two ports technique, facilitated by a single-port platform through a 5-cm incision. The configuration of robotic arms (arm1, arm2, arm3, and arm4) were strategically designed for optimal procedural efficiency, with the arms2 and arm3, alongside the assistant trocar, mounted on the single-port platform, while the arms1 and arm4 were positioned laterally across the abdomen. Drainage was established via channels created at the arm1 and arm4 insertion sites. A "gooseneck traction" was principally employed with the robotic instrument to prop up the specimen rather than grasp, improving the surgical field's visibility and access. Clinical outcomes of patients who underwent RPRPD performed between August 2020 and September 2023 by a single surgeon across two centers in Taiwan and Japan were reviewed. RESULTS: Fifty patients underwent RPRPD using the single-site plus-two ports technique. The gooseneck traction technique enabled goodsurgical field deployment and allowed for unrestricted movement of robotic arms with no collisions with the assistant instruments. The median operative time was 351 min (250-488 min), including 271 min (219-422 min) of console time and three minutes (2-10 min) of docking time. The median estimated blood loss was 80 mL (1-872 mL). All RPRPD procedures were successfully performed without the need for conversion to open surgery. Postoperative major morbidity (i.e., Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ IIIa) was observed in 6 (12%) patients and median postoperative hospital stay was 13 days. CONCLUSIONS: The single-site plus-two ports RPRPD with the gooseneck traction proves to be a safe, feasible option, facilitating surgical field visibility and robotic arm maneuverability.

Technical details of robotic pancreatojejunostomy using a modified Blumgart anastomosis: Thread manipulation using gauze and an assisted port.

BACKGROUNDS: Pancreatojejunostomy is a technically demanding procedure during robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD). Modified Blumgart anastomosis (mBA) is a common method for the pancreatojejunostomy; however, the technical details for robotic mBA are not well established. During RPD, we performed a mBA for the pancreatojejunostomy using thread manipulation with gauze and an additional assist port. METHODS: Patients who underwent robotic pancreatoduodenectomy at Fujita Health University from November 2009 to May 2023 were retrospectively investigated, and technical details for the robotic-modified Blumgart anastomosis were demonstrated. RESULTS: Among 78 patients who underwent RPD during the study period, 33 underwent robotic mBA. Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) occurred in six patients (18%). None of the patients suffered POPF Grade C according to the international study group of pancreatic surgery definition. The anastomotic time for mBA was 80 min (54-125 min). CONCLUSION: Robotic mBA resulted in reasonable outcomes. We propose that mBA could be used as one of the standard methods for robotic pancreatojejunosotomy.

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: Analysis of surgical outcomes and long-term prognosis in a high-volume center.

BACKGROUND: Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) has been reported to be safe and feasible for patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) of the pancreatic head. This study aimed to analyze the surgical outcomes and risk factors for poor long-term prognosis of these patients. METHODS: Data from patients who underwent RPD for PDAC of pancreatic head were retrospectively analyzed. Multivariate Cox regression analysis was used to seek the independent prognostic factors for overall survival (OS), and an online nomogram calculator was developed based on the independent prognostic factors. RESULTS: Of the 273 patients who met the inclusion criteria, the median operative time was 280.0 minutes, the estimated blood loss was 100.0 mL, the median OS was 23.6 months, and the median recurrence-free survival (RFS) was 14.4 months. Multivariate analysis showed that preoperative carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9) [hazard ratio (HR) = 2.607, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.560-4.354, P < 0.001], lymph node metastasis (HR = 1.429, 95% CI: 1.005-2.034, P = 0.047), tumor moderately (HR = 3.190, 95% CI: 1.813-5.614, P < 0.001) or poorly differentiated (HR = 5.114, 95% CI: 2.839-9.212, P < 0.001), and Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ III (HR = 1.657, 95% CI: 1.079-2.546, P = 0.021) were independent prognostic factors for OS. The concordance index (C-index) of the nomogram constructed based on the above four independent prognostic factors was 0.685 (95% CI: 0.640-0.729), which was significantly higher than that of the AJCC staging (8th edition): 0.541 (95% CI: 0.493-0.589) (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This large-scale study indicated that RPD was feasible for PDAC of pancreatic head. Preoperative CA19-9, lymph node metastasis, tumor poorly differentiated, and Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ III were independent prognostic factors for OS. The online nomogram calculator could predict the OS of these patients in a simple and convenient manner.

Reduced-port robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: a single-surgeon experience.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Multiple-port robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) has been increasingly used as an alternative to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) in pancreatic cancer. However, the comparative safety and efficacy of reduced-port RPD versus OPD are unknown. METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study comprising adult patients who underwent reduced-port RPD (single-port or single-site plus one port) or OPD for malignant tumors of the pancreas and periampullary region from July 2015 to October 2020 at a single center. We collected data on the patient demographics, perioperative results, oncologic outcomes, and one-year survival. RESULTS: Forty-five patients underwent reduced-port RPD, and 13 underwent OPD. There were no significant differences in the age, sex, body mass index, ASA score, tumor location, or occurrences of postoperative complications between the two groups. Compared with OPD, reduced-port RPD was associated with less blood loss (300 ml [95% confidence interval {CI} 155-700] vs. 650 ml [95% CI 300-850], p value = 0.11) but a longer operative time (325 min [95% CI 290-370] vs. 215 min [95% CI 180-270], p value < 0.001). Compared with patients who underwent OPD, patients who underwent reduced-port RPD had a higher 1-year survival rate (68% [95% CI 49-81] vs. 22% [95% CI 3-51], log-rank, p value = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Reduced-port RPD can be safely performed in experienced surgeons and is associated with better perioperative and oncologic outcomes than OPD.

Robotic-assisted versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for patients with benign and malignant periampullary disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of short-term outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Although several non-randomized studies comparing robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) recently demonstrated that the two operative techniques could be equivalent in terms of safety outcomes and short-term oncologic efficacy, no definitive answer has arrived yet to the question as to whether robotic assistance can contribute to reducing the high rate of postoperative morbidity. METHODS: Systematic literature search was performed using MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and EMBASE databases. Prospective and retrospective studies comparing RPD and OPD as surgical treatment for periampullary benign and malignant lesions were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis with no limits of language or year of publication. RESULTS: 18 non-randomized studies were included for quantitative synthesis with 13,639 patients allocated to RPD (n = 1593) or OPD (n = 12,046). RPD and OPD showed equivalent results in terms of mortality (3.3% vs 2.8%; P = 0.84), morbidity (64.4% vs 68.1%; P = 0.12), pancreatic fistula (17.9% vs 15.9%; P = 0.81), delayed gastric emptying (16.8% vs 16.1%; P = 0.98), hemorrhage (11% vs 14.6%; P = 0.43), and bile leak (5.1% vs 3.5%; P = 0.35). Estimated intra-operative blood loss was significantly lower in the RPD group (352.1 ± 174.1 vs 588.4 ± 219.4; P = 0.0003), whereas operative time was significantly longer for RPD compared to OPD (461.1 ± 84 vs 384.2 ± 73.8; P = 0.0004). RPD and OPD showed equivalent results in terms of retrieved lymph nodes (19.1 ± 9.9 vs 17.3 ± 9.9; P = 0.22) and positive margin status (13.3% vs 16.1%; P = 0.32). CONCLUSIONS: RPD is safe and feasible as surgical treatment for malignant or benign disease of the pancreatic head and the periampullary region. Equivalency in terms of surgical radicality including R0 curative resection and number of harvested lymph nodes between the two groups confirmed the reliability of RPD from an oncologic point of view.

Operative technique in robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) at University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC): 17 steps standardized technique : Lessons learned since the first worldwide RPD performed in the year 2001.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) was introduced in the attempt to improve the outcomes of the open approach. Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) was first reported by Gagner and Pomp (Surg Endosc 8:408-410, 1994). Unfortunately, due to its complexity and technical demand, LPD never reached widespread popularity. Since it was first performed by P. C. Giulianotti in 2001, Robotic PD (RPD) has been gaining ground among surgeons. MIPD is included as a surgical option in the latest NCCN Guidelines. However, lack of surgical standardization, however, has limited the reproducibility of MIPD and made the acquisition of the technique by other surgeons difficult. We provide an accurate description of our standardized step-by-step RDP technique. METHODS: We took advantage of our 15-year long experience and > 150 cases performed to provide a step-by-step guidance of our RPD standardized technique. The description includes practical "tips and tricks" to facilitate the learning curve and assist with the teaching/evaluation process. RESULTS: 17 surgical steps were identified as key components of the RPD procedure. The steps reflect the subdivision of the RPD into several parts which help to understand a strategy that takes into accounts specific anatomical landmarks and the demands of the robotic platform. CONCLUSIONS: Standardization is a key element of the learning curve of RPD. It can potentially provide consistent, reproducible results that can be more easily evaluated. Despite promising results, full acceptance of RPD as the 'gold standard' is still work in progress. Randomized-controlled trials with the application of a standardized technique are necessary to better define the role of RPD.

A comparative analysis of robotic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy in octogenarians.

Old age is a predictor of increased morbidity following pancreatic operations. This study was undertaken to compare the peri-operative variables between robotic and 'open' pancreaticoduodenectomy, in octogenarians (≥ 80 years of age). Since 2012, with IRB approval, we retrospectively followed 69 patients, who underwent robotic (n = 42) and 'open' (n = 27) pancreaticoduodenectomy. Statistical analysis was performed using chi-square test and Student's t test. Data are presented as median(mean ± SD), and significance accepted with 95% probability. Patients who underwent the robotic approach had a greater Charlson Comorbidity Index [6 (6 ± 1.6) vs 5 (5 ± 1.0), (p = 0.01)] and previous abdominal operations [n = 24 (57%) vs n = 9 (33%), (p = 0.04)]. The robotic approach led to longer operative time [426 (434 ± 95.8) vs 240 (254 ± 71.1) minutes, (p < 0.0001)], decreased blood loss [200 (291 ± 289.2) vs 426 (434 ± 95.8) mL (p = 0.008)], and decreased intraoperative blood transfusions (p < 0.05). Patients who underwent robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy had comparable and at times superior outcomes, consistent with the literature regarding robotic and 'open' pancreaticoduodenectomy. This study indicates that robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy continues to offer same benefits for patients of advanced age and demonstrates age should not be a preclusion to robotic operations.

Effect of insurance status on perioperative outcomes after robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a propensity-score matched analysis.

The influence of Medicaid or being uninsured is prevailingly thought to negatively impact a patient's socioeconomic and postoperative course, yet little has been published to support this claim specifically in reference to robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. This study was undertaken to determine impact of health insurance type on perioperative outcomes in patients undergoing robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. Following IRB approval, we prospectively followed 364 patients who underwent robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. Patients were stratified by insurance status (i.e., Private, Medicare, and Medicaid/Uninsured); 100 patients were 2:2:1 propensity-score matched by age, BMI, ASA class, pathology, 8th edition AJCC staging, and tumor size. Perioperative variables were compared utilizing contingency testing and ANOVA. Statistical significance was accepted at a p-value ≤ 0.05 and data are presented as median (mean ± SD). The 100 patients undergoing propensity-score matching were 64 (65 ± 9.1) years old with a BMI of 27 (27 ± 4.9) kg/m2 and ASA class of 3 (3 ± 0.5). Operative duration was 421 (428 ± 105.9) minutes and estimated blood loss was 200 (385 ± 795.0) mL. There were 4 in-hospital deaths and 8 readmissions within 30 days of discharge. Total hospital cost was $32,064 (38,014 ± 22,205.94). After matching, no differences were found in pre-, intra-, and short-term postoperative variables among patients with different insurances, including hospital cost and time to initiate adjuvant treatment, which was 8 (9 ± 7.9) weeks for patients with malignant disease. In our hepatopancreaticobiliary program, health insurance status did not impact perioperative outcomes or hospital costs. These findings highlight that financial coverage does not influence quality of perioperative care, reinforcing the equity of robotic surgery.

Weighing the outcomes: the role of BMI in complex robotic esophageal and hepatobiliary operations.

BACKGROUND: The correlation between body mass index (BMI) and surgical outcomes has emerged as a critical consideration in complex abdominal operations. While elevated BMI is often associated with increased perioperative risk, its specific effects on the outcomes of robotic surgeries remain inadequately explored. This study assesses the impact of BMI on perioperative variables of complex esophageal and hepatopancreaticobiliary (HPB) robotic operations. METHODS: Following IRB approval, we prospectively followed 607 patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy, trans-hiatal esophagectomy (THE), major liver resection or distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy, all performed robotically. Perioperative data retrieved included operative duration, estimated blood loss (EBL), intraoperative and postoperative complications, conversions to an 'open' operation and length of stay (LOS). Z scores were assigned to each variable to standardize operations, and the variables were then regressed against BMI. For illustrative purposes, data are presented as median(mean ± standard deviation). RESULTS: Between 2012 and 2020, surgeries included 71 THE, 122 distal pancreatectomies with splenectomies, 129 major hepatectomies and 285 pancreaticoduodenectomies. Median age was 67(65 ± 12.5) years old, and BMI was 27(28 ± 5.5) kg/m2. Operative duration for all operations was 349(355 ± 124.5) min and had a positive correlation with increasing BMI (p = 0.004), specifically for robotic THE and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy, with both operative durations having positive correlation with increasing BMI (p = 0.02 and p = 0.05). No significant correlation with BMI was found for EBL, intraoperative or postoperative complications, conversion to 'open' surgery, or LOS. CONCLUSION: Elevated BMI is associated with longer operative durations in select robotic surgeries, such as trans-hiatal esophagectomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy, and highlights the need for strategic planning in these patients.

Minimally Invasive Pancreaticoduodenectomy in Elderly versus Younger Patients: A Meta-Analysis.

(1) Background: With ageing, the number of pancreaticoduodenectomies (PD) for benign or malignant disease is expected to increase in elderly patients. However, whether minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) should be performed in the elderly is not clear yet and it is still debated. (2) Materials and Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted including seven published articles comparing the technical and post-operative outcomes of MIPD in elderly versus younger patients up to December 2022. (3) Results: In total, 1378 patients were included in the meta-analysis. In term of overall and Clavien-Dindo I/II complication rates, post-operative pancreatic fistula (POPF) grade > A rates and biliary leakage, abdominal collection, post-operative bleeding and delayed gastric emptying rates, no differences emerged between the two groups. However, this study showed slightly higher intraoperative blood loss [MD 43.41, (95%CI 14.45, 72.38) p = 0.003], Clavien-Dindo ≥ III complication rates [OR 1.87, (95%CI 1.13, 3.11) p = 0.02] and mortality rates [OR 2.61, (95%CI 1.20, 5.68) p = 0.02] in the elderly compared with the younger group. Interestingly, as a minor endpoint, no differences in terms of the mean number of harvested lymphnode and of R0 resection rates were found. (4) Conclusion: MIPD seems to be relatively safe; however, there are slightly higher major morbidity, lung complication and mortality rates in elderly patients, who potentially represent the individuals that may benefit the most from the minimally invasive approach.

Do pre-operative endoscopic procedures, impact the surgical outcomes of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy?

The role and risks of pre-operative endoscopic procedures, such as endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and endoscopic ultrasound with fine needle aspiration (EUS/FNA), in patients undergoing robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy are not well-defined despite a broad consensus on the utility of these interventions for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes prior to major pancreatic operations. This study investigates the impact of such preoperative endoscopic interventions on perioperative outcomes in robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. With Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval we retrospectively analyzed 772 patients who underwent robotic pancreatectomies between 2012 and 2023. Specifically, 430 of these patients underwent a robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy were prospectively evaluated: 93 (22%) patients underwent ERCP with EUS and FNA, 45 (10%) ERCP only, and 31 (7%) EUS and FNA, while 261 (61%) did not. Statistical analyses were performed using chi-square tests and Student's t-tests to compare perioperative outcomes between the two cohorts. Statistically significant differences were observed in patients who underwent a pre-operative endoscopic intervention and were more likely to have converted to an open operation (p = 0.04). The average number of harvested lymph nodes for patients who underwent preoperative endoscopic intervention was statistically significant compared to those who did not (p = 0.0001). All other perioperative variables were consistent across all cohorts. Patients who underwent endoscopic intervention before robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy were more likely to have an unplanned open operation. This study demonstrates the increased operative difficulties introduced by preoperative endoscopic interventions. Although there was no impact on overall patient outcomes, surgeons' experience can minimize the associated risks.

Repeated robotic pancreatectomy for recurrent pancreatic metastasis of mesenchymal chondrosarcoma: A case report.

Mesenchymal chondrosarcoma is a rare subset of sarcomas accounting for 3%-10% of all cases of chondrosarcomas. Radical resection is the only curative strategy, even in patients with metastatic tumors. However, data regarding treatment strategies remain limited owing to the small number of cases. Herein, we report a patient who underwent repeated robotic pancreatectomy for recurrent pancreatic metastasis originating from extraskeletal mesenchymal chondrosarcoma of the pelvis. First, robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy with a reconstruction of pancreaticogastrostomy was performed for synchronous pancreatic metastasis 5 months after the primary resection of mesenchymal chondrosarcoma. Ten months after robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy, tumor recurrence was observed at the tail end of the pancreas, which was removed by reperforming robotic distal pancreatectomy. Given the precise tissue manipulation that can be achieved with robotic articulated forceps, the peripheral splenic artery and pancreas were easily isolated and divided in close proximity to the tumor. The central part of the pancreas was preserved. Robotic surgery allowed safe and effective resection of the reconstructed remnant pancreas. The patient survived for 28 months after primary tumor resection. Repeated pancreatectomy with minimally invasive techniques is a feasible and curative treatment for metastatic mesenchymal chondrosarcoma.

Management of Intra-Operative Hemorrhage and Safe Venous Resection in Robotic-Assisted Pancreaticoduodenectomy: Techniques to Avoid Open Conversion.

Robotic-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) is increasingly utilized for operable periampullary malignancies with oncologic outcomes compared to the open approach. Indications can be carefully expanded to select borderline resectable tumors, but bleeding remains a significant threat. Moreover, the need for venous resection and reconstructions increases as more complex cases are selected to undergo RPD. Herein, we present a video compilation of our approach to safe venous resections during RPD, followed by several video examples of intraoperative hemorrhage highlighting various techniques and tips that the console and bedside surgeon can utilize to control bleeding. Conversion to an open procedure should not be seen as a failure but rather as a safe and sound intraoperative decision made in the patient's best interest. Nonetheless, with experience and proper technique, many intraoperative hemorrhages and venous resections can be managed in a minimally invasive fashion.

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy with biodegradable ductal stenting (Archimedes BPS®).

BACKGROUND: Postoperative Pancreatic Fistula (POPF) development remains a challenge after pancreaticoduodenectomy, occurring in 3-45% of cases [1]. The placement of a trans-anastomotic Wirsung stent is usually done in high-risk patients to decrease incidence and severity of POPF. METHODS: Herein, we present a fully robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy with a biodegradable ductal stent interposition in a 47 y.o. female with a main duct IPMN of the pancreatic head and a fistula risk score of 6 (Moderate-risk). VIDEO: After gastrocolic ligament division and hepatic flexure and duodenum mobilization, the loco-regional lymphadenectomy was performed. Following gastric transection with endo-GIA, the bile duct and gastroduodenal artery have been divided, and the cholecystectomy performed. The neck of the pancreas has been transected, the jejunum divided with endo-GIA and mobilized from the Treitz ligament, and the uncinate process dissected from the mesenteric vessels. A Blumgart anastomosis has been performed between the soft-texture pancreatic stump and the jejunal loop with the interposition of a 6 Fr/60 mm long, medium degrading stent (20 days) in the 2 mm duct (Archimedes BPS®, AMG Int., Winsen-Germany). The hepatico-jejunostomy and gastro-jejunostomy have been performed distally on the same loop. Three abdominal drains have been positioned. RESULTS: Surgery lasted 480 min, with 175 mls blood loss. The patient postoperatively developed a biochemical leak and was discharged home by day 12. She was readmitted a month later for an amylase-negative intra-abdominal abscess that was successfully treated with percutaneous drainage. CONCLUSION: Biodegradable pancreatic stent positioning could be an effective strategy in reducing POPF occurrence in high-risk patients.

Meta-analysis of robotic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy in all patients and pancreatic cancer patients.

Purposes: To compare perioperative outcomes of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) using evidence from cohort studies. Methods: Outcomes of interest include operative time, blood loss, R0 resection rate, lymph nodes harvested, overall complication rate, pancreatic fistula rate, delayed gastric emptying rate and 90-day mortality. Results: 6 prospective studies and 15 retrospective studies were included. Five of these studies were limited to patients with pancreatic cancer. Operative time was significantly longer in RPD (WMD: 64.60 min; 95% CI: 26.89 to 102.21; p = 0.001). Estimated blood loss was lower in RPD (WMD: -185.44 ml; 95% CI: -239.66 to -131.21; p < 0.001). Overall complication rates (OR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.44 to 0.97; p < 0.001) and pancreatic fistula rate (OR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.55 to 0.82; p < 0.001) were both lower in RPD. Length of hospital stay was longer in OPD (WMD: -1.90; 95% CI: -2.47 to -1.33). 90-day mortality was lower in RPD [odds ratio (OR): 0.77; 95% CI: 0.45 to 0.95; p = 0.025]. Conclusion: At current level of evidence, RPD is a safer alternative than OPD with regard to post-operative outcomes and blood loss. However, in terms of oncological outcomes RPD show no advantage over OPD, and the cost of RPD was higher. In general, RPD is now considered a reliable technology, but high-quality randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies are still needed to support this conclusion.

Assessing the perioperative complications and outcomes of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy using the National Cancer Database: is it ready for prime time?

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy has generated significant interest in recent years. Our study aimed to evaluate the difference in surgical, oncological, and survival outcomes after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) by either a robotic (RPD) or open approach (OPD). Using the National Cancer Database, we identified patients from 2010 and 2017 diagnosed with pancreatic adenocarcinoma and underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy by either robotic PD or open approach. Patients who underwent robotic PD during 2010 were compared to patients receiving the same procedure in 2017. In addition, a secondary analysis was performed to assess outcomes of robotic PD to open PD for the 2017 patient cohorts. Our primary outcomes included 30-day and 90-day mortality, length of stay, as well as 30-day readmission. Secondary outcome measures were surgical margins, lymph node yield, and adjuvant chemotherapy initiation within 12 weeks of surgery. When we compared the 2017 data to 2010 data, we found that robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy had lower 30- and 90-day mortality rates in 2017 compared to 2010. Additionally, we found that the lymph node yield in robotic PD increased during the study period. When we compared robotic PD to open PD for 2017, we found no statistically significant differences in readmission rates (10.1% vs. 9.7%: p-0.4), lymph node yield, or negative margin between the groups. Outcomes of robotic PD have improved over the years. In 2017, outcomes of robotic PD were similar to open PD.

Learning curve for a surgeon in robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy through a "G"-shaped approach: A cumulative sum analysis.

BACKGROUND: Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) can achieve similar surgical results to open and PD; however, RPD has a long learning curve and operation time (OT). To address this issue, we have summarized a surgical path to shorten the surgical learning curve and OT. AIM: To investigate the effective learning curve of a "G"-shaped surgical approach in RPD for patients. METHODS: A total of 60 patients, who received "G"-shaped RPD (GRPD) by a single surgeon in the First Hospital of Shanxi Medical University from May 2017 to April 2020, were included in this study. The OT, demographic data, intraoperative blood loss, complications, hospitalization time, and pathological results were recorded, and the cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis was performed to evaluate the learning curve for GRPD. RESULTS: According to the CUSUM analysis, the learning curve for GRPD was grouped into two phases: The early and late phases. The OT was 480 ± 81.65 min vs 331 ± 76.54 min, hospitalization time was 22 ± 4.53 d vs 17 ± 6.08 d, and blood loss was 308 ± 54.78 mL vs 169.2 ± 35.33 mL in the respective groups. Complications, including pancreatic fistula, bile leakage, reoperation rate, postoperative death, and delayed gastric emptying, were significantly decreased after this surgical technique. CONCLUSION: GRPD can improve the learning curve and operative time, providing a new method for shortening the RPD learning curve.