Open Pancreaticoduodenectomy Group Research Articles

Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy With Open Reconstruction: The Buddha's Middle Path.

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) is not universally adopted because of its steep learning curve. Its technical complexity discourages many surgeons. We believe that laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy with open reconstruction (LPOR) has all the benefits of LPD without its drawbacks and combines the ease of open surgery with the benefits of minimal access surgery. We assessed the feasibility and safety of LPOR and compared it with open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD), with the objectives being perioperative and short-term clinical/oncologic outcomes. Retrospective review of prospectively maintained database; study period from January 2013 to December 2019. Till 2015, we did only OPD. In 2016, we started with LPD but soon switched to LPOR. The resection part was done laparoscopically and the reconstruction part was done through a 8-cm mini-laparotomy. We did 19 OPDs and 15 LPORs. Demographic data of the 2 groups were comparable. The duration of surgery was significantly longer in the LPOR group (360 vs. 410min; P=0.01), whereas the blood loss and hospital stay were longer in the OPD group (520 vs. 360mL; P=0.03 and 13 vs. 11d; P=0.08, respectively). Clinically significant complication rates, including delayed gastric emptying and postoperative pancreatic fistulas, were not different in either group. No patients in the LPOR group had wound-related/pulmonary complications. Lymph node yield was similar in both groups (20 vs. 22) and we had 100% R0 resections. LPOR was better than OPD in terms of short-term outcomes and was not inferior to OPD in terms of complications/oncologic outcomes.

Laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for ampullary cancer: A retrospective study.

Studies comparing laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) with open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) for ampullary carcinoma (AC) are limited. This study aimed to compare short- and long-term outcomes between LPD and OPD for AC. This study included patients with AC who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) with curative intention at Ogaki Municipal Hospital from April 2008 to March 2023. Fifty-five patients underwent LPD (n = 26) or OPD (n = 29). There were no significant differences in the demographics between the two groups. The LPD group had a significantly longer operative time (268 vs. 225 min), less blood loss (125 vs. 450 mL), and shorter postoperative hospital stay (18 vs. 23 days) than the OPD group. There was no significant difference in the morbidity ratio. Fewer lymph nodes were harvested in the LPD group than OPD group (9.5 vs. 16.0), but there were no significant differences in lymph node metastasis or pathological stages. There were no significant differences in overall survival (OS) or recurrence-free survival (RFS). The 3- and 5-year OS rates in the LPD group and the OPD group were 63.0% and 54%, 64.8%, and 61.2%, respectively. The 3- and 5-year RFS rates were 57.4% and 57.4%, 58.1%, and 54.4%, respectively. LPD for AC had short- and long-term outcomes comparable with those of OPD. LPD could be considered the standard treatments for AC because of less blood loss and a shorter hospital stay.

Comparison of short-term outcomes of robotic versus open Pancreaticoduodenectomy: A Meta-Analysis of randomized controlled trials and Propensity-Score-Matched studies.

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) is used more commonly, but this surge is mostly based on observational data. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the short-term outcomes between RPD and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) using data collected from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and propensity score-matched (PSM) studies. We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science databases for RCTs and PSM studies comparing RPD and OPD. Risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Twenty-four studies, encompassing two RCTs and 22 PSM studies, were included, with a total of 9393 patients (RPD group: 3919 patients; OPD group: 5474 patients). Although RPD was associated with a longer operative time (MD, 61.61min), patients may benefit from reduced blood loss (MD, -154.05mL), shorter length of stay (MD, -1.60d), lower blood transfusion rate (RR, 0.85), and wound infection rate (RR, 0.61). There were no significant differences observed in 30-day readmission (RR, 0.99), 90-day mortality (RR, 0.97), overall morbidity (RR, 0.88), major complications (RR, 1.01), reoperation (RR, 1.08), bile leak (RR, 1.01), chylous leak (RR, 0.98), postoperative pancreatic fistula (RR, 0.97), postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (RR, 1.15), delayed gastric emptying (RR, 0.88), number of harvested lymph nodes (MD, -0.12), and R0 resection (RR, 1.01) between the groups. Although some short-term outcomes were similar between RPD and OPD, RPD exhibited reduced intraoperative blood loss, shorter hospital stays, lower wound infection, and blood transfusion rates. In the future, RPD may become a safe and effective alternative to OPD.

Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy Combined With Portal-Superior Mesenteric Vein Resection and Reconstruction: Inferior-Posterior "Superior Mesenteric Artery-First" Approach.

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) with portal-superior mesenteric vein (PV/SMV) resection and reconstruction is increasingly performed. We aimed to introduce a safe and effective surgical approach and share our clinical experience with LPD with PV/SMV resection and reconstruction. We reviewed data for the patients undergoing LPD and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) combined with PV/SMV resection and reconstruction at the First Hospital of Jilin University between April 2021 and May 2023. The inferior-posterior "superior mesenteric artery-first" approach was used. We compared the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative clinicopathological data of the 2 groups to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of LPD with major vascular resection. A cohort of 37 patients with periampullary and pancreatic tumors underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) with major vascular resection and reconstruction, consisting of 21 LPDs and 16 OPDs. The LPD group had a longer operation time (322 vs. 235 min, P =0.039), reduced intraoperative bleeding (152 vs. 325mL, P =0.026), and lower intraoperative blood transfusion rates (19.0% vs. 50.0%, P =0.046) compared with the OPD group. The LPD group had significantly shorter operation times in end-to-end anastomosis (26 vs. 15 min, P =0.001) and artificial grafts vascular reconstruction (44 vs. 22 min, P =0.000) compared with the OPD group. There was no significant difference in the rate of R0 resection (100% vs. 87.5%, P =0.096). The length of hospital stay and ICU stay did not show significant differences between the 2 groups (15 vs. 18d, P =0.636 and 2.5 vs. 4.5d, P =0.726, respectively). However, the postoperative hospital stay in the LPD group was notably shorter compared with the OPD group (11 vs. 16d, P =0.007). Postoperative complication rates, including postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) Grade A/B, biliary leakage, and delayed gastric emptying (DGE), were similar between the two groups (38.1% vs. 43.8%, P =0.729). In addition, 1 patient in each group developed thrombosis, with vascular patency improving after anticoagulation treatment. LPD combined with PV/SMV resection and reconstruction can be easily and safely performed using the inferior-posterior "superior mesenteric artery-first" approach in cases of venous invasion. Further studies are required to evaluate the procedure's long-term outcomes.

Effect of robotic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy on postoperative length of hospital stay and complications for pancreatic head or periampullary tumours: a multicentre, open-label randomised controlled trial

The flexibility of the robotic system in resection and reconstruction provides potential benefits in pancreaticoduodenectomy. Increasingly, robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) has been reported with favourable outcomes, but high-level evidence is still scarce. We aimed to compare the short-term postoperative outcomes of RPD with those of open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD), and hypothesised that postoperative length of hospital stay would be shorter after RPD than after OPD. This multicentre, open-label randomised controlled trial was conducted at three high-volume hospitals in China. Patients were considered for participation in this trial if they were aged 18-75 years, had a resectable benign, premalignant, or malignant tumour in the pancreatic head or periampullary region; and were suitable for both RPD and OPD. Patients with distant metastases were excluded. Block randomisation was done with random block sizes of four, stratified by centre. Allocation was concealed via individual, sequentially numbered, opaque sealed envelopes. Eligible patients were randomly assigned to the RPD group or the OPD group in a 1:1 ratio by a masked research assistant. Surgeons and patients were not masked to trial group, but data collectors, postoperative outcome assessors, and data analysts were. All patients underwent RPD or OPD according to previously reported techniques. Participating surgeons had surpassed the learning curves of at least 40 RPD and 60 OPD procedures. The primary outcome was postoperative length of hospital stay, which was analysed in the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population. This trial is registered with the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2200056809) and is complete. Between March 5 and Dec 20, 2022, 292 patients were screened for eligibility, of whom 164 were enrolled and randomly assigned to the RPD group (n=82) or the OPD group (n=82). 161 patients who underwent surgical resection were included in the mITT analysis (81 in the RPD group and 80 in the OPD group). 94 (58%) participants were male and 67 (42%) were female. Postoperative length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the RPD group than in the OPD group (median 11·0 days [IQR 9·0 to 19·5] vs 13·5 days [11·5 to 18·0]; median difference -2·0 [95% CI -4·0 to 0·0]; p=0·029). During a follow-up period of 90 days, six (7%) of 81 patients in the RPD group and five (6%) of 80 patients in the OPD group required readmission. Reasons for readmission were intra-abdominal haemorrhage (one in each group), vomiting (two in the RPD group and one in the OPD group), electrolyte disturbance (one in each group), and fever (two in each group). There were two (1%) in-hospital deaths within 90 days of surgery, one in each group. The postoperative 90-day mortality rate (difference -0·02% [-5·6 to 5·5]; p=1·00) and the incidence of severe complications (ie, Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3; difference -1·5% [-14·5 to 11·4]; p=0·82) were similar between the two groups. For surgeons who had passed the learning curve, RPD was safe and feasible with the advantage of shorter postoperative length of hospital stay than OPD. Future research should focus on the medium-term and long-term outcomes between RPD and OPD. None.

Hemoglobin loss method calculates blood loss during pancreaticoduodenectomy and predicts bleeding-related risk factors.

The common clinical method to evaluate blood loss during pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is visual inspection, but most scholars believe that this method is extremely subjective and inaccurate. Currently, there is no accurate, objective method to evaluate the amount of blood loss in PD patients. The hemoglobin (Hb) loss method was used to analyze the amount of blood loss during PD, which was compared with the blood loss estimated by traditional visual methods. The risk factors for bleeding were also predicted at the same time. We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 341 patients who underwent PD in Shandong Provincial Hospital from March 2017 to February 2019. According to different surgical methods, they were divided into an open PD (OPD) group and a laparoscopic PD (LPD) group. The differences and correlations between the intraoperative estimation of blood loss (IEBL) obtained by visual inspection and the intraoperative calculation of blood loss (ICBL) obtained using the Hb loss method were analyzed. ICBL, IEBL and perioperative calculation of blood loss (PCBL) were compared between the two groups, and single-factor regression analysis was performed. There was no statistically significant difference in the preoperative general patient information between the two groups (P > 0.05). PD had an ICBL of 743.2 (393.0, 1173.1) mL and an IEBL of 100.0 (50.0, 300.0) mL (P < 0.001). There was also a certain correlation between the two (r = 0.312, P < 0.001). Single-factor analysis of ICBL showed that a history of diabetes [95% confidence interval (CI): 53.82-549.62; P = 0.017] was an independent risk factor for ICBL. In addition, the single-factor analysis of PCBL showed that body mass index (BMI) (95%CI: 0.62-76.75; P = 0.046) and preoperative total bilirubin > 200 μmol/L (95%CI: 7.09-644.26; P = 0.045) were independent risk factors for PCBL. The ICBLs of the LPD group and OPD group were 767.7 (435.4, 1249.0) mL and 663.8 (347.7, 1138.2) mL, respectively (P > 0.05). The IEBL of the LPD group 200.0 (50.0, 200.0) mL was slightly greater than that of the OPD group 100.0 (50.0, 300.0) mL (P > 0.05). PCBL was greater in the LPD group than the OPD group [1061.6 (612.3, 1632.3) mL vs 806.1 (375.9, 1347.6) mL] (P < 0.05). The ICBL in patients who underwent PD was greater than the IEBL, but there is a certain correlation between the two. The Hb loss method can be used to evaluate intraoperative blood loss. A history of diabetes, preoperative bilirubin > 200 μmol/L and high BMI increase the patient's risk of bleeding.

Comparison of short-term outcomes of open and laparoscopic assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary carcinoma: A propensity score-matched analysis.

Postoperative pancreatic fistula is the key worry in the ongoing debate about the safety and effectiveness of total laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (TLPD). Laparoscopic-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (LAPD), a hybrid approach combining laparoscopic resection and anastomosis with a small incision, is an alternative to TLPD. This study compares the short-term outcomes and oncological efficacy of LAPD vs. open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD). A retrospective analysis of data of all patients who underwent LAPD or OPD for periampullary carcinoma at a tertiary care center in Northeast India from July 2019 to August 2023 was done. A total of 30 LAPDs and 30 OPDs were compared after 1:1 propensity score matching. Demographic data, intraoperative and postoperative data (30 days), and pathological data were compared. The study included a total of 93 patients, 30 underwent LAPD and 62 underwent OPD. After propensity score matching, the matched cohort included 30 patients in both groups. The LAPD presented several advantages over the OPD group, including a shorter incision length, reduced postoperative pain, earlier initiation of oral feeding, and shorter hospital stays. LAPD was not found to be inferior to OPD in terms of pancreatic fistula incidence (Grade B, 30.0% vs. 33.3%), achieving R0 resection (100% vs. 93.3%), and the number of lymph nodes harvested (12 vs. 14, p = 0.620). No significant differences in blood loss, short-term complications, pathological outcomes, readmissions, and early (30-day) mortality were observed between the two groups. LAPD has comparable safety, technical feasibility, and short-term oncological efficacy.

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for carcinoma of the ampulla of Vater in a medium-volume center: a propensity score matching analysis.

To compare the efficacy of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) in a medium-volume medical center. Data for patients who underwent OPD or LPD for carcinoma of the ampulla of Vater (VPC) between January 2017 and June 2022 were acquired retrospectively. Propensity score-matching (PSM) analysis was performed to balance the baseline characteristics between the groups. The primary outcome was disease-free survival (DFS). Cox regression analysis was used to explore the independent risk factors for DFS. A total of 124 patients with pathologically diagnosed VPC were included. After 1:1 matching, there were 23 cases each in the OPD and LPD groups. Kaplan-Meier survival analyses showed that the median DFS in the OPD and LPD groups was identical (16.0 months vs 16.0 months, respectively). Multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that low levels of alkaline phosphatase and γ-glutamyl transpeptidase, positive surgical margin, and lymph node enlargement were independent risk factors for DFS. LPD in medium-volume centers with acceptable technical conditions may approach or even achieve the efficacy of LPD in large-volume centers.

Survival and surgical outcomes of robotic versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for ampullary cancer: A propensity score-matching comparison

Background/objectiveRobotic pancreaticoduodenectomy in ampullary cancer has never been studied. This study aimed to clarify the feasibility and justification of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy in ampullary cancer in terms of surgical risks, and oncologic and survival outcomes. MethodsA propensity score-matching comparison of robotic and open pancreaticoduodenectomy based on seven factors commonly used to predict the survival outcomes in ampullary cancer patients. ResultsA total of 147 patients were enrolled, of which 101 and 46 underwent robotic and open pancreaticoduodenectomies, respectively. After propensity score-matching with a 2:1 ratio, 88 and 44 patients in the robotic and open pancreaticoduodenectomy groups were included. The operation time was of no significant difference after matching. The median intraoperative blood loss was much less in those who underwent robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy, both before (median, 120 vs. 320 c.c. P < 0.001) and after (100 vs. 335 mL P < 0.001) score-matching. There were no significant differences in terms of surgical risks, including surgical mortality, surgical morbidity, Clavien-Dindo severity classification, postoperative pancreatic fistula, delayed gastric emptying, post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage, chyle leak, bile leak, and wound infection, both before or after score-matching. The survival outcomes were also similar between the two groups, regardless of matching. ConclusionsRobotic pancreaticoduodenectomy for ampullary cancer is not only technically feasible and safe without increasing surgical risks, but also oncologically justifiable without compromising surgical radicality and survival outcomes.

Cost-effectiveness of open pancreaticoduodenectomy with or without Heidelberg TRIANGLE operation for pancreatic cancer in China.

Pancreatic cancer is a digestive malignancy with dismal prognosis. The advent of Heidelberg TRIANGLE dissection technique brings a turning point to improve the chance of survival. Our study aimed to evaluated the cost-effectiveness of open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) versus OPD combined with TRIANGLE operation (OPD-TRIANGLE) for patients with pancreatic cancer from the perspective of healthcare system in China. Two hundred forty-six patients with pancreatic cancer who underwent OPD or OPD-TRIANGLE from January to September 2022 were enrolled in this study. We performed a decision tree model to assess clinical and economic implications of different surgical strategies. Estimation of health utilities was based on published literature, while costs were acquired from the hospitals, clinical expert consultations, and other local charge. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was regarded as the primary outcome. Uncertainty of the findings was addressed via sensitivity analyses and scenario analyses. The results indicated that OPD-TRIANGLE group yielded additional 0.0402 QALYs at an incremental cost of US$1501.83 compared with OPD group, and the corresponding ICER was US$37,358.96 per QALY. The probabilities of OPD-TRIANGLE as the prior option were 52.8% at the WTP threshold of 60,000 US$/QALY. The main factors lined with costs incorporating total medical costs and operation-related costs. With 5-20% price reduction of OPD-TRIANGLE, the outcomes were also economically attractive. The findings of this population-based study suggested that OPD-TRIANGLE was likely to be cost-effective for patients with pancreatic cancer when compared against OPD. Further in-depth studies should be conducted to provide more comprehensive evidence.

Short-term outcomes between robot-assisted and open pancreaticoduodenectomy in patients with high body mass index: A propensity score matched study.

High body mass index was considered as a risk factor for minimally invasive surgery. The short-term outcomes of robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) remain controversial. This study aims to investigate the feasibility and advantage of RPD in patients with high body mass index compared to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD). Clinical data of 304 patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy from January 2016 to December 2019 in Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine was collected. Patients with BMI >25 kg/m2 were included and divided into RPD and OPD group. After PSM at a 1:1 ratio, 75 patients of OPD and 75 patients of RPD were recorded and analyzed. The RPD group showed advantages in the estimated blood loss (EBL) (323.3 mL vs. 480.7 mL, p = 0.010), the postoperative abdominal infection rate (24% vs. 44%, p = 0.010), the incidence of Clavien-Dindo III-V complications (14.7% vs. 28.0%, p = 0.042) over OPD group. RPD shows advantages in less EBL, lower incidence rate of Clavien-Dindo III-V complications over OPD in overweight and obese patients. RPD was confirmed as a safe and feasible surgical approach for overweight or obsess patients.

Comparative analysis of clinical efficacy between laparoscopic and open pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) is a technically demanding procedure but is gradually gaining acceptance in clinical practice. This study was performed to compare the short-term outcomes of LPD with open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD). The perioperative data of the patients who underwent LPD (n = 25) and OPD (n = 40) from January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2021 at Zhangjiagang Hospital Affiliated to Soochow University were collected and retrospectively analyzed. All patients received R0 resection, and none of the patients died within the perioperative period. The preoperative data (gender, age, body mass index [BMI], and preoperative bilirubin), the intraoperative data (operative time, number of retrieved lymph nodes), and postoperative data (level 1 monitoring time, postoperative fluid diet time, postoperative fluid feeding time, and hospitalization cost) were comparable between the 2 groups (P > .05). The estimated blood loss, abdominal drainage tube removal time, postoperative hospital stay, catheter removal time, and analgesic drug use were significantly lesser in the LPD group, when compared to the OPD group (P < .05). LPD is safe and feasible. Compared to OPD, LPD has less surgical trauma, less intraoperative bleeding, and faster postoperative recovery.

Comparison of laparoscopic and open pancreaticoduodenectomy for the treatment of distal cholangiocarcinoma: A propensity score matching analysis.

There are few studies comparing the oncological outcomes of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) for distal cholangiocarcinoma (DCC). Our objective was to assess the short-term efficacy and long-term survival of LPD and OPD in patients with DCC. The data of 124 DCC patients who underwent LPD or OPD at the Third Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University from May 2010 to May 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. Propensity score matching was performed to balance the two groups of baseline characteristics. After 1:1 matching, the overall survival (OS) of the two groups was compared by the Kaplan-Meier method. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses were used to identify independent predictors of OS. The original cohort consisted of 124 patients. Nineteen patients were excluded because of incomplete baseline or follow-up data, and the remaining 105 patients were divided into two cohorts (45 in the LPD group and 60 in the OPD group). The LPD group showed more favorable results in OS analysis (LPD vs. OPD, 56.4 [46.2-66.5] vs. 48.9 [36.4-61.4], months, P=0. 01). PSM analysis identified 30 pairs of patients, and differences between matching groups were still significant (LPD vs. OPD, 67.9[58.2-77.6] vs. 47.4[31.4-67.5], months, P=0.002). Moreover, the LPD group experienced less intraoperative bleeding (LPD vs. OPD, 292.67 vs. 519.17 mL, P=0.002). Univariate analysis showed that surgical modality (P=0.012), carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (P=0.043), carcinoembryonic antigen (P=0.003), neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (P=0.012), blood transfusion (P=0.031), clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (P<0.001) and lymphatic metastasis (P=0.004) were predictors of OS. Multivariate Cox analysis demonstrated that carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (P=0.048), carcinoembryonic antigen (P=0.031) and lymphatic metastasis (P=0.023) were independent predictive factors of OS. However, adjuvant therapy had no significant effect on the OS of DCC patients after radical pancreaticoduodenectomy (P>0.05). For DCC patients, LPD may be a more recommended procedure because of its advantages over OPD in terms of intraoperative bleeding and long-term survival.

Robotic approach mitigates the effect of major complications on survival after pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary cancer.

Major complications (MCs) after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) are a known independent predictor of worse oncologic outcomes. There are limited data on the effect of major complications on long-term outcomes after robotic PD (RPD). The aim of this study is to compare the effect of MC on overall (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) after RPD and open PD (OPD). This is a single-center, retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database of all patients undergoing PD for periampullary cancer including ampullary adenocarcinoma, distal cholangiocarcinoma, and duodenal carcinoma. Univariate analysis was performed on all clinical, pathologic, and treatment factors. MCs were defined as Clavien-Dindo ≥ grade 3. Kaplan-Maier survival analysis was performed with log-rank test for group comparison. Multivariable Cox regression analysis was used to identify factors associated with overall survival (OS) in both the OPD and RPD groups. A total of 190 patients with ampullary carcinoma (n = 98), cholangiocarcinoma (n = 55), and duodenal adenocarcinoma (n = 37) were examined over the study period with 61.1% (n = 116) undergoing RPD and 38.9% (n = 74) undergoing OPD. There was no significant difference in patient demographics between the RPD and OPD cohorts. Furthermore, R0 resection rates, tumor size, and lymph node involvement were similar between the RPD and OPD cohorts. OPD had higher rate of MC (40.5% vs 28.3% in RPD, p = 0.011) including clinically relevant pancreatic fistula (25.7% vs 8.6%, p = 0.001) and wound infection (34.5% vs 13.8%, p < 0.001). MCs were associated with a lower OS in the OPD cohort (HR = 2.18, 95%CI 1.0-4.55, p = 0.038). MCs were not associated with OS in the RPD cohort (HR = 1.55, 95%CI 0.87-2.76, p = 0.14). MCs are associated with worse patient outcomes after OPD but not after RPD. Robotic approach mitigates and possibly abrogates the negative effects of MCs on patient outcomes after PD for malignancy and is associated with improved adjuvant chemotherapy completion rates.

Pancreaticoduodenectomy for benign and premalignant pancreatic and ampullary disease: is robotic surgery the better approach?

The robotic platform is increasingly being utilized in pancreatic surgery, yet its overall merits and putative advantages remain to be adjudicated. We hypothesize that the benefits of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery are maximized in pancreatic benign and premalignant disease, in the setting of friable pancreatic tissue and small pancreatic duct. Retrospective analysis of our prospectively maintained pancreatic database of all consecutive patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) for benign or premalignant conditions between 2010 and 2020. Peri-operative outcomes and long-term complications were compared between robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD). One hundred and eighty eight (n = 188) patients met our inclusion criteria, of which 68 were OPD and 120 RPD. Malignant histologies were excluded. There were only minor differences in baseline characteristics between the two groups. Post-operative merits of the RPD included lower clinically relevant post-operative pancreatic fistula 10 (8.3%) vs 24 (35.3%), p < 0.001, fewer surgical site infections; 9 (7.5%) vs 11 (16.2%), p = 0.024, shorter operative time, greater lymph node yield; 29 (IQR 21, 38) vs 21 (IQR 13, 34), p = 0.001, and lower 90days mortality; 1 (0.8%) vs 4 (5.9%), p = 0.039. Rates of long-term complications were similar, exception made for a higher occurrence of small bowel obstruction (SBO) 2 (1.7%) vs 4 (5.9%), p = 0.031 and need for surgical intervention for SBO 0 (0.0%) vs 2 (2.9%), p = 0.019 in the OPD group. Our study suggests that RPD benefits include lower 90-day mortality, shorter LOS, and lower rates of selected complications compared to open pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Advantage of oncological outcome of robotic-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) in stage I pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas (PDAC)

Background: Robotic-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) has been widely performed in the treatment of pancreatic tumors. The oncologic outcome in the early stage of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas (PDAC) operated by RPD has not been evaluated. Methods: Clinical data of pathology confirmed stage I PDAC from January 2015 to December 2020 in Ruijin hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine was collected and retrospectively analyzed. Patients were divided into the open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) group and the RPD group. Clinicopathological data and prognosis data were compared and analyzed. Results: A total of 426 patients were enrolled in this study, including 342 patients in the OPD group and 84 patients in the RPD group. The baseline characteristics of both groups were equivalent. Incidence of R1 resection was significantly lower in RPD group (3 [3.6%] vs 40 [11.7%], P = .044). RPD group was associated with better disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) (DFS: Haszard Ratio [HR]: 0.681, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.491–0.945, P = .022; OS: HR: 0.667, 95% CI: 0.478–0.932, P = .017). T2 stage was associated with poor DFS and OS (DFS: HR: 1.471, 95% CI: 1.092–1.981, P = .011; OS: HR: 1.616, 95% CI: 1.209–2.160, P = .035). R1 resection was associated with poor OS (HR: 1.483, 95% CI: 1.028–2.140, P = .035) while adjuvant therapy was associated with better OS (HR: 0.589, 95% CI: 0.452–0.766, P &lt; .001). Kaplan–Meier estimate showed significantly longer DFS and OS in RPD group (DFS: P = .004; OS: P = .009). Conclusion: For stage I PDAC patients, RPD surgery achieved higher R0 resection rates and better DFS and OS. T1 stage was associated with better DFS. R0 resection and adjuvant therapy were the accesses to better OS.

Minimally invasive versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for distal bile duct cancer: an inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis of outcomes.

Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) has been extended to periampullary cancers, but the oncologic outcome of MIPD for distal bile duct cancer (DBDC) has not been confirmed yet. Patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) for DBDC of stage I-IIb from 2015 to 2019 at a tertiary referral center were identified and divided into open PD (OPD) and MIPD groups, the latter including laparoscopic and robotic procedures. Survival was compared between the two groups after inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) using predetermined factors, and exploratory mediation analysis was performed using surgery-derived outcomes. MIPD (n = 81) group had more female patients (46.9% vs 31.6%, p = 0.011) and longer operation time (366.2min vs. 279.1min, p < 0.001) than the OPD (n = 288) group before IPTW. Otherwise, intraoperative and immediate postoperative outcomes were comparable between the two groups. In oncologic outcomes, MIPD group showed comparable 3-year overall survival (78.2% vs 75.0%, p = 0.062) and recurrence-free survival (51.2% vs 53.4%, p = 0.871) rates with OPD group before IPTW, and MIPD was not related with survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0.61, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.29-1.26, p = 0.18) and recurrence (HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.67-1.53, p = 0.949) after IPTW with consideration of potential mediators. Sensitivity analysis using propensity score matching also showed similar results for survival (HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.32-1.44, p = 0.312) and recurrence (HR 1.12, 95% CI 0.67-1.88, p = 0.653). MIPD and OPD groups showed similar postoperative and oncologic outcomes. MIPD could be a considerable treatment option without oncological compromise in high-volume centers.

Surgical Approach does not Affect Return to Intended Oncologic Therapy Following Pancreaticoduodenectomy for Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: A Propensity-Matched Study.

The effect of minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD), including laparoscopic and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD and RPD, respectively), on compliance and time to return to intended oncologic therapy (RIOT) for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains unknown. Patients with nonmetastatic PDAC were analyzed in the National Cancer Database (NCDB). Three groups were matched per propensity score: open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) and MIPD, LPD and RPD, and converted and nonconverted patients. RIOT rates and time to RIOT were examined. A total of 14,135 patients were included: 11,834 (83.7%) underwent OPD and 2301 (16.3%) underwent MIPD. After score matching, RIOT rates (67.2 vs. 65.3%; p = 0.112) and RIOT within 8 weeks (57.7 vs. 56.4%; p = 0.276) were similar among MIPD and OPD groups, and approach was not a significant predictor of RIOT on multivariable regression. Neither RIOT nor time to RIOT were different among LPD and RPD groups (63.9 vs. 67.0%, and 58.4 vs. 56.9%, respectively). Compared with LPD, RPD was associated with lower conversion rates (HR 0.519; p < 0.001), and conversion was associated with longer median time to RIOT (10 vs. 8 weeks; p = 0.041). In this national cohort, approach did not impact RIOT rates or time to RIOT for patients with PDAC. While conversion was associated with longer median time to RIOT, readiness to commence adjuvant therapy was similar for LPD and RPD.

Short-term outcomes of robotic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy in elderly patients: A multicenter retrospective cohort study

BackgroundWith the advances in surgical techniques and perioperative management, the surgical indications for pancreaticoduodenectomy have been extended to elderly patients. Whether robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) is superior to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) in older patients remains uncertain. Thus, this study aimed to compare perioperative outcomes between RPD and OPD in elderly patients. MethodsThe demographics and perioperative outcomes of a consecutive series of elderly patients (aged ≥75 years) who underwent RPD or OPD at seven pancreatic centers in China between July 2011 and July 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. ResultsOf the 302 patients included in this study, 169 underwent RPD and 133 underwent OPD. The RPD group had a shorter operative time (OT) (264.3 vs. 278.2 min, P = 0.01) and less estimated blood loss (EBL) (100 (50 150) vs. 200 (150 300) mL, P < 0.001) than the OPD group. RPDs in 3 (1.8%) patients were converted to OPD. The postoperative length of stay (LOS) after RPD was significantly shorter than that after OPD (13.0 vs. 17.0 days, P < 0.001). No significant differences were found in the rates of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula, bile leakage, delayed gastric emptying, postoperative pancreatectomy hemorrhage, major morbidity, reoperation, 90-day readmission, or 90-day mortality between the two groups (P > 0.05). The multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that type 2 diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, postoperative hemorrhage, and cardiac events were independent risk factors for postoperative 90-day mortality. ConclusionsThis study demonstrated that RPD was comparable to OPD in terms of safety and feasibility in elderly patients with shorter OT, lower EBL, and shorter postoperative LOS. Surgical approach was not an independent risk factor for 90-day mortality.

Comparison of robotic and open pancreaticoduodenectomy for primary nonampullary duodenal adenocarcinoma: a retrospective cohort study.

Robotic surgery has been increasingly applied in pancreatic surgery and showed many advantages over conventional open surgery. The robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) is a surgical option for primary nonampullary duodenal adenocarcinoma (PNDA). However, whether RPD is superior to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) for PNDA has not been reported. The comparative study was designed to analyze the short- and long-term outcomes of RPD versus OPD on patients with PNDA. Demographics, perioperative, and survival outcomes among patients who underwent RPD (n = 49) versus OPD (n = 43) for PNDAs between January 2013 and March 2018 were collected and analyzed RESULTS: Demographic characteristics were comparable between the RPD group and the OPD group. The RPD group demonstrated a decreased estimated blood loss (100 vs. 200ml, p < 0.001), time to oral intake (4.0 vs. 4.0days, p = 0.04), and postoperative hospital stay (12.9 vs. 15.0days, p = 0.01) compared with the OPD group. However, no differences were observed between the two groups in terms of operative time and the rates of major complications, grade B and C POPF, PPH, grade B and C DGE, biliary fistular, reoperation, and 90-day readmission. No patient died within 90days. There were no significant differences in tumor size, differentiation, TNM stage, number of harvested lymph nodes, and the rates of nerve invasion, lymph node invasion, R0 resection, and the median overall survival between the two groups (p > 0.05) CONCLUSIONS: RPD is a safe, feasible, and effective treatment for PNDA compared with OPD and can be used as an alternative for surgeons in the treatment of PNDA. Further multicenter randomized controlled trials are needed to evaluate the effectiveness of RPD in patients with PNDA.