Robotic Pancreaticoduodenectomy Research Articles

What are the true benefits of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy for patients with pancreatic cancer?

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is a devastating disease, and multimodal treatment including high quality surgery can improve survival outcomes. Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) has evolved with minimally-invasive approaches including the implementation of robotic PD (RPD). In this key paper evaluation, we discuss the findings of Kalabin et al. whilst evaluating the 'true benefits' of RPD compared to the open approach for the treatment of PDAC. We have performed a mini-review of studies assessing PD approaches and compared intraoperative characteristics, perioperative outcomes, post-operative complications and oncological outcomes. RPD was associated with similar or longer operative times, and reduced intra-operative blood loss. Perioperative pain scores were significantly lower with shorter lengths of stay with the robotic approach. With regards to post-operative complications, post-operative pancreatic fistula rates were similar, with lower rates of clinically relevant fistulas after RPD. Oncological outcomes were comparable or superior in terms of margin status, lymph node harvest, time to chemotherapy and survival between RPD and OPD.In conclusion, RPD allows safe implementation of minimally-invasive PD. The current literature shows that RPD is either equivalent, or superior in certain aspects to OPD. Once more centers gain sufficient experience, RPD is likely to demonstrate clear superiority over alternative approaches.

Disentangling seemingly contradictory results of the first two randomised controlled trials comparing open and robotic pancreatoduodenectomy

Disentangling seemingly contradictory results of the first two randomised controlled trials comparing open and robotic pancreatoduodenectomy

Feasibility and efficacy of minimally invasive limited resection for primary duodenal gastrointestinal stromal tumors: a retrospective cohort study

BackgroundThe primary duodenal gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) is a rare type of gastrointestinal tract tumor. Limited resection (LR) has been increasingly performed for duodenal GIST. However, only a few studies reported minimally invasive limited resection (MI-LR) for primary duodenal GIST.MethodsThe clinical data of 33 patients with primary duodenal GIST from December 2014 to February 2024 were retrospectively analyzed including 23 who received MI-LR and 10 who received laparoscopic or robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD/RPD).ResultsA total of 33 patients with primary duodenal GIST were enrolled and retrospectively reviewed. Patients received MI-LR exhibited less OT (280 vs. 388.5min, P=0.004), EBL (100 vs. 450ml, P<0.001), and lower morbidity of postoperative complications (52.2% vs. 100%, P=0.013) than LPD/RPD. Patients received LPD/RPD burdened more aggressive tumors with larger size (P=0.047), higher classification (P<0.001), and more mitotic count/50 HPF(P=0.005) compared with patients received MI-LR. The oncological outcomes were similar in MI-LR group and LPD/RPD group.All the patients underwent MI-LR with no conversion, including 12 cases of LLR and 11 cases of RLR. All of the clinicopathological data of the patients were similar in both groups. The median OT was 280(210-480) min and 257(180-450) min, and the median EBL was 100(20-1000) mL and 100(20-200) mL in the LLR and the RLR group separately. The postoperative complications mainly included DGE (LLR 4 cases, 33.4% and RLR 4 cases, 36.4%), intestinal fistula (LLR 2 cases, 16.7%, and RLR 0 case), gastrointestinal hemorrhage (LLR 0 case and RLR 1 case, 9.1%), and intra-abdominal infection (LLR 3 cases, 25.0% and RLR 1 case, 9.1%). The median postoperative length of hospitalization was 19.5(7-46) days in the LLR group and 19(9-38) days in the RLR group. No anastomotic stenosis, local recurrence or distant metastasis was observed during the follow-up period in the two groups.ConclusionsMinimally invasive limited resection is an optional treatment for primary duodenal GIST with satisfactory short-term and long-term oncological outcomes.

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 (≥ 80years 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.

ASO Author Reflections: Advancing the Frontiers of Robotic Pancreaticoduodenectomy: Where are We Headed?

ASO Author Reflections: Advancing the Frontiers of Robotic Pancreaticoduodenectomy: Where are We Headed?

Perioperative textbook outcomes of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy: a multicenter retrospective cohort analysis in a Korean minimally invasive pancreatic surgery registry.

The aim of this study is to investigate the perioperative composite textbook outcomes of pancreatic surgery after minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD). The cohort study was conducted across 10 institutions and included 1552 patients who underwent MIPD registered with the Korean Study Group on Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Surgery between May 2007 and April 2020. We analyzed perioperative textbook outcomes of pancreatic surgery after MIPD. Subgroup analyses were performed to assess outcomes based on the hospital volume of MIPD. Among all patients, 21.8% underwent robotic pancreatoduodenectomy. High-volume centers (performing >20 MIPD/year) performed 88.1% of the procedures. The incidence of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula was 11.5%. Severe complications (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥IIIa) occurred in 15.1% of the cases. The 90-day mortality rate was 0.8%. The mean hospital stay was 13.7 days. Textbook outcomes of pancreatic surgery success were achieved in 60.4% of patients, with higher rates observed in high-volume centers than in low-volume centers (62.2% vs. 44.7%, P<0.001). High-volume centers exhibited significantly lower conversion rates (5.4% vs. 12.5%, P=0.001), lower 90-day mortality (0.5% vs. 2.7%, P=0.001), and lower 90-day readmission rates (4.5% vs. 9.6%, P=0.006) than those low-volume centers. MIPD could be performed safely with permissible perioperative outcomes, including textbook outcomes of pancreatic surgery, particularly in experienced centers. The findings of this study provided valuable insights for guiding surgical treatment decisions in periampullary disease.

Deconstructing the Operative Times of Robotic Pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Despite numerous benefits offered, robotic procedures take longer than "open" procedures. With the intent to reduce operative duration, we examined the degree each operative step contributes to operative duration in robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. With IRB approval, we prospectively followed 88 patients to determine the duration of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy, and the duration of 12 key steps. Each operative step was regressed against the operation date, from most distant to most recent operation date. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD) for illustrative purposes. Patients were 73 (71 ± 10.2)years old; 53% were men. Total time patient spent in the operating room was 471 (488 ± 93.3)minutes. Total operative time was 399 (421 ± 90.7)minutes. Total console time was 293 (297 ± 68.0)minutes. The 3 longest portions of the operation were (1) mobilization of the specimen and specimen extraction; (2) construction of the duodenojejunostomy; and (3) closure. A third of the operative time is spent off the console. Over half of the steps required more than 20minutes each to complete. Since robotic operations are associated with shorter LOS and without increased complication rates relative to "open" operations, salutary benefit can be gained by decreasing operative times of robotic procedures. Operative duration is an important metric that needs to be addressed. We need to target the most time-consuming steps, and break them into smaller pieces, to reach optimal efficiency and provide the benefits of decreased operative duration to the patients, hospitals, and providers.

Outcomes after pancreaticoduodenectomy with or without preoperative hyperbaric oxygen therapy

Background: Hyperbaric oxygen (HBO2 ) therapy is an alternative method against the deleterious effects of ischemic/reperfusion (I/R) injury and its inflammatory response. This study assessed the effect of preoperative HBO2 on patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy. Study design: Patients were randomized via a computer-generated algorithm. Patients in the HBO2 cohort received two sessions of HBO2 the evening before and the morning of surgery. Measurements of inflammatory mediators and self-assessed pain scales were determined pre-and postoperatively. In addition, perioperative variables and long-term survival were collected and analyzed. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD). Results: 33 patients were included; 17 received preoperative HBO2 , and 16 did not. There were no intraoperative or postoperative statistical differences between patients with or without preoperative HBO2 . Erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), IL-6, and IL-10 increased slightly before returning to normal, while TGF-alpha decreased before increasing. However, there were no differences with or without HBO2 . At postoperative day 30, the pain level measured with VAS score (Visual Analog Score) was lower after HBO2 (1 ± 1.3 vs. 3 ± 3.0, p=0.05). Eleven (76%) patients in the HBO2 cohort and 12 (75%) patients in the non-HBO2 had malignant pathology. The percentage of positive lymph nodes in the HBO2 was 7% compared to 14% in the non-HBO2 (p&lt;0.001). Overall survival was inferior after HBO2 compared to the non-HBO2 (p=0.03). Conclusion: Preoperative HBO2 did not affect perioperative outcomes or significantly change the inflammatory mediators for patients undergoing robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. Long-term survival was inferior after preoperative HBO2 . Further randomized controlled studies are required to assess the full impact of this treatment on patients’ prognosis.

The impact of preoperative biliary drainage on postoperative healthcare-associated infections and clinical outcomes following pancreaticoduodenectomy: a ten-year retrospective analysis

BackgroundPancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is a complex procedure and easily accompanied by healthcare-associated infections (HAIs). This study aimed to assess the impact of PBD on postoperative infections and clinical outcomes in PD patients.MethodsThe retrospective cohort study were conducted in a tertiary hospital from January 2013 to December 2022. Clinical and epidemiological data were collected from HAIs surveillance system and analyzed.ResultsAmong 2842 patients who underwent PD, 247 (8.7%) were diagnosed with HAIs, with surgical site infection being the most frequent type (n = 177, 71.7%). A total of 369 pathogenic strains were detected, with Klebsiella pneumoniae having the highest proportion, followed by Enterococcu and Escherichia coli. Although no significant association were observed generally between PBD and postoperative HAIs, subgroup analysis revealed that PBD was associated with postoperative HAIs in patients undergoing robotic PD (aRR = 2.174; 95% CI:1.011–4.674; P = 0.047). Prolonging the interval between PBD and PD could reduce postoperative HAIs in patients with cholangiocarcinoma (≥4 week: aRR = 0.292, 95% CI 0.100–0.853; P = 0.024) and robotic PD (≤2 week: aRR = 3.058, 95% CI 1.178–7.940; P = 0.022). PBD was also found to increase transfer of patients to ICU (aRR = 1.351; 95% CI 1.119–1.632; P = 0.002), extended length of stay (P < 0.001) and postoperative length of stay (P = 0.004).ConclusionPBD does not exhibit a significant association with postoperative HAIs or other outcomes. However, the implementation of robotic PD, along with a suitable extension of the interval between PBD and PD, appear to confer advantages concerning patients’ physiological recuperation. These observations suggest potential strategies that may contribute to enhanced patient outcomes.

Robotic Versus Open Pancreatoduodenectomy With Vein Resection and Reconstruction: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

Objective: This study aimed to compare robotic pancreatoduodenectomy with vein resection (PD-VR) based on the incidence of severe postoperative complications (SPC). Background: Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy has been gaining momentum in recent years. Vein resection is frequently required in this operation, but no study has compared robotic and open PD-VR using a matched analysis. Methods: This was an intention-to-treat study designed to demonstrate the noninferiority of robotic to open PD-VR (2011–2021) based on SPC. To achieve a power of 80% (noninferiority margin:10%; α error: 0.05; ß error: 0.20), a 1:1 propensity score-matched analysis required 35 pairs. Results: Of the 151 patients with PD-VR (open = 115, robotic = 36), 35 procedures per group were compared. Elective conversion to open surgery was required in 1 patient with robotic PD-VR (2.9%). One patient in both groups experienced partial vein thrombosis. SPC occurred in 7 (20.0%) and 6 patients (17.1%) in the robotic and open PD-VR groups, respectively (P = 0.759; OR: 1.21 [0.36–4.04]). Three patients died after robotic PD-VR (8.6%) and none died after open PD-VR (P = 0.239). Robotic PD-VR was associated with longer operative time (611.1 ± 13.9 minutes vs 529.0 ± 13.0 minutes; P &lt; 0.0001), more type 2 vein resection (28.6% vs 5.7%; P = 0.0234) and less type 3 vein resection (31.4% vs 71.4%; P = 0.0008), longer vein occlusion time (30 [25.3–78.3] minutes vs 15 [8–19.5] minutes; P = 0.0098), less blood loss (450 [200–750] mL vs 733 [500–1070.3] mL; P = 0.0075), and fewer blood transfusions (intraoperative: 14.3% vs 48.6%; P = 0.0041) (perioperative: 14.3% vs 60.0%; P = 0.0001). Conclusions: In this study, robotic PD-VR was noninferior to open PD-VR for SPC. Robotic and open PD-VR need to be compared in randomized controlled trials.

Robotic Pancreaticoduodenectomy with 'SMA-First Approach (Posterior and Right Medial)' and 'Triangle Operation'.

Notable improvements in pancreatic cancer surgery have been due to utilization of the superior mesenteric artery (SMA)-first approach1 and triangle operation (clearance of triangle tissue between origin of SMA and celiac artery).2 The SMA-first approach was originally defined to assess resectability before taking the irreversible surgical steps. However, in the present era, resectability is judged by the preoperative radiology, and the benefit of the SMA-first approach is by improving the R0 resection rate and reducing blood loss. The basic principle is to identify the SMA at its origin and in the distal part, to guide the plane of uncinate dissection. This video demonstrates the combination of the posterior and right medial SMA-first approach along with triangle clearance during robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD). The technique consisted of early dissection of SMA from the posterior aspect, by performing a Kocher maneuver using the 'posterior SMA-first approach'. The origin of the celiac artery, along with the SMA, was defined early in the surgery. During uncinate process dissection, the 'right/medial uncinate approach' was used to approach the SMA. 'Level 3 systematic mesopancreatic dissection' was performed along the SMA,3 culminating in the 'triangle operation'.2 RESULTS: The procedure was performed within 600min, with a blood loss of 150mL and no intraoperative or postoperative complications. The final histopathology report showed a moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma (pT2, pN2), with all resection margins free. The standardized technique of the SMA-first approach and triangle clearance during RPD is demonstrated in the video. Prospective studies should further evaluate the benefits of this procedure.

O84: A systematic review of pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer in randomised control trials to examine variations in operative technique

Abstract Background Pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) is a complex surgical intervention comprising multiple components which, when delivered differently, can impact outcomes, introduce bias into randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and impair accurate interpretation of results. This study aimed to systematically explore and summarise variation in PD description and standardisation amongst contemporary RCTs in pancreas surgery. Methods Systematic literature searches for RCTs of PD were undertaken from 2020 to 2023. RCTs including robotic PD, or other types of pancreas resection (e.g. total, distal), were excluded. An established methodological framework was used to deconstruct the technical aspects of PD were deconstructed into constituent components (pre-operative considerations, before skin incision, incision, dissection, resection, haemostasis, reconstruction, insertion of adjuncts, closure and after closure). Trial reports and protocols were scrutinised to examine whether the components/steps were described, and whether (and how) adherence was assessed. Results Of 83 screened articles, 29 RCTs were included, reporting on 3440 patients across 16 countries (1 trial compared pre-operative interventions, 18 trials compared intra-operative interventions, and 10 trials compared post-operative interventions). Forty-one PD steps were identified. No studies described all steps and five did not describe any. Fifteen component parts were described in one RCT. Only three RCTs reported that delivery of PD was recorded and assessed, using intra-operative photographs in all cases. Conclusions In a contemporary series of RCTs evaluating PD, descriptions of the procedure were inadequate. Clear descriptions of PD using pre-existing methodological frameworks in future trials are warranted to improve outcomes, decrease bias and facilitate cross-RCT comparisons in systematic reviews.

Defining the learning curve for robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy for a single surgeon following experience with laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) has a learning curve of approximately 30-250 cases to reach proficiency. The learning curve for laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) at Duke University was previously defined as 50 cases. This study describes the RPD learning curve for a single surgeon following experience with LPD. LPD and RPD were retrospectively analyzed. Continuous pathologic and perioperative metrics were compared and learning curve were defined with respect to operative time using CUSUM analysis. Seventeen LPD and 69 RPD were analyzed LPD had an inverted learning curve possibly accounting for proficiency attained during the surgeon's fellowship and acquisition of new skills coinciding with more complex patient selection. The learning curve for RPD had three phases: accelerated early experience (cases 1-10), skill consolidation (cases 11-40), and improvement (cases 41-69), marked by reduction in operative time. Compared to LPD, RPD had shorter operative time (379 vs 479min, p < 0.005), less EBL (250 vs 500, p < 0.02), and similar R0 resection. RPD also had improved LOS (7 vs 10days, p < 0.007), and lower rates of surgical site infection (10% vs 47%, p < 0.002), DGE (19% vs 47%, p < 0.03), and readmission (13% vs 41%, p < 0.02). Experience in LPD may shorten the learning curve for RPD. The gap in surgical quality and perioperative outcomes between LPD and RPD will likely widen as exposure to robotics in General Surgery, Hepatopancreaticobiliary, and Surgical Oncology training programs increase.

The development of a deep learning model for automated segmentation of the robotic pancreaticojejunostomy.

Minimally invasive surgery provides an unprecedented opportunity to review video for assessing surgical performance. Surgical video analysis is time-consuming and expensive. Deep learning provides an alternative for analysis. Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) is a complex and morbid operation. Surgeon technical performance of pancreaticojejunostomy (PJ) has been associated with postoperative pancreatic fistula. In this work, we aimed to utilize deep learning to automatically segment PJ RPD videos. This was a retrospective review of prospectively collected videos from 2011 to 2022 that were in libraries at tertiary referral centers, including 111 PJ videos. Each frame of a robotic PJ video was categorized based on 6 tasks. A 3D convolutional neural network was trained for frame-level visual feature extraction and classification. All the videos were manually annotated for the start and end of each task. Of the 100 videos assessed, 60 videos were used for the training the model, 10 for hyperparameter optimization, and 30 for the testing of performance. All the frames were extracted (6 frames/second) and annotated. The accuracy and mean per-class F1 scores were 88.01% and 85.34% for tasks. The deep learning model performed well for automated segmentation of PJ videos. Future work will focus on skills assessment and outcome prediction.

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

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. 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). 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. 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.

Educational quality of Robotic Whipple videos on YouTube

BackgroundVideos on Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) may be watched by surgeons learning RPD. This study sought to appraise the educational quality of RPD videos on YouTube. MethodsOne hundred videos showing RPD or ‘Robotic Whipple’ were assessed using validated scales (LAP-VEGaS & Consensus Statement Score (CSS)). The association between the scores and characteristics of the video (e.g. order of appearance, provider type, etc.) was assessed. The minimum number of videos required to cumulatively cover the entire LAP-VEGaS and CSS was also noted. ResultsThe videos were of variable quality; median LAP-VEGaS = 0.67 (0.17–0.94), median CSS = 0.45 (0.29–0.53). There was no association between the educational quality of the videos and their order of appearance, view counts, provider type, length or country of origin. Videos lacked information such as patient consent (100%), potential pitfalls (97%) or surgeon credentials (84%). The first 29 videos cumulatively met all the criteria of CSS and LAP-VEGaS scores except for reporting consent. ConclusionYouTube videos on RPD are of variable quality, without any recognised predictors of quality, and miss important safety information. An impractical number of videos need to be watched to cumulatively fulfil educational criteria. There is a need for high-quality, peer-reviewed videos that adhere to educational principles.

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 30days 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.

The weight of BMI in impacting postoperative and oncologic outcomes in pancreaticoduodenectomy is attenuated by a robotic approach.

This study was undertaken to observe the effect of body mass index (BMI) on perioperative outcomes and survival when comparing robotic vs 'open' pancreaticoduodenectomy. With IRB approval, we prospectively followed 505 consecutive patients who underwent either robotic or 'open' pancreaticoduodenectomy from 2012 to 2021. For illustrative purposes, patients were separated based on the Center for Disease Control and Prevention BMI table but regression analysis was utilized to identify significant relationships involving BMI. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD). Significance was determined at p ≤ 0.05. 205 and 300 patients underwent 'open' and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy, respectively. Neither sex nor age correlated with BMI in patients undergoing 'open' nor robotic operation. Operative duration correlated with increasing BMI in each operational approach, which was statistically significant for those receiving the 'open' operation (p = 0.02). There were statistically significantly fewer lymph nodes harvested with rising BMI in patients that had an 'open' operation (p = 0.01), but no such difference was found in patients undergoing the robotic approach. Length of stay (LOS) and in-hospital mortality were statistically significantly associated with rising BMI when an 'open' operation was undertaken (p = 0.02 and p = 0.0002, respectively) but not when the robotic platform was utilized. Patients with higher BMI had significantly longer operative duration, smaller lymph node harvest, greater LOS, and increased in-hospital mortality rate when undergoing 'open' pancreaticoduodenectomy, but not robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. Thus, the robotic platform may attenuate the increased technical and oncologic difficulties associated with a greater BMI in patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy.

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.

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

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