Robotic Distal Pancreatectomy

Background and Objective: Robotic distal pancreatectomy (DP) is an emerging attractive approach, but its role compared with laparoscopic or open surgery remains unclear. Benchmark values are novel and objective tools for such comparisons. The aim of this study was to identify benchmark cutoffs for many outcome parameters for DP with or without splenectomy beyond the learning curve. Methods: This study analyzed outcomes from international expert centers from patients undergoing robotic DP for malignant or benign lesions. After excluding the first 10 cases in each center to reduce the effect of the learning curve, consecutive patients were included from the start of robotic DP up to June 2020. Benchmark patients had no significant comorbidities. Benchmark cutoff values were derived from the 75th or the 25th percentile of the median values of all benchmark centers. Benchmark values were compared with a laparoscopic control group from 4 high-volume centers and published open DP landmark series. Results: Sixteen centers contributed 755 cases, whereof 345 benchmark patients (46%) were included the analysis. Benchmark cutoffs included: operation time ≤300 minutes, conversion rate ≤3%, clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula ≤32%, 3 months major complication rate ≤26.7%, and lymph node retrieval ≥9. The comprehensive complication index at 3 months was ≤8.7 without deterioration thereafter. Compared with robotic DP, laparoscopy had significantly higher conversion rates (5×) and overall complications, while open DP was associated with more blood loss and longer hospital stay. Conclusion: This first benchmark study demonstrates that robotic DP provides superior postoperative outcomes compared with laparoscopic and open DP. Robotic DP may be expected to become the approach of choice in minimally invasive DP.

[1]  M. Büchler,et al.  Learning Curves in Open, Laparoscopic, and Robotic Pancreatic Surgery , 2022, Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches.

[2]  Ho‐Seong Han,et al.  Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma – Novel Benchmark Values for Surgical and Oncological Outcomes From 24 Expert Centers , 2021, Annals of surgery.

[3]  D. Sleeman,et al.  Does a Laparoscopic Approach to Distal Pancreatectomy for Cancer Contribute to Optimal Adjuvant Chemotherapy Utilization? , 2021, Annals of Surgical Oncology.

[4]  R. Caruso,et al.  Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies: A systematic review and meta‐analysis on costs and perioperative outcome , 2021, The international journal of medical robotics + computer assisted surgery : MRCAS.

[5]  U. Boggi,et al.  Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: multicentre analysis. , 2021, The British journal of surgery.

[6]  B. Müller-Stich,et al.  Robotic-assisted cholecystectomy is superior to laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the initial training for surgical novices in an ex vivo porcine model: a randomized crossover study , 2021, Surgical Endoscopy.

[7]  A. Zureikat,et al.  Perioperative and oncologic outcomes of open, laparoscopic, and robotic distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma , 2021, Updates in Surgery.

[8]  U. Boggi,et al.  Robotic vs open distal pancreatectomy: A multi‐institutional matched comparison analysis , 2020, Journal of hepato-biliary-pancreatic sciences.

[9]  F. Daams,et al.  Outcomes of a Multicenter Training Program in Robotic Pancreatoduodenectomy (LAELAPS-3) , 2020, Annals of surgery.

[10]  M. Dijkgraaf,et al.  Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy: an individual patient data meta-analysis of two randomized controlled trials. , 2020, HPB : the official journal of the International Hepato Pancreato Biliary Association.

[11]  U. Boggi,et al.  Defining Benchmark Outcomes for Pancreatoduodenectomy With Portomesenteric Venous Resection. , 2020, Annals of surgery.

[12]  B. Müller-Stich,et al.  Training and learning curves in minimally invasive pancreatic surgery: from simulation to mastery , 2020 .

[13]  M. Puhan,et al.  How to Establish Benchmarks for Surgical Outcomes? , 2020, Annals of surgery.

[14]  A. Zureikat,et al.  National Trends in Robotic Pancreas Surgery , 2020, Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery.

[15]  B. Björnsson,et al.  Comparison of the duration of hospital stay after laparoscopic or open distal pancreatectomy: randomized controlled trial , 2020, The British journal of surgery.

[16]  S. Botden,et al.  Robot assisted versus laparoscopic suturing learning curve in a simulated setting , 2019, Surgical Endoscopy.

[17]  D. Raptis,et al.  Defining Benchmark Outcomes for ALPPS. , 2019, Annals of surgery.

[18]  H. Pitt,et al.  Optimal Pancreatic Surgery: Are We Making Progress in North America? , 2019, Annals of surgery.

[19]  K. Roberts,et al.  Comparison of robotic vs laparoscopic vs open distal pancreatectomy. A systematic review and network meta-analysis. , 2019, HPB : the official journal of the International Hepato Pancreato Biliary Association.

[20]  U. Boggi,et al.  Benchmarks in Pancreatic Surgery: A Novel Tool for Unbiased Outcome Comparisons. , 2019, Annals of surgery.

[21]  A. Moser,et al.  Procedure-specific Training for Robot-assisted Distal Pancreatectomy. , 2019, Annals of surgery.

[22]  M. Dijkgraaf,et al.  Laparoscopic versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic or periampullary tumours (LEOPARD-2): a multicentre, patient-blinded, randomised controlled phase 2/3 trial. , 2019, The lancet. Gastroenterology & hepatology.

[23]  F. Lambreton,et al.  Trends in Robotic Pancreaticoduodenectomy and Distal Pancreatectomy. , 2019, Journal of laparoendoscopic & advanced surgical techniques. Part A.

[24]  J. Xiong,et al.  The oncological safety in minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis , 2019, Scientific Reports.

[25]  M. Puhan,et al.  Improving surgical outcomes through benchmarking , 2018, The British journal of surgery.

[26]  A. Coratti,et al.  Robotic distal pancreatectomy with selective closure of pancreatic duct: surgical outcomes , 2018, Updates in Surgery.

[27]  J. Barkun,et al.  Toward a Consensus on Centralization in Surgery , 2018, Annals of surgery.

[28]  R. Shridhar,et al.  Outcomes associated with robotic approach to pancreatic resections. , 2018, Journal of gastrointestinal oncology.

[29]  Shin-E Wang,et al.  Robotic distal pancreatectomy: Comparison of spleen‐preservation by the Warshaw technique and splenectomy , 2018, The international journal of medical robotics + computer assisted surgery : MRCAS.

[30]  J. Marescaux,et al.  Which method of distal pancreatectomy is cost-effective among open, laparoscopic, or robotic surgery? , 2018, Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition.

[31]  B. Lovasik,et al.  Pancreatectomy and body mass index: an international evaluation of cumulative postoperative complications using the comprehensive complications index. , 2018, HPB : the official journal of the International Hepato Pancreato Biliary Association.

[32]  A. Meagher,et al.  Is it right to ignore learning‐curve patients? Laparoscopic colorectal trials , 2017, ANZ journal of surgery.

[33]  M. Puhan,et al.  The Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI®): Added Value and Clinical Perspectives 3 Years “Down the Line” , 2017, Annals of surgery.

[34]  Y. Fong,et al.  Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy: greatest benefit for the frail , 2017, Surgical Endoscopy.

[35]  D. Gouma,et al.  The 2016 update of the International Study Group (ISGPS) definition and grading of postoperative pancreatic fistula: 11 Years After , 2017, Surgery.

[36]  M. Puhan,et al.  Defining Benchmarks for Major Liver Surgery: A multicenter Analysis of 5202 Living Liver Donors , 2016, Annals of surgery.

[37]  Shin-E Wang,et al.  Impact of Obesity on Robot-Assisted Distal Pancreatectomy. , 2016, Journal of laparoendoscopic & advanced surgical techniques. Part A.

[38]  B. Menahem,et al.  Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy - The first meta-analysis. , 2016, HPB : the official journal of the International Hepato Pancreato Biliary Association.

[39]  C. Chan,et al.  First experience with robotic spleen-saving, vessel-preserving distal pancreatectomy in Singapore: a report of three consecutive cases. , 2016, Singapore medical journal.

[40]  U. Boggi,et al.  The learning curve in robotic distal pancreatectomy , 2015, Updates in Surgery.

[41]  A. Ayav,et al.  Short-term perioperative outcomes after robot-assisted and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy , 2014, Journal of Robotic Surgery.

[42]  J. Barkun,et al.  The Comprehensive Complication Index: A Novel Continuous Scale to Measure Surgical Morbidity , 2013, Annals of surgery.

[43]  P. Giulianotti,et al.  Robotic-assisted pancreatic surgery , 2013, Journal of hepato-biliary-pancreatic sciences.

[44]  A. Moser,et al.  Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Distal Pancreatectomy Is Superior to the Laparoscopic Technique , 2013, Annals of surgery.

[45]  M. Makary,et al.  Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy Is Associated With Significantly Less Overall Morbidity Compared to the Open Technique: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis , 2012, Annals of surgery.

[46]  D. Sahani,et al.  Twenty-Three Years of the Warshaw Operation for Distal Pancreatectomy With Preservation of the Spleen , 2011, Annals of surgery.

[47]  A. Warshaw.  Distal pancreatectomy with preservation of the spleen , 2010, Journal of hepato-biliary-pancreatic sciences.

[48]  C. Kang,et al.  Conventional laparoscopic and robot-assisted spleen-preserving pancreatectomy: does da Vinci have clinical advantages? , 2010, Surgical Endoscopy.

[49]  Pietro Addeo,et al.  Robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreatic surgery: single-surgeon experience , 2010, Surgical Endoscopy.

[50]  D. Bentrem,et al.  A prospective single institution comparison of peri-operative outcomes for laparoscopic and open distal pancreatectomy. , 2009, Surgery.

[51]  M. Makuuchi,et al.  The Clavien-Dindo Classification of Surgical Complications: Five-Year Experience , 2009, Annals of surgery.

[52]  A. Parikh,et al.  Left-sided Pancreatectomy: A Multicenter Comparison of Laparoscopic and Open Approaches , 2008, Annals of surgery.

[53]  D. Gouma,et al.  Delayed gastric emptying (DGE) after pancreatic surgery: a suggested definition by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS). , 2007, Surgery.

[54]  S. Pocock,et al.  The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. , 2007, Preventive medicine.

[55]  Abe Fingerhut,et al.  Postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH): an International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) definition. , 2007, Surgery.

[56]  H. Friess,et al.  Distal Pancreatectomy: Risk Factors for Surgical Failure in 302 Consecutive Cases , 2007, Annals of surgery.

[57]  N. Carrère,et al.  Spleen-preserving Distal Pancreatectomy with Excision of Splenic Artery and Vein: A Case-matched Comparison with Conventional Distal Pancreatectomy with Splenectomy , 2007, World Journal of Surgery.

[58]  N. Demartines,et al.  Classification of Surgical Complications: A New Proposal With Evaluation in a Cohort of 6336 Patients and Results of a Survey , 2004, Annals of Surgery.

[59]  G. Caravaglios,et al.  Robotics in general surgery: personal experience in a large community hospital. , 2003, Archives of surgery.

[60]  Benjamin R. Lee,et al.  Comparison of robotic versus laparoscopic skills: is there a difference in the learning curve? , 2002, Urology.

[61]  A. Cuschieri,et al.  Laparoscopic distal 70% pancreatectomy and splenectomy for chronic pancreatitis. , 1996, Annals of surgery.

[62]  L. Jiao,et al.  Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy a systematic review and meta-analysis. , 2019, European journal of surgical oncology : the journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology.

[63]  J. Veress.  Eine Nadel für gefahrlose Anwendung des Pneumoperitoneums , 1961 .