Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy and laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy with robotic reconstruction: single-surgeon experience and technical notes

Purpose Despite the increasing number of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomies, laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) and LPD with robotic reconstruction (LPD-RR) are still valuable surgical options for minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD). This study introduces the surgical techniques, tips, and outcomes of our experience with LPD and LPD-RR. Methods Between March 2014 and July 2021, 122 and 48 patients underwent LPD and LPD-RR respectively, at CHA Bundang Medical Center in Korea. The operative settings, procedures, and trocar placements were identical in both approaches; however, different trocars were used. We introduced our techniques of retraction methods for Kocherization and uncinate process dissection, pancreatic reconstruction, pancreatic division, and protection using the round ligament. The perioperative surgical outcomes of LPD and LPD-RR were compared. Results Baseline demographics of patients in the LPD and LPD-RR groups were comparable, but the LPD group had older age (65.5 ± 11.6 years vs. 60.0 ± 14.1 years, p = 0.009) and lesser preoperative chemotherapy (15.6% vs. 35.4%, p = 0.008). The proportion of malignant disease was similar (LPD group, 86.1% vs. LPD-RR group, 83.3%; p = 0.759). Perioperative outcomes were also comparable, including operative time, estimated blood loss, clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (LPD group, 9.0% vs. LPD-RR group, 10.4%; p = 0.684), and major postoperative complication rates (LPD group, 14.8% vs. LPD-RR group, 6.2%; p = 0.082). Conclusion Both LPD and LPR-RR can be safely performed by experienced surgeons with acceptable surgical outcomes. Further investigations are required to evaluate the objective benefits of robotic surgical systems in MIPD and establish widely acceptable standardized MIPD techniques.

[1]  S. Choi,et al.  Self-traction Method for Uncinate Process Dissection During Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy , 2022, Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery.

[2]  N. Syn,et al.  Outcomes of laparoscopic, robotic, and open pancreatoduodenectomy: A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and propensity-score matched studies. , 2021, Surgery.

[3]  Wei Cheng,et al.  Laparoscopic versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic or periampullary tumours: a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial. , 2021, The lancet. Gastroenterology & hepatology.

[4]  U. Boggi,et al.  Learning curve of three European centers in laparoscopic, hybrid laparoscopic, and robotic pancreatoduodenectomy , 2021, Surgical Endoscopy.

[5]  B. Peng,et al.  Wrapping the stump of the gastroduodenal artery using the ligamentum teres hepatis during laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a center’s preliminary experience , 2021, BMC Surgery.

[6]  Ho‐Seong Han,et al.  International expert consensus on laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy. , 2020, Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition.

[7]  Jin‐Young Jang,et al.  Perioperative and oncologic outcome of robot-assisted minimally invasive (hybrid laparoscopic and robotic) pancreatoduodenectomy: based on pancreatic fistula risk score and cancer/staging matched comparison with open pancreatoduodenectomy , 2020, Surgical Endoscopy.

[8]  W. Qiu,et al.  Short-term Outcomes After Robot-Assisted vs Open Pancreaticoduodenectomy After the Learning Curve , 2020, JAMA surgery.

[9]  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.

[10]  F. Burdío,et al.  Comparison of Perioperative Outcomes Between Laparoscopic and Open Approach for Pancreatoduodenectomy: The PADULAP Randomized Controlled Trial , 2018, Annals of surgery.

[11]  M. Choti,et al.  Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: oncological outcomes , 2018, Surgical Endoscopy.

[12]  D. Xiu,et al.  Pancreatic duct obstruction after pancreaticojejunostomy: implications for early prediction and prevention of long-term pancreatic complications , 2018, BMC Gastroenterology.

[13]  A. Singh,et al.  Duct‐to‐mucosa versus dunking techniques of pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy: Do we need more trials? A systematic review and meta‐analysis with trial sequential analysis , 2018, Journal of surgical oncology.

[14]  K. Matsuo,et al.  Randomized clinical trial of duct‐to‐mucosa versus invagination pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreatoduodenectomy , 2018, The British journal of surgery.

[15]  P. Senthilnathan,et al.  Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for periampullary tumours , 2017, The British journal of surgery.

[16]  M. Choti,et al.  Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy: a NSQIP Analysis , 2017, Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery.

[17]  H. Pitt,et al.  Minimally invasive hepatopancreatobiliary surgery in North America: an ACS-NSQIP analysis of predictors of conversion for laparoscopic and robotic pancreatectomy and hepatectomy. , 2017, HPB : the official journal of the International Hepato Pancreato Biliary Association.

[18]  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.

[19]  L. Guittet,et al.  Pancreaticogastrostomy is superior to pancreaticojejunostomy for prevention of pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. , 2015, Annals of surgery.

[20]  A. Nakao,et al.  Use of omentum or falciform ligament does not decrease complications after pancreaticoduodenectomy: nationwide survey of the Japanese Society of Pancreatic Surgery. , 2012, Surgery.

[21]  C. Kang,et al.  A dog model of pancreaticojejunostomy without duct-to-mucosa anastomosis. , 2012, JOP : Journal of the pancreas.

[22]  M. Pérez-Lafuente,et al.  Post-pancreaticoduodenectomy Hemorrhage. Incidence, Diagnosis, and Treatment , 2011, World Journal of Surgery.

[23]  M. Koch,et al.  Bile leakage after hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery: a definition and grading of severity by the International Study Group of Liver Surgery. , 2011, Surgery.

[24]  S. Peng,et al.  Experimental study on operative methods of pancreaticojejunostomy with reference to anastomotic patency and postoperative pancreatic exocrine function. , 2008, World journal of gastroenterology.

[25]  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.

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

[27]  S. Pocock,et al.  Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies , 2007, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

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

[29]  A. Kakita,et al.  History of pancreaticojejunostomy in pancreaticoduodenectomy: development of a more reliable anastomosis technique. , 2001, Journal of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery.

[30]  W. Uhl,et al.  Assessment of pancreatic hardness-surgeon versus durometer. , 2010, The Journal of surgical research.