Search

Background: Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy is increasingly being implemented worldwide, with good results reported from individual expert centers. However, it is unclear to what extent outcomes will continue to improve during the learning curve, as large international studies are lacking., Methods: An international retrospective multicenter case series, including consecutive patients after robotic pancreatoduodenectomy from 18 centers in 8 countries in Europe, Asia, and South America until December 31, 2019, was conducted. A cumulative sum analysis was performed to determine the inflection points for the feasibility (operative time and blood loss) and proficiency (postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C and major morbidity) learning curves. Outcomes were compared in 3 groups on the basis of the learning curve inflection points., Results: Overall, 2,186 patients after robotic pancreatoduodenectomy were included. The feasibility learning curve was reached after 30-45 robotic pancreatoduodenectomy procedures and the proficiency learning curve after 90 robotic pancreatoduodenectomy procedures. These inflection points created 3 phases, which were associated with major morbidity (24.7%, 23.4%, and 12.3%, P < .001) but not 30-day mortality (2.1%, 2.0%, and 1.5%, P = .670). Other outcomes mostly continued to improve, including median operative time 432, 390, and 300 minutes (P < .0001), conversion 6.0%, 4.7%, and 2.7% (P = .002), bile leakage 7.2%, 4.1%, and 2.4% (P < .001), postpancreatectomy hemorrhage 6.5%, 6.1%, and 1.8% (n = 21) but not R0 resection (pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma only) 78.5%, 73.9%, and 82.8% (P = .35), and 90-day mortality rate 3.1%, 3.5%, and 2.1% (P = .191). Centers performing >20 robotic pancreatoduodenectomies annually had lower rates of conversion, reoperation, and shorter median operative time as compared with centers performing 10-20 robotic pancreatoduodenectomies annually., Conclusion: This international multicenter study demonstrates that most outcomes of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy continued to improve during 3 learning curve phases without a negative effect on 90-day mortality. Randomized studies are needed in high-volume centers that have surpassed the first learning curves, to compare these outcomes with the open approach., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is a challenging operation because of complex anatomy and difficult and multiple reconstructions. Robot-assisted PD (RPD) is a novel minimally invasive technique, providing equivalent oncological outcomes to open surgery. The aim of this study is to evaluate the results of a single high-volume center series., Methods: Patients who underwent RPD from 2014 to 2021 in a high-volume center were included. Patient and disease-specific data, operative details, postoperative complications including postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), length of stay (LOS) and long-term survival were recorded. Two groups were compared: Group 1: patients operated between 2014-2019 and Group 2 between 2020-2021., Results: One hundred and forty-six patients had RPD on the study period (99 in Group 1 and 47 in Group 2). Operative time was 320 min (285-360), major complications were observed in 28% and clinically significant POPF in 20% of the cases. Conversion rate was 2.1%. LOS was 14 days (9-22). Postoperative mortality was 4.1%. Clinically significant POPF decreased from 24% in Group 1 to 11% in Group 2 (p = 0.05). LOS decreased from 16(11-26) days in Group 1 to 11(8-14) in Group 2 (p < 0.001)., Conclusion: RPD is safe and feasible. Technique standardization led to better post-operative outcomes, encouraging the dissemination and implementation of the procedure., (Copyright © 2024 International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association Inc. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: It is assumed that robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) may facilitate complex pelvic dissection for rectal cancer compared to the laparoscopic-assisted resection (LAR). The aim of this study was to compare perioperative morbidity, short- and long-term oncologic, and functional outcomes between the RAS and LAR approaches., Methods: Between 2015 and 2021, all rectal cancers operated on by (LAR) or (RAS) were retrospectively reviewed in two colorectal surgery centers., Results: A total of 197 patients were included in the study, with 70% in the LAR group and 30% in the RAS group. The tumor location and stage were identical in both groups (not significant = NS). The overall postoperative mortality rate was not significantly different between the two groups. (0% LAR; 0.5% RAS; NS). The postoperative morbidity was similar between the two groups (60% LAR vs 57% RAS; NS). The number of early surgical re-interventions within the first 30 days was similar (10% for the LAR group and 3% for the RAS group; NS). The rate of complete TME was similar (88% for the LAR group and 94% for the RAS group; NS). However, the rate of circumferential R1 was significantly higher in the LAR group (13%) compared to the RAS group (2%) (p = 0.009). The 3-year recurrence rate did not differ between the two groups (77% for both groups; NS). After a mean follow-up of three years, the incidence of anterior resection syndrome was significantly lower in the LAR group compared to the RAS group (54 vs 76%; p = 0.030)., Conclusions: The use of a RAS was found to be reliable for oncologic outcomes and morbidity. However, the expected benefits for functional outcomes were not observed. Therefore, the added value of RAS for rectal cancer needs to be reassessed in light of new laparoscopic technologies and patient management options., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Objective: To gain insight into the global practice of robot-assisted minimally invasive gastrectomy (RAMIG) and evaluate perioperative outcomes using an international registry., Background: The techniques and perioperative outcomes of RAMIG for gastric cancer vary substantially in the literature., Methods: Prospectively registered RAMIG cases for gastric cancer (≥10 per center) were extracted from 25 centers in Europe, Asia, and South-America. Techniques for resection, reconstruction, anastomosis, and lymphadenectomy were analyzed and related to perioperative surgical and oncological outcomes. Complications were uniformly defined by the Gastrectomy Complications Consensus Group., Results: Between 2020 and 2023, 759 patients underwent total (n=272), distal (n=465), or proximal (n=22) gastrectomy (RAMIG). After total gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y-reconstruction, anastomotic leakage rates were 8% with hand-sewn (n=9/111) and 6% with linear stapled anastomoses (n=6/100). After distal gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y (67%) or Billroth-II-reconstruction (31%), anastomotic leakage rates were 3% with linear stapled (n=11/433) and 0% with hand-sewn anastomoses (n=0/26). Extent of lymphadenectomy consisted of D1+ (28%), D2 (59%), or D2+ (12%). Median nodal harvest yielded 31 nodes (interquartile range: 21-47) after total and 34 nodes (interquartile range: 24-47) after distal gastrectomy. R0 resection rates were 93% after total and 96% distal gastrectomy. The hospital stay was 9 days after total and distal gastrectomy, and was median 3 days shorter without perianastomotic drains versus routine drain placement. Postoperative 30-day mortality was 1%., Conclusions: This large multicenter study provided a worldwide overview of current RAMIG techniques and their respective perioperative outcomes. These outcomes demonstrated high surgical quality, set a quality standard for RAMIG, and can be considered an international reference for surgical standardization., Competing Interests: J.R.: Consulting or Advisory Role: Intuitive Surgical. R.v.H.: Consulting or Advisory Role: Intuitive Surgical, Medtronic. T.K.: honorarium for lectures for Intuitive Surgical, Medtronic, Johnson & Johnson, and Olympus. E.K.: Consulting or Advisory Role: Intuitive Surgical. M.v.D.: Consulting or Advisory Role: Intuitive Surgical. J.P.H.: Consulting or Advisory Role: Intuitive Surgical. P.R.: Consulting or Advisory Role: Intuitive Surgical. O.S.-M.: Consulting or Advisory Role: Intuitive Surgical. The remaining authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Background: The use of robot-assisted and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy is increasing, yet large adjusted analyses that can be generalized internationally are lacking. This study aimed to compare outcomes after robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy in a pan-European cohort., Methods: An international multicenter retrospective study including patients after robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy from 50 centers in 12 European countries (2009-2020). Propensity score matching was performed in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome was major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo ≥III)., Results: Among 2,082 patients undergoing minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy, 1,006 underwent robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and 1,076 laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy. After matching 812 versus 812 patients, the rates of major morbidity (31.9% vs 29.6%; P = .347) and 30-day/in-hospital mortality (4.3% vs 4.6%; P = .904) did not differ significantly between robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy, respectively. Robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with a lower conversion rate (6.7% vs 18.0%; P < .001) and higher lymph node retrieval (16 vs 14; P = .003). Laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with shorter operation time (446 minutes versus 400 minutes; P < .001), and lower rates of postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C (19.0% vs 11.7%; P < .001), delayed gastric emptying grade B/C (21.4% vs 7.4%; P < .001), and a higher R0-resection rate (73.2% vs 84.4%; P < .001)., Conclusion: This European multicenter study found no differences in overall major morbidity and 30-day/in-hospital mortality after robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy compared with laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy. Further, laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with a lower rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula, delayed gastric emptying, wound infection, shorter length of stay, and a higher R0 resection rate than robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy. In contrast, robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with a lower conversion rate and a higher number of retrieved lymph nodes as compared with laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To assess the feasibility, proficiency, and mastery learning curves for robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) in "second-generation" RPD centers following a multicenter training program adhering to the IDEAL framework., Background: The long learning curves for RPD reported from "pioneering" expert centers may discourage centers interested in starting an RPD program. However, the feasibility, proficiency, and mastery learning curves may be shorter in "second-generation" centers that participated in dedicated RPD training programs, although data are lacking. We report on the learning curves for RPD in "second-generation" centers trained in a dedicated nationwide program., Methods: Post hoc analysis of all consecutive patients undergoing RPD in 7 centers that participated in the LAELAPS-3 training program, each with a minimum annual volume of 50 pancreatoduodenectomies, using the mandatory Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit (March 2016-December 2021). Cumulative sum analysis determined cutoffs for the 3 learning curves: operative time for the feasibility (1) risk-adjusted major complication (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III) for the proficiency, (2) and textbook outcome for the mastery, (3) learning curve. Outcomes before and after the cutoffs were compared for the proficiency and mastery learning curves. A survey was used to assess changes in practice and the most valued "lessons learned.", Results: Overall, 635 RPD were performed by 17 trained surgeons, with a conversion rate of 6.6% (n=42). The median annual volume of RPD per center was 22.5±6.8. From 2016 to 2021, the nationwide annual use of RPD increased from 0% to 23% whereas the use of laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy decreased from 15% to 0%. The rate of major complications was 36.9% (n=234), surgical site infection 6.3% (n=40), postoperative pancreatic fistula (grade B/C) 26.9% (n=171), and 30-day/in-hospital mortality 3.5% (n=22). Cutoffs for the feasibility, proficiency, and mastery learning curves were reached at 15, 62, and 84 RPD. Major morbidity and 30-day/in-hospital mortality did not differ significantly before and after the cutoffs for the proficiency and mastery learning curves. Previous experience in laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy shortened the feasibility (-12 RPDs, -44%), proficiency (-32 RPDs, -34%), and mastery phase learning curve (-34 RPDs, -23%), but did not improve clinical outcome., Conclusions: The feasibility, proficiency, and mastery learning curves for RPD at 15, 62, and 84 procedures in "second-generation" centers after a multicenter training program were considerably shorter than previously reported from "pioneering" expert centers. The learning curve cutoffs and prior laparoscopic experience did not impact major morbidity and mortality. These findings demonstrate the safety and value of a nationwide training program for RPD in centers with sufficient volume., Competing Interests: M.J.W.Z. and M.G.B. received funding from Amsterdam UMC for studies on safe implementation of robotic pancreatic surgery; funding from the Dutch Digestive Foundation (Maag Lever Darm Stichting) investigator-initiated studies on minimally invasive pancreatic surgery (Agreement ID: I 16-05); from Intuitive Surgical for the investigator-initiated LAELAPS-3 training program for RPD in the Netherlands for which training suturing material was provided by ETHICON, Johnson & Johnson; from Intuitive for the investigator-initiated LEARNBOT training program for RPD in Europe; funding from Intuitive for the investigator-initiated LIVEROBOT training program for robotic liver surgery in Europe. N.d.G. and M.G.B. received funding from Intuitive® for the DIPLOMA-2 randomized trial on minimally invasive versus open pancreatoduodenectomy. The remaining authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

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., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Difficulty scoring systems are important for the safe, stepwise implementation of new procedures. We designed a retrospective observational study for building a difficulty score for robotic pancreatoduodenectomy., Methods: The difficulty score (PD-ROBOSCORE) aims at predicting severe postoperative complications after robotic pancreatoduodenectomy. The PD-ROBOSCORE was developed in a training cohort of 198 robotic pancreatoduodenectomies and was validated in an international multicenter cohort of 686 robotic pancreatoduodenectomies. Finally, all centers tested the model during the early learning curve (n = 300). Growing difficulty levels (low, intermediate, high) were defined using cut-off values set at the 33rd and 66th percentile (NCT04662346)., Results: Factors included in the final multivariate model were a body mass index of ≥25 kg/m 2 for males and ≥30 kg/m 2 for females (odds ratio:2.39; P < .0001), borderline resectable tumor (odd ratio:1.98; P < .0001), uncinate process tumor (odds ratio:1.69; P < .0001), pancreatic duct size <4 mm (odds ratio:1.59; P < .0001), American Society of Anesthesiologists class ≥3 (odds ratio:1.59; P < .0001), and hepatic artery originating from the superior mesenteric artery (odds ratio:1.43; P < .0001). In the training cohort, the absolute score value (odds ratio = 1.13; P = .0089) and difficulty groups (odds ratio = 2.35; P = .041) predicted severe postoperative complications. In the multicenter validation cohort, the absolute score value predicted severe postoperative complications (odds ratio = 1.16, P < .001), whereas the difficulty groups did not (odds ratio = 1.94, P = .082). In the learning curve cohort, both absolute score value (odds ratio:1.078, P = .04) and difficulty groups (odds ratio: 2.25, P = .017) predicted severe postoperative complications. Across all cohorts, a PD-ROBOSCORE of ≥12.51 doubled the risk of severe postoperative complications. The PD-ROBOSCORE score also predicted operative time, estimated blood loss, and vein resection. The PD-ROBOSCORE predicted postoperative pancreatic fistula, delayed gastric emptying, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage, and postoperative mortality in the learning curve cohort., Conclusion: The PD-ROBOSCORE predicts severe postoperative complications after robotic pancreatoduodenectomy. The score is readily available via www.pancreascalculator.com., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The European registry for minimally invasive pancreatic surgery (E-MIPS) collects data on laparoscopic and robotic MIPS in low- and high-volume centers across Europe., Methods: Analysis of the first year (2019) of the E-MIPS registry, including minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) and minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD). Primary outcome was 90-day mortality., Results: Overall, 959 patients from 54 centers in 15 countries were included, 558 patients underwent MIDP and 401 patients MIPD. Median volume of MIDP was 10 (7-20) and 9 (2-20) for MIPD. Median use of MIDP was 56.0% (IQR 39.0-77.3%) and median use of MIPD 27.7% (IQR 9.7-45.3%). MIDP was mostly performed laparoscopic (401/558, 71.9%) and MIPD mostly robotic (234/401, 58.3%). MIPD was performed in 50/54 (89.3%) centers, of which 15/50 (30.0%) performed ≥20 MIPD annually. This was 30/54 (55.6%) centers and 13/30 (43%) centers for MIPD respectively. Conversion rate was 10.9% for MIDP and 8.4% for MIPD. Overall 90 day mortality was 1.1% (n = 6) for MIDP and 3.7% (n = 15) for MIPD., Conclusion: Within the E-MIPS registry, MIDP is performed in about half of all patients, mostly using laparoscopy. MIPD is performed in about a quarter of patients, slightly more often using the robotic approach. A minority of centers met the Miami guideline volume criteria for MIPD., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Objective: To assess feasibility and safety of a multicenter training program in robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) adhering to the IDEAL framework for implementation of surgical innovation., Background: Good results for RPD have been reported from single center studies. However, data on feasibility and safety of implementation through a multicenter training program in RPD are lacking., Methods: A multicenter training program in RPD was designed together with the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, including an online video bank, robot simulation exercises, biotissue drills, and on-site proctoring. Benchmark patients were based on the criteria of Clavien. Outcomes were collected prospectively (March 2016-October 2019). Cumulative sum analysis of operative time was performed to distinguish the first and second phase of the learning curve. Outcomes were compared between both phases of the learning curve. Trends in nationwide use of robotic and laparoscopic PD were assessed in the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit., Results: Overall, 275 RPD procedures were performed in seven centers by 15 trained surgeons. The recent benchmark criteria for low-risk PD were met by 125 (45.5%) patients. The conversion rate was 6.5% (n = 18) and median blood loss 250ml [interquartile range (IQR) 150-500]. The rate of Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III complications was 44.4% (n = 122), postoperative pancreatic fistula (grade B/C) rate 23.6% (n = 65), 90-day complication-related mortality 2.5% (n = 7) and 90-day cancer-related mortality 2.2.% (n = 6). Median postoperative hospital stay was 12 days (IQR 8-20). In the subgroup of patients with pancreatic cancer (n = 80), the major complication rate was 31.3% and POPF rate was 10%. Cumulative sum analysis for operative time found a learning curve inflection point at 22 RPDs (IQR 10-35) with similar rates of Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III complications in the first and second phase (43.4% vs 43.8%, P = 0.956, respectively). During the study period the nationwide use of laparoscopic PD reduced from 15% to 1%, whereas the use of RPD increased from 0% to 25%., Conclusions: This multicenter RPD training program in centers with sufficient surgical volume was found to be feasible without a negative impact of the learning curve on clinical outcomes., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The aim of the study was to validate and optimize the alternative Fistula Risk Score (a-FRS) for patients undergoing minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) in a large pan-European cohort., Background: MIPD may be associated with an increased risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF). The a-FRS could allow for risk-adjusted comparisons in research and improve preventive strategies for high-risk patients. The a-FRS, however, has not yet been validated specifically for laparoscopic, robot-assisted, and hybrid MIPD., Methods: A validation study was performed in a pan-European cohort of 952 consecutive patients undergoing MIPD (543 laparoscopic, 258 robot-assisted, 151 hybrid) in 26 centers from 7 countries between 2007 and 2017. The primary outcome was POPF (International Study Group on Pancreatic Surgery grade B/C). Model performance was assessed using the area under the receiver operating curve (AUC; discrimination) and calibration plots. Validation included univariable screening for clinical variables that could improve performance., Results: Overall, 202 of 952 patients (21%) developed POPF after MIPD. Before adjustment, the original a-FRS performed moderately (AUC 0.68) and calibration was inadequate with systematic underestimation of the POPF risk. Single-row pancreatojejunostomy (odds ratio 4.6, 95 confidence interval [CI] 2.8-7.6) and male sex (odds ratio 1.9, 95 CI 1.4-2.7) were identified as important risk factors for POPF in MIPD. The updated a-FRS, consisting of body mass index, pancreatic texture, duct size, and male sex, showed good discrimination (AUC 0.75, 95 CI 0.71-0.79) and adequate calibration. Performance was adequate for laparoscopic, robot-assisted, and hybrid MIPD and open pancreatoduodenectomy., Conclusions: The updated a-FRS (www.pancreascalculator.com) now includes male sex as a risk factor and is validated for both MIPD and open pancreatoduodenectomy. The increased risk of POPF in laparoscopic MIPD was associated with single-row pancreatojejunostomy, which should therefore be discouraged., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interests., (Copyright © 2019 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Laparoscopic total gastrectomy with extended lymphadenectomy is a technically demanding surgical procedure with steep learning curve that has limited its widespread use. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of the robotic approach in total gastrectomy for cancer. We present our experience of 17 consecutive patients who underwent robotic total gastrectomy with intracorporal sutured Roux-en-Y esophagojejunostomy and jejuno jejunostomy between 2014 and 2017. Methods: Data were collected, and patients' demographics and outcomes were examined retrospectively. Results: Seventeen patients with a median age of 68 years (range 32-81) were identified (10 males, 7 females). Mean operative time was 198 minutes (range 108-277) including mean anastomosis time of 25 minutes (range 18-35). There was no conversion to open surgery or requirement for perioperative blood transfusion. Median length of hospital stay was 9 days (range 2-30). Two patients developed postoperative complications including one anastomotic leakage treated conservatively and one internal hernia requiring surgical revision. There was no 90-day mortality or readmission. Conclusion: Robot-assisted total gastrectomy is feasible and reproducible. It overcomes several laparoscopic technical difficulties especially regarding anastomosis. It has the potential to become an alternative to open gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Nevertheless, further follow-up and randomized clinical trials are needed to evaluate mid-term and long-term outcomes of this approach.