Robot-Assisted Versus Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy in Patients with Resectable Pancreatic Cancer: An International, Retrospective, Cohort Study

Background: Robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RDP) is increasingly used as an alternative to laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer but comparative multicenter studies confirming the safety and efficacy of RDP are lacking. Methods: An international, multicenter, retrospective, cohort study, including consecutive patients undergoing RDP and LDP for resectable pancreatic cancer in 33 experienced centers from 11 countries (2010–2019). The primary outcome was R0-resection. Secondary outcomes included lymph node yield, major complications, conversion rate, and overall survival. Results: In total, 542 patients after minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy were included: 103 RDP (19%) and 439 LDP (81%). The R0-resection rate was comparable (75.7% RDP vs. 69.3% LDP, p = 0.404). RDP was associated with longer operative time (290 vs. 240 min, p < 0.001), more vascular resections (7.6% vs. 2.7%, p = 0.030), lower conversion rate (4.9% vs. 17.3%, p = 0.001), more major complications (26.2% vs. 16.3%, p = 0.019), improved lymph node yield (18 vs. 16, p = 0.021), and longer hospital stay (10 vs. 8 days, p = 0.001). The 90-day mortality (1.9% vs. 0.7%, p = 0.268) and overall survival (median 28 vs. 31 months, p = 0.599) did not differ significantly between RDP and LDP, respectively. Conclusions: In selected patients with resectable pancreatic cancer, RDP and LDP provide a comparable R0-resection rate and overall survival in experienced centers. Although the lymph node yield and conversion rate appeared favorable after RDP, LDP was associated with shorter operating time, less major complications, and shorter hospital stay. The specific benefits associated with each approach should be confirmed by multicenter, randomized trials

Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy: a pan-European multicenter propensity-matched study

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/inhospital 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 30day/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. (c) 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Accuracy of citrulline, I-FABP and d-lactate in the diagnosis of acute mesenteric ischemia

Data availability: Research data are not shared.Supplementary Information oi available online at: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-98012-w#Sec14 .Early diagnosis of acute mesenteric ischemia (AMI) remains a clinical challenge, and no biomarker has been consistently validated. We aimed to assess the accuracy of three promising circulating biomarkers for diagnosing AMI—citrulline, intestinal fatty acid-binding protein (I-FABP), and D-lactate. A cross-sectional diagnostic study enrolled AMI patients admitted to the intestinal stroke center and controls with acute abdominal pain of another origin. We included 129 patients—50 AMI and 79 controls. Plasma citrulline concentrations were significantly lower in AMI patients compared to the controls [15.3 μmol/L (12.0–26.0) vs. 23.3 μmol/L (18.3–29.8), p = 0.001]. However, the area under the receiver operating curves (AUROC) for the diagnosis of AMI by Citrulline was low: 0.68 (95% confidence interval = 0.58–0.78). No statistical difference was found in plasma I-FABP and plasma D-lactate concentrations between the AMI and control groups, with an AUROC of 0.44, and 0.40, respectively. In this large cross-sectional study, citrulline, I-FABP, and D-lactate failed to differentiate patients with AMI from patients with acute abdominal pain of another origin. Further research should focus on the discovery of new biomarkers.Grants from MSD-Avenir and APHP funded the SURVIBIO study; Alexandre Nuzzo received Ph.D. Grants from “Fondation de l'Avenir” and the French Gastroenterology Society (SNFGE)