Safety and feasibility of robotic-assisted drainage of symptomatic pancreatic pseudocysts: A case-series analysis (with video)

The surgical treatment of pancreatic pseudocysts (PPs) in patients who fail nonoperative management has evolved from aggressive open to a minimally invasive approach. The application of robotic surgery in this setting is scarcely reported. The aim of this study is to analyze the safety and feasibility of the robotic approach to pancreatic pseudocyst drainage. A single centre retrospective review of consecutive patients undergoing robotic-assisted pancreatic pseudocyst surgeries in an academic tertiary institution was performed. There were 14 patients studied, of whom 10 underwent cystogastrostomy and 4 Roux-En-Y cystojejunostomy. Eight patients had gallstone pancreatitis and 3 patients alcoholic pancreatitis. The mean size of cyst was 8.9±1cm and 57.1% located at the pancreatic body. The overall operative time of the procedure was 135±34 minutes. There were no open conversions. The overall success rate was 92.8%, while the primary success rate 85.7%. The major morbidity rate was 14.3% and there was no 30-day mortality. The mean post-operative hospital stay was 7±3 days with one recurrence of the pancreatic pseudocyst on follow-up requiring endoscopic drainage without further recurrence. The robotic approach for the drainage of symptomatic pancreatic pseudocyst is safe and feasible and can be considered as a viable modality for operative intervention in well-selected patient

Global overview of the management of acute cholecystitis during the COVID-19 pandemic (CHOLECOVID study)

Background: This study provides a global overview of the management of patients with acute cholecystitis during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: CHOLECOVID is an international, multicentre, observational comparative study of patients admitted to hospital with acute cholecystitis during the COVID-19 pandemic. Data on management were collected for a 2-month study interval coincident with the WHO declaration of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and compared with an equivalent pre-pandemic time interval. Mediation analysis examined the influence of SARS-COV-2 infection on 30-day mortality. Results: This study collected data on 9783 patients with acute cholecystitis admitted to 247 hospitals across the world. The pandemic was associated with reduced availability of surgical workforce and operating facilities globally, a significant shift to worse severity of disease, and increased use of conservative management. There was a reduction (both absolute and proportionate) in the number of patients undergoing cholecystectomy from 3095 patients (56.2 per cent) pre-pandemic to 1998 patients (46.2 per cent) during the pandemic but there was no difference in 30-day all-cause mortality after cholecystectomy comparing the pre-pandemic interval with the pandemic (13 patients (0.4 per cent) pre-pandemic to 13 patients (0.6 per cent) pandemic; P = 0.355). In mediation analysis, an admission with acute cholecystitis during the pandemic was associated with a non-significant increased risk of death (OR 1.29, 95 per cent c.i. 0.93 to 1.79, P = 0.121). Conclusion: CHOLECOVID provides a unique overview of the treatment of patients with cholecystitis across the globe during the first months of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. The study highlights the need for system resilience in retention of elective surgical activity. Cholecystectomy was associated with a low risk of mortality and deferral of treatment results in an increase in avoidable morbidity that represents the non-COVID cost of this pandemic

Early experience with laparoscopic frey procedure for chronic pancreatitis: a case series and review of literature

The Frey procedure has been demonstrated to be an effective surgical technique to treat patients with painful large duct chronic pancreatitis. More commonly reported as an open procedure, we report our experience with a minimally invasive approach to the Frey procedure. Four consecutive patients underwent a laparoscopic Frey procedure at our institution from January 2012 to July 2015. We herein report our technique and describe short- and medium-term outcomes. The median age was 40 years old. The median duration of pancreatic pain prior to surgery was 12 years. Median operative time and intraoperative blood loss was 130 min (100–160 min) and 60 mL (50–100 mL), respectively. The median length of stay was 7 days (3–40 days) and median follow-up was 26 months (12–30 months). There was one major postoperative complication requiring reoperation. Within 6 months, in all four patients, frequency of pain and analgesic requirement reduced significantly. Two patients appeared to have resolution of pancreatic exocrine insufficiency. The Frey procedure is possible laparoscopically with acceptable short- and medium-term outcomes in well-selected patients

International multicentre propensity score-matched analysis comparing robotic versus laparoscopic right posterior sectionectomy

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive right posterior sectionectomy (RPS) is a technically challenging procedure. This study was designed to determine outcomes following robotic RPS (R-RPS) and laparoscopic RPS (L-RPS). METHODS: An international multicentre retrospective analysis of patients undergoing R-RPS versus those who had purely L-RPS at 21 centres from 2010 to 2019 was performed. Patient demographics, perioperative parameters, and postoperative outcomes were analysed retrospectively from a central database. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed, with analysis of 1 : 2 and 1 : 1 matched cohorts. RESULTS: Three-hundred and forty patients, including 96 who underwent R-RPS and 244 who had L-RPS, met the study criteria and were included. The median operating time was 295 minutes and there were 25 (7.4 per cent) open conversions. Ninety-seven (28.5 per cent) patients had cirrhosis and 56 (16.5 per cent) patients required blood transfusion. Overall postoperative morbidity rate was 22.1 per cent and major morbidity rate was 6.8 per cent. The median postoperative stay was 6 days. After 1 : 1 matching of 88 R-RPS and L-RPS patients, median (i.q.r.) blood loss (200 (100-400) versus 450 (200-900) ml, respectively; P  500 ml; P = 0.001), need for intraoperative blood transfusion (10.2 versus 23.9 per cent, respectively; P = 0.014), and open conversion rate (2.3 versus 11.4 per cent, respectively; P = 0.016) were lower in the R-RPS group. Similar results were found in the 1 : 2 matched groups (66 R-RPS versus 132 L-RPS patients). CONCLUSION: R-RPS and L-RPS can be performed in expert centres with good outcomes in well selected patients. R-RPS was associated with reduced blood loss and lower open conversion rates than L-RPS

Propensity Score-Matched Analysis Comparing Robotic and Laparoscopic Right and Extended Right Hepatectomy

Importance: Laparoscopic and robotic techniques have both been well adopted as safe options in selected patients undergoing hepatectomy. However, it is unknown whether either approach is superior, especially for major hepatectomy such as right hepatectomy or extended right hepatectomy (RH/ERH). Objective: To compare the outcomes of robotic vs laparoscopic RH/ERH. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this case-control study, propensity score matching analysis was performed to minimize selection bias. Patients undergoing robotic or laparoscopic RH/EHR at 29 international centers from 2008 to 2020 were included. Interventions: Robotic vs laparoscopic RH/ERH. Main Outcomes and Measures: Data on patient demographics, tumor characteristics, and short-term perioperative outcomes were collected and analyzed. Results: Of 989 individuals who met study criteria, 220 underwent robotic and 769 underwent laparoscopic surgery. The median (IQR) age in the robotic RH/ERH group was 61.00 (51.86-69.00) years and in the laparoscopic RH/ERH group was 62.00 (52.03-70.00) years. Propensity score matching resulted in 220 matched pairs for further analysis. Patients' demographics and tumor characteristics were comparable in the matched cohorts. Robotic RH/ERH was associated with a lower open conversion rate (19 of 220 [8.6%] vs 39 of 220 [17.1%]; P =.01) and a shorter postoperative hospital stay (median [IQR], 7.0 [5.0-10.0] days; mean [SD], 9.11 [7.52] days vs median [IQR], 7.0 [5.75-10.0] days; mean [SD], 9.94 [8.99] days; P =.048). On subset analysis of cases performed between 2015 and 2020 after a center's learning curve (50 cases), robotic RH/ERH was associated with a shorter postoperative hospital stay (median [IQR], 6.0 [5.0-9.0] days vs 7.0 [6.0-9.75] days; P =.04) with a similar conversion rate (12 of 220 [7.6%] vs 17 of 220 [10.8%]; P =.46). Conclusion and Relevance: Robotic RH/ERH was associated with a lower open conversion rate and shorter postoperative hospital stay compared with laparoscopic RH/ERH. The difference in open conversion rate was associated with a significant decrease for laparoscopic but not robotic RH/ERH after a center had mounted the learning curve. Use of robotic platform may help to overcome the initial challenges of minimally invasive RH/ERH

An international multicentre propensity score matched analysis comparing between robotic versus laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy

Background: Left lateral sectionectomy (LLS) is one of the most commonly performed minimally invasive liver resections. While laparoscopic (L)-LLS is a well-established technique, over traditional open resection, it remains controversial if robotic (R)-LLS provides any advantages of L-LLS. Methods: A post hoc analysis of 997 patients from 21 international centres undergoing L-LLS or R-LLS from 2006 to 2020 was conducted. A total of 886 cases (214 R-LLS, 672 L-LLS) met study criteria. 1:1 and 1:2 propensity score matched (PSM) comparison was performed between R-LLS & L-LLS. Further subset analysis by Iwate difficulty was also performed. Outcomes measured include operating time, blood loss, open conversion, readmission rates, morbidity and mortality. Results: Comparison between R-LLS and L-LLS after PSM 1:2 demonstrated statistically significantly lower open conversion rate in R-LLS than L-LLS (0.6% versus 5%, p = 0.009) and median blood loss was also statistically significantly lower in R-LLS at 50 (80) versus 100 (170) in L-LLS (p = 0.011) after PSM 1:1 although there was no difference in the blood transfusion rate. Pringle manoeuvre was also found to be used more frequently in R-LLS, with 53(24.8%) cases versus to 84(12.5%) L-LLS cases (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the other key perioperative outcomes such as operating time, length of stay, postoperative morbidity, major morbidity and 90-day mortality between both groups. Conclusion: R-LLS was associated with similar key perioperative outcomes compared to L-LLS. It was also associated with significantly lower blood loss and open conversion rates compared to L-LLS

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Left and Extended Left Hepatectomy: An International Multicenter Study Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

Background: Controversies exist among liver surgeons regarding clinical outcomes of the laparoscopic versus the robotic approach for major complex hepatectomies. The authors therefore designed a study to examine and compare the perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic left hepatectomy or extended left hepatectomy (L-LH/L-ELH) versus robotic left hepatectomy or extended left hepatectomy (R-LH/R-ELH) using a large international multicenter collaborative database. Methods: An international multicenter retrospective analysis of 580 patients undergoing L-LH/L-ELH or R-LH/R-ELH at 25 specialized hepatobiliary centers worldwide was undertaken. Propensity score-matching (PSM) was used at a 1:1 nearest-neighbor ratio according to 15 perioperative variables, including demographics, tumor characteristics, Child-Pugh score, presence of portal hypertension, multiple resections, histologic diagnosis, and Iwate difficulty grade. Results: Before the PSM, 190 (32 %) patients underwent R-LH/R-ELH, and 390 (68 %) patients underwent L-LH/L-ELH. After the matching, 164 patients were identified in each arm without significant differences in demographics, preoperative variables, medical history, tumor pathology, tumor characteristics, or Iwate score. Regarding intra- and postoperative outcomes, the rebotic approach had significantly less estimated blood loss (EBL) (100 ml [IQR 200 ml] vs 200 ml [IQR 235 ml]; p = 0.029), fewer conversions to open operations (n = 4 [2.4 %] vs n = 13, [7.9 %]; p = 0.043), and a shorter hospital stay (6 days [IQR 3 days] vs 7 days [IQR 3.3 days]; p = 0.009). Conclusion: Both techniques are safe and feasible in major hepatic resections. Compared with L-LH/L-ELH, R-LH/R-ELH is associated with less EBL, fewer conversions to open operations, and a shorter hospital stay

An international multicenter propensity-score matched and coarsened-exact matched analysis comparing robotic versus laparoscopic partial liver resections of the anterolateral segments

Background: Robotic liver resections (RLR) may have the ability to address some of the drawbacks of laparoscopic liver resections (LLR) but few studies have done a head-to-head comparison of the outcomes after anterolateral segment resections by the two techniques. Methods: A retrospective study was conducted of 3202 patients who underwent minimally invasive LR of the anterolateral liver segments at 26 international centres from 2005 to 2020. Two thousand six hundred and six cases met study criteria of which there were 358 RLR and 1868 LLR cases. Perioperative outcomes were compared between the two groups using a 1:3 Propensity Score Matched (PSM) and 1:1 Coarsened Exact Matched (CEM) analysis. Results: Patients matched after 1:3 PSM (261 RLR vs 783 LLR) and 1:1 CEM (296 RLR vs 296 LLR) revealed no significant differences in length of stay, readmission rates, morbidity, mortality, and involvement of or close oncological margins. RLR surgeries were associated with significantly less blood loss (50 mL vs 100 ml, P <.001) and lower rates of open conversion on both PSM (1.5% vs 6.8%, P =.003) and CEM (1.4% vs 6.4%, P =.004) compared to LLR. Though PSM analysis showed RLR to have a longer operating time than LLR (170 minutes vs 160 minutes, P =.036), this difference proved to be insignificant on CEM (167 minutes vs 163 minutes, P =.575). Conclusion: This multicentre international combined PSM and CEM study showed that both RLR and LLR have equivalent perioperative outcomes when performed in selected patients at high-volume centres. The robotic approach was associated with significantly lower blood loss and allowed more surgeries to be completed in a minimally invasive fashion