Robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy with vascular resection: technical details and results from a high-volume center

Background: Pancreaticoduodenectomy with vein resection (PD-VR) is widely accepted as a standard procedure to achieve a higher rate of R0 resections in borderline resectable pancreatic tumors. Thanks to the availability of newer technologies, such as the da Vinci Surgical System, several high-volume centers are reporting small series of minimally invasive PD-VR. Methods: A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database was performed to identify patients who underwent robot-assisted PD-VR (RAPD-VR) between May 2011 and December 2019. The following factors were specifically analyzed: intraoperative results, post-operative complications, mortality at 90 days, patency of vascular reconstructions, overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). Results: During the study period 184 patients underwent RAPD, including 22 who received a RAPDVR (12.0%). The superior mesenteric vein was resected in 9 patients (40.9%), the portal vein in 3 patients (13.6%) and the spleno-mesenteric junction in 10 patients (45.5%). Based on the classification provided by the International Study Group on Pancreatic Surgery these procedures were classified as follows: 1 type I (4.5%), 3 type II (13.6%), 10 type III (45.5%) and 8 type IV (36.4%). In no patient the splenic vein was ligated and left behind. The splenic vein was always reimplanted either on the porto-mesenteric axis or in the inferior vena cava. All but one procedure, were completed under robotic assistance (conversion rate 1/22; 4.5%) after a mean operative time of 610.0±83.5 minutes. Median estimated blood loss was 899.7 mL (719.4–1,430.2 mL), with 2 patients (9.1%) receiving intraoperative blood transfusions. Sixteen patients developed post-operative complications (72.7%), graded ≥III (according to Clavien-Dindo) in 5 patients (22.7%). Two patients died within 90 days, accounting for a postoperative mortality of 9.1%. Interestingly, post-operative pancreatic fistula (grade B) occurred in only 1 patient (4.5%). Repeat surgery was required in 4 patients (18.2%) and hospital readmission in 1 patient (4.5%). At the longest available follow-up, vein reconstruction was patent in 19 patients (86.4%). Eighteen patients had a final diagnosis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (81.8%). After circumferential study of resection margins, microscopic tumor residual ≤1 mm was found in 11 patients (50.0%). The mean number of examined lymph nodes was 42.2 (±16.3), and vascular infiltration was confirmed in 13 patients (59.1%). Median OS was 39.7 (27.5–not available) and DFS 32.9 (11.5–45.8). Tumor recurrence was identified in 6 patients (27.3%). One patient (4.5%) developed isolated local recurrence. Conclusions: We have shown the feasibility of RAPD-VR. The results reported herein need to be confirmed in larger series and their generalizability remains to be established

"Propensity score matched analysis" tra pancreaticodigiunoanastomosi secondo la tecnica di Blumgart modificata versus la tecnica "duct-to-mucosa" secondo Cattell-Warren nelle duodenocefalopancreasectomie open e robot-assistite.

L’adenocarcinoma duttale del pancreas (ACDP) è la principale neoplasia pancreatica esocrina e rappresenta più del 90% dei tumori del pancreas. Nonostante sia solamente il decimo tumore per incidenza negli uomini e addirittura l’undicesimo nelle donne, attualmente è considerato come la quarta causa di morte per tumore negli USA in entrambi i sessi (negli uomini rappresenta il 7% delle cause di morte per neoplasia, nelle donne l’8%). Secondo le principali proiezioni statistiche, il carcinoma del pancreas si appresta a diventare la seconda causa di morte per tumore entro il 2030. Le decadi di età maggiormente colpite sono quelle tra i 50 e i 70 anni. In Italia è stata riportata una incidenza di 9.2/100000 abitanti ed il rapporto maschi:femmine è all'incirca 1:1. Sono state riscontrate notevoli differenze razziali nella frequenza di cancro del pancreas, con percentuali sensibilmente superiori nei neri rispetto ai caucasici, mentre le percentuali più basse sono state registrate in alcune popolazioni asiatiche. Le motivazioni non sono ben chiare, probabilmente la razza influisce sulla diversa modalità nel processo di detossificazione delle sostanze carcinogeniche

DUODENOCEFALOPANCREASECTOMIE LAPAROTOMICHE E ROBOTICHE A CONFRONTO

Abstract INTRODUZIONE: la duodenocefalopancreasectomia, eseguita con tecnica mini-invasiva, rimane una delle procedure dichirurgia addominale più impegnativa, e la sua applicazione è scarsamente riportata in letteratura. Ad oggi, sono disponibili pochi di confronto tra un approccio mini-invasivo con il sistema robotico Da Vinci, e la procedura open. SCOPO: lo scopo del seguente studio è quello di confrontare gli interventi di duodenocefalopancreasectomia laparoscopiche robot-assistite e con quelli eseguiti con la tecnica tradizionale, presso la U.O. Chirurgia Generale e dei Trapianti dell' Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Pisana (AOUP) tra l' Ottobre 2008 e l' Agosto 2012. MATERIALI E METODI: tra l' Ottobre del 2008 e l' Agosto del 2012 sono state eseguite … duodenocefalopancreasectomie presso un singolo istituto. I pazienti sono stati selezionati e stratificati in due gruppi: open e robotico. RISULTATI: CONCLUSIONI

Acute abdomen caused by greater omentum torsion: A case report and review of the literature. Omentum majus torsiyonunun neden olduğu akut batın: Olgu raporu ve literatürün gözden geçirilmesi

Torsion of the greater omentum is a rare cause of acute abdomen. Based on etiopathogenesis, it can be classified as primary or secondary. However, regardless of the cause, segmentary or diffuse omental necrosis will follow. Preoperative diagnosis is not easy, though abdominal ultrasound and computed tomography (CT) scans may show peculiar features suggestive of omental torsion. Laparoscopic resection of the affected omentum is the treatment of choice. Presently reported was a case of primary omental torsion, in addition to a comprehensive literature review

Robotic-Assisted Pancreatic Resections

Background: Robotic assistance enhances surgical dexterity and could facilitate wider adoption of laparoscopy for pancreatic resections (PR). Methods: Data were prospectively entered into a database and analyzed retrospectively to assess feasibility and safety of robotic-assisted PR (RAPR). Additionally, robotic-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (RAPD) was compared to a contemporary group of open pancreaticoduodenectomies (OPD). Results: Between October 2008 and October 2014, 200 consecutive patients underwent RAPR. Three procedures were converted to open surgery (1.5 %), despite 14 patients required associated vascular procedures. RAPD was performed in 83 patients (41.5 %), distal pancreatectomy in 83 (41.5 %), total pancreatectomy in 17 (8.5 %), tumor enucleation in 12 (6 %), and central pancreatectomy in 5 (2.5 %). Thirty-day and 90-day mortality rates were 0.5 and 1 %, respectively. Both deaths occurred after RAPD with vein resection. Complications occurred in 63.0 % of the patients (≥Clavien-Dindo grade IIIb in 4 %). Median comprehensive complication index was 20.9 (0-26.2). Incidence of grade B/C pancreatic fistula was 28.0 %. Reoperation was required in 14 patients (7.0 %). The risk of reoperation decreased after post-operative day 20 (OR 0.072) (p = 0.0015). When compared to OPD, RAPD was associated with longer mean operative time (527.2 ± 166.1 vs. 425.3 ± 92.7; <0.0001) but had an equivalent safety profile. The median number of examined lymph nodes (37; 28.8–45.3 vs. 36; 28–52.8) and the rate of margin positivity in patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer were also similar (12.5 vs. 45.5 %). Conclusions: RAPR, including RAPD, are safely feasible in selected patients. The results of RAPD in pancreatic cancer are encouraging but deserve further investigation

Indications, technique, and results of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy

Robotic assistance improves surgical dexterity in minimally invasive operations, especially when fine dissection and multiple sutures are required. As such, robotic assistance could be rewarding in the setting of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD). RPD was implemented at a high volume center with preemptive experience in advanced laparoscopy. Indications, surgical technique, and results of RPD are discussed against the background of current literature. RPD was performed in 112 consecutive patients. Conversion to open surgery was required in three patients, despite nine required segmental resection and reconstruction of the superior mesenteric/portal vein. No patient was converted to laparoscopy. A pancreato-jejunostomy was created in 106 patients (94.6 %), using either a duct-to-mucosa (n = 82; 73.2 %) or an invaginating (n = 24; 21.4 %) technique. Pancreato-gastrostomy was performed in one patient, the pancreatic duct was occluded in two patients, and a pancreatico-cutaneous fistula was created in three patients. Mean operative time was 526.3 ± 102.4 in the entire cohort and reduced significantly over the course of time. Experience was also associated with reduced rates of delayed gastric emptying and increased proportion of malignant tumor histology. Ninety day mortality was 3.6 %. Postoperative complications occurred in 83 patients (74.1 %) with a median comprehensive complication index of 20.9 (0–30.8). Clinically relevant pancreatic fistula occurred in 19.6 % of the patients. No grade C pancreatic fistula was noted in the last 72 consecutive patients. RPD is safely feasible in selected patients. Implementation of RPD requires sound experience with open pancreatoduodenectomy and advanced laparoscopic procedures, as well as specific training with the robotic platform

Robotic versus open pancreatoduodenectomy: a propensity score-matched analysis based on factors predictive of postoperative pancreatic fistula

Background: Improvement in morbidity of pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) largely depends on the reduction in the incidence of clinically relevant (CR) postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF). Methods: After internal validation of the clinical risk score (CRS) of POPF, and identification of other predictive factors for POPF, robotic (RPD), and open (OPD) PDs were stratified into risk categories and matched by propensity scores. The primary endpoint of this study was incidence of CR-POPF. Secondary endpoints were 90-day morbidity and mortality, and sample size calculation for randomized controlled trials (RCT). Results: No patient undergoing RPD was classified at negligible risk for POPF, and no CR-POPF occurred in 7 RPD at low risk. The matching process identified 48 and 11 pairs at intermediate and high risk for POPF, respectively. In the intermediate-risk group, RPD was associated with higher rates of CR-POPF (31.3% vs 12.5%) (p = 0.0026), with equivalent incidence of grade C POPF. In the high-risk group, CR-POPF occurred frequently, but in similar percentages, after either procedures. Starting from an unadjusted point estimate of the effect size of 1.71 (0.91â\u80\u933.21), the pair-matched odds ratio for CR-POPF after RPD was 2.80 (1.01â\u80\u937.78) for the intermediate-risk group, and 0.20 (0.01â\u80\u934.17) for the high-risk group. Overall morbidity and mortality were equivalent in matched study groups. Sample size calculation for a non-inferiority RCT demonstrated that a total of 31,669 PDs would be required to randomize 682 patients at intermediate risk and 1852 patients at high risk. Conclusions: In patients at intermediate risk, RPD is associated with higher rates of CR-POPF. Incidence of grade C POPF is similar in RPD and OPD, making overall morbidity and mortality also equivalent. A RCT, with risk stratification for POPF, would require an enormous number of patients. Implementation of an international registry could be the next step in the assessment of RPD