Robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy. Safety and feasibility

Background: The availability of robotic assistance could make laparoscopic pancreaticoduo- denectomy safely feasible. We herein provide a systematic review on laparoscopic robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (RAPD). Methods: Literature search was conducted on multiple databases considering articles published in English up to October 31, 2014, reporting on ten or more patients. Results: A total of 262 articles were identified. Excluding duplicates (n=172), studies not matching inclusion criteria (n=77), and studies not suitable for other reasons (n=6), a total of seven studies reporting on 312 RAPDs were eventually reviewed. These studies were either retrospective cohort studies (n=4) or case-matched studies (n=3). No randomized controlled trial was identified. Most patients undergoing RAPD were diagnosed with malignant tumors (224/312; 71.8%). RAPD was feasible in most patients. Conversion to open surgery was reported in 9.2% of the patients. A hybrid RAPD technique, employing standard laparoscopy or open surgery through a mini-incision, was adopted in most patients (178/312; 57.0%). Overall, there were six postoperative deaths at 30 days (6/312; 1.9%), including one intraoperative death caused by portal vein injury, while 137 out of 260 patients with complete information developed postoperative complications (52.7%). The mean length of hospital stay ranged from 10–29 days. Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) occurred in 66 patients (66/312; 21.1%). Grade C POPF was reported in eight patients (8/312; 2.5%). The costs of RAPD were assessed in two studies, demonstrating additional costs ranging from 4,000–5,000 US dollars to 6,193 Euro. The mean number of examined lymph nodes and the rate of positive surgical margins indicate that RAPD could be an appropriate oncologic operation. Conclusion: RAPD is safely feasible. These results were obtained in selected patients and in specialized centers. RAPD should not be implemented in the occasional patient by surgeons without advanced laparoscopic skills and formal training in robotic surgery

Additional modifications to the Blumgart pancreaticojejunostomy: Results of a propensity score-matched analysis versus Cattel-Warren pancreaticojejunostomy

Abstract Background Postoperative pancreatic fistula continues to occur frequently after pancreatoduodenectomy. Methods We have described a modification of the Blumgart pancreaticojejunostomy. The modification of the Blumgart pancreaticojejunostomy was compared to the Cattel-Warren pancreaticojejunostomy in cohorts of patients matched by propensity scores based on factors predictive of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula, which was the primary endpoint of this study. Based on a noninferiority study design, 95 open pancreatoduodenectomies per group were needed. Feasibility of the modification of the Blumgart pancreaticojejunostomy in robotic pancreatoduodenectomy was also shown. All pancreaticojejunostomies were performed by a single surgeon. Results Between October 2011 and May 2019, there were 415 pancreatoduodenectomies with either a Cattel-Warren pancreaticojejunostomy (n = 225) or a modification of the Blumgart pancreaticojejunostomy (n = 190). There was 1 grade C postoperative pancreatic fistula in 190 consecutive modification of the Blumgart pancreaticojejunostomies (0.5%). Logistic regression analysis showed that the rate of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula was not affected by consecutive case number. After exclusion of robotic pancreatoduodenectomies (the Cattel-Warren pancreaticojejunostomy: 82; modification of the Blumgart pancreaticojejunostomy: 66), 267 open pancreatoduodenectomies were left, among which the matching process identified 109 pairs. The modification of the Blumgart pancreaticojejunostomy was shown to be noninferior to the Cattel-Warren pancreaticojejunostomy with respect to clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (11.9% vs 22.9%; odds ratio: 0.46 [0.21–0.93]; P = .03), grade B postoperative pancreatic fistula (11.9% vs 18.3%; P = .18), and grade C postoperative pancreatic fistula (0 vs 4.6%; P = .05) as well as to all secondary study endpoints. The modification of the Blumgart pancreaticojejunostomy was feasible in 66 robotic pancreatoduodenectomies. In this subgroup with 1 conversion to open surgery (1.5%), a clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula occurred after 9 procedures (13.6%) with no case of grade C postoperative pancreatic fistula and a 90-day mortality of 3%. Conclusion The modification of the Blumgart pancreaticojejunostomy described herein is noninferior to the Cattel-Warren pancreaticojejunostomy in open pancreatoduodenectomy. This technique is also feasible in robotic pancreatoduodenectomy

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

efficacia e sicurezza dei nuovi farmaci anticoagulanti orali rispetto al warfarin nella profilassi cardioembolica del paziente con fibrillazione atriale non valvolare piu luci che ombre

Summary Introduction The prophylaxis of thromboembolic events represents a key point in the modern management of patients with non valvular atrial fibrillation (AF), both paroxysmal and persistent/permanent. Up to now, vitamin K antagonist (VKA) drugs are the first choice in thromboembolic prophylaxis. Their treatment limitations have lead to development and clinical experimental use of new molecules aimed to overcome their limits. The new oral anticoagulants, such as dabigatran, a direct inhibitor of thrombin or rivaroxaban and apixaban, direct inhibitors of activated factor X, have been compared to warfarin in randomized clinical phase three trials (RCTs) for thromboembolic prevention in patients with non valvular AF with the aim to demonstrate their non inferiority when compared to warfarin. The results of these trials have been recently published. In this article the authors review the results of efficacy and safety of these three more recently published large RCTs. Conclusions All RCTs, RE-LY for dabigatran, ROCKET-AF for rivaroxaban and ARISTOTLE for apixaban met the study end-points and demonstrated a good safety profile of each new oral anticoagulant, so promising a new era for thromboembolic prevention therapy in AF

Minimally invasive spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy: real-world data from the italian national registry of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery

Aim: Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy has become the standard of care for benign and low malignant lesions. Spleen preservation in this setting has been proposed to reduce surgical trauma and long-term sequelae. The aim of the current study is to present real-world data on indications, techniques, and outcomes of spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (SPDP). Methods: Patients who underwent SPDP and distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy (DPWS) were extracted from the 2019-2022 Italian National Registry for Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Surgery (IGoMIPS). Perioperative and pathological data were collected. Results: One hundred and ten patients underwent SPDP and five hundred and seventy-eight underwent DPWS. Patients undergoing SPDP were significantly younger (56 vs. 63.5 years; P < 0.001). Seventy-six percent of SPDP cases were performed in six out of thirty-four IGoMIPS centers. SPDP was performed predominantly for Neuroendocrine Tumors (43.6% vs.23.5%; P < 0.001) and for smaller lesions (T1 57.6% vs. 29.8%; P < 0.001). The conversion rate was higher in the case of DPWS (7.6% vs. 0.9%; P = 0.006), even when pancreatic cancer was ruled out (5.0% vs. 0.9%; P = 0.045). The robotic approach was most commonly used for SPDP (50.9% vs. 29.7%; P < 0.001). No difference in postoperative outcomes and length of stay was observed between the two groups, as well as between robotic and laparoscopic approaches in the SPDP group. A trend toward a lower rate of postoperative sepsis was observed after SPDP (0.9% vs. 5.2%; P = 0.056). In 84.7% of SPDP, splenic vessels were preserved (Kimura procedure) without an impact on short-term postoperative outcomes. Conclusion: In this registry analysis, SPDP was feasible and safe. The Kimura procedure was prevalent over the Warshaw procedure. The typical patient undergoing SPDP was young with a neuroendocrine tumor at an early stage. Robotic assistance was used more frequently for SPDP than for DPWS

REDISCOVER International Guidelines on the Perioperative Care of Surgical Patients With Borderline-resectable and Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer

OBJECTIVE: The REDISCOVER consensus conference aimed at developing and validate guidelines on the perioperative care of patients with borderline resectable (BR-) and locally advanced (LA) pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Coupled with improvements in chemotherapy and radiation, the contemporary approach to pancreatic surgery supports resection of BR-PDAC and, to a lesser extent, LA-PDAC. Guidelines outlining the selection and perioperative care for these patients are lacking.METHODS: The Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) methodology was used to develop the REDISCOVER guidelines and create recommendations. The Delphi approach was used to reach consensus (agreement ≥80%) among experts. Recommendations were approved after a debate and vote among international experts in pancreatic surgery and pancreatic cancer management. A Validation Committee used the AGREE II-GRS tool to assess the methodological quality of the guidelines. Moreover, an independent multidisciplinary advisory group revised the statements to ensure adherence to non-surgical guidelines.RESULTS: Overall, 34 recommendations were created targeting centralization, training, staging, patient selection for surgery, possibility of surgery in uncommon scenarios, timing of surgery, avoidance of vascular reconstruction, details of vascular resection/reconstruction, arterial divestment, frozen section histology of perivascular tissue, extent of lymphadenectomy, anticoagulation prophylaxis and role of minimally invasive surgery. The level of evidence was however low for 29 of 34 clinical questions. Participants agreed that the most conducive mean to promptly advance our understanding in this field is to establish an international registry addressing this patient population ( https://rediscover.unipi.it/ ).CONCLUSIONS: The REDISCOVER guidelines provide clinical recommendations pertaining to pancreatectomy with vascular resection for patients with BR- and LA-PDAC, and serve as the basis of a new international registry for this patient population.</p

REDISCOVER International Guidelines on the Perioperative Care of Surgical Patients With Borderline-resectable and Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer

OBJECTIVE: The REDISCOVER consensus conference aimed at developing and validate guidelines on the perioperative care of patients with borderline resectable (BR-) and locally advanced (LA) pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Coupled with improvements in chemotherapy and radiation, the contemporary approach to pancreatic surgery supports resection of BR-PDAC and, to a lesser extent, LA-PDAC. Guidelines outlining the selection and perioperative care for these patients are lacking.METHODS: The Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) methodology was used to develop the REDISCOVER guidelines and create recommendations. The Delphi approach was used to reach consensus (agreement ≥80%) among experts. Recommendations were approved after a debate and vote among international experts in pancreatic surgery and pancreatic cancer management. A Validation Committee used the AGREE II-GRS tool to assess the methodological quality of the guidelines. Moreover, an independent multidisciplinary advisory group revised the statements to ensure adherence to non-surgical guidelines.RESULTS: Overall, 34 recommendations were created targeting centralization, training, staging, patient selection for surgery, possibility of surgery in uncommon scenarios, timing of surgery, avoidance of vascular reconstruction, details of vascular resection/reconstruction, arterial divestment, frozen section histology of perivascular tissue, extent of lymphadenectomy, anticoagulation prophylaxis and role of minimally invasive surgery. The level of evidence was however low for 29 of 34 clinical questions. Participants agreed that the most conducive mean to promptly advance our understanding in this field is to establish an international registry addressing this patient population ( https://rediscover.unipi.it/ ).CONCLUSIONS: The REDISCOVER guidelines provide clinical recommendations pertaining to pancreatectomy with vascular resection for patients with BR- and LA-PDAC, and serve as the basis of a new international registry for this patient population.</p

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/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 &lt; .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 &lt; .001), and lower rates of postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C (19.0% vs 11.7%; P &lt; .001), delayed gastric emptying grade B/C (21.4% vs 7.4%; P &lt; .001), and a higher R0-resection rate (73.2% vs 84.4%; P &lt; .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.</p

First World Consensus Conference on pancreas transplantation: Part II - recommendations.

Funder: Fondazione Pisa, Pisa, Italy; Id: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100007368Funder: Tuscany Region, Italy; Id: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100009888Funder: Pisa University Hospital, Pisa, ItalyFunder: University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy; Id: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100007514The First World Consensus Conference on Pancreas Transplantation provided 49 jury deliberations regarding the impact of pancreas transplantation on the treatment of diabetic patients, and 110 experts' recommendations for the practice of pancreas transplantation. The main message from this consensus conference is that both simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation (SPK) and pancreas transplantation alone can improve long-term patient survival, and all types of pancreas transplantation dramatically improve the quality of life of recipients. Pancreas transplantation may also improve the course of chronic complications of diabetes, depending on their severity. Therefore, the advantages of pancreas transplantation appear to clearly surpass potential disadvantages. Pancreas after kidney transplantation increases the risk of mortality only in the early period after transplantation, but is associated with improved life expectancy thereafter. Additionally, preemptive SPK, when compared to SPK performed in patients undergoing dialysis, appears to be associated with improved outcomes. Time on dialysis has negative prognostic implications in SPK recipients. Increased long-term survival, improvement in the course of diabetic complications, and amelioration of quality of life justify preferential allocation of kidney grafts to SPK recipients. Audience discussions and live voting are available online at the following URL address: http://mediaeventi.unipi.it/category/1st-world-consensus-conference-of-pancreas-transplantation/246