Early experience with robotic pancreatoduodenectomy versus open pancreatoduodenectomy:nationwide propensity-score-matched analysis

Background: Although robotic pancreatoduodenectomy has shown promising outcomes in experienced high-volume centres, it is unclear whether implementation on a nationwide scale is safe and beneficial. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of the early experience with robotic pancreatoduodenectomy versus open pancreatoduodenectomy in the Netherlands. Methods: This was a nationwide retrospective cohort study of all consecutive patients who underwent robotic pancreatoduodenectomy or open pancreatoduodenectomy who were registered in the mandatory Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit (18 centres, 2014-2021), starting from the first robotic pancreatoduodenectomy procedure per centre. The main endpoints were major complications (Clavien-Dindo grade greater than or equal to III) and in-hospital/30-day mortality. Propensity-score matching (1 : 1) was used to minimize selection bias. Results: Overall, 701 patients who underwent robotic pancreatoduodenectomy and 4447 patients who underwent open pancreatoduodenectomy were included. Among the eight centres that performed robotic pancreatoduodenectomy, the median robotic pancreatoduodenectomy experience was 86 (range 48-149), with a 7.3% conversion rate. After matching (698 robotic pancreatoduodenectomy patients versus 698 open pancreatoduodenectomy control patients), no significant differences were found in major complications (40.3% versus 36.2% respectively; P = 0.186), in-hospital/30-day mortality (4.0% versus 3.1% respectively; P = 0.326), and postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C (24.9% versus 23.5% respectively; P = 0.578). Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with a longer operating time (359 min versus 301 min; P &lt; 0.001), less intraoperative blood loss (200 ml versus 500 ml; P &lt; 0.001), fewer wound infections (7.4% versus 12.2%; P = 0.008), and a shorter hospital stay (11 days versus 12 days; P &lt; 0.001). Centres performing greater than or equal to 20 robotic pancreatoduodenectomies annually had a lower mortality rate (2.9% versus 7.3%; P = 0.009) and a lower conversion rate (6.3% versus 11.2%; P = 0.032). Conclusion: This study indicates that robotic pancreatoduodenectomy was safely implemented nationwide, without significant differences in major morbidity and mortality compared with matched open pancreatoduodenectomy patients. Randomized trials should be carried out to verify these findings and confirm the observed benefits of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy versus open pancreatoduodenectomy.</p

Early experience with robotic pancreatoduodenectomy versus open pancreatoduodenectomy:nationwide propensity-score-matched analysis

Background: Although robotic pancreatoduodenectomy has shown promising outcomes in experienced high-volume centres, it is unclear whether implementation on a nationwide scale is safe and beneficial. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of the early experience with robotic pancreatoduodenectomy versus open pancreatoduodenectomy in the Netherlands. Methods: This was a nationwide retrospective cohort study of all consecutive patients who underwent robotic pancreatoduodenectomy or open pancreatoduodenectomy who were registered in the mandatory Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit (18 centres, 2014-2021), starting from the first robotic pancreatoduodenectomy procedure per centre. The main endpoints were major complications (Clavien-Dindo grade greater than or equal to III) and in-hospital/30-day mortality. Propensity-score matching (1 : 1) was used to minimize selection bias. Results: Overall, 701 patients who underwent robotic pancreatoduodenectomy and 4447 patients who underwent open pancreatoduodenectomy were included. Among the eight centres that performed robotic pancreatoduodenectomy, the median robotic pancreatoduodenectomy experience was 86 (range 48-149), with a 7.3% conversion rate. After matching (698 robotic pancreatoduodenectomy patients versus 698 open pancreatoduodenectomy control patients), no significant differences were found in major complications (40.3% versus 36.2% respectively; P = 0.186), in-hospital/30-day mortality (4.0% versus 3.1% respectively; P = 0.326), and postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C (24.9% versus 23.5% respectively; P = 0.578). Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with a longer operating time (359 min versus 301 min; P &lt; 0.001), less intraoperative blood loss (200 ml versus 500 ml; P &lt; 0.001), fewer wound infections (7.4% versus 12.2%; P = 0.008), and a shorter hospital stay (11 days versus 12 days; P &lt; 0.001). Centres performing greater than or equal to 20 robotic pancreatoduodenectomies annually had a lower mortality rate (2.9% versus 7.3%; P = 0.009) and a lower conversion rate (6.3% versus 11.2%; P = 0.032). Conclusion: This study indicates that robotic pancreatoduodenectomy was safely implemented nationwide, without significant differences in major morbidity and mortality compared with matched open pancreatoduodenectomy patients. Randomized trials should be carried out to verify these findings and confirm the observed benefits of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy versus open pancreatoduodenectomy.</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

Early experience with robotic pancreatoduodenectomy versus open pancreatoduodenectomy: nationwide propensity-score-matched analysis

Background: Although robotic pancreatoduodenectomy has shown promising outcomes in experienced high-volume centres, it is unclear whether implementation on a nationwide scale is safe and beneficial. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of the early experience with robotic pancreatoduodenectomy versus open pancreatoduodenectomy in the Netherlands. Methods: This was a nationwide retrospective cohort study of all consecutive patients who underwent robotic pancreatoduodenectomy or open pancreatoduodenectomy who were registered in the mandatory Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit (18 centres, 2014-2021), starting from the first robotic pancreatoduodenectomy procedure per centre. The main endpoints were major complications (Clavien-Dindo grade greater than or equal to III) and in-hospital/30-day mortality. Propensity-score matching (1 : 1) was used to minimize selection bias. Results: Overall, 701 patients who underwent robotic pancreatoduodenectomy and 4447 patients who underwent open pancreatoduodenectomy were included. Among the eight centres that performed robotic pancreatoduodenectomy, the median robotic pancreatoduodenectomy experience was 86 (range 48-149), with a 7.3% conversion rate. After matching (698 robotic pancreatoduodenectomy patients versus 698 open pancreatoduodenectomy control patients), no significant differences were found in major complications (40.3% versus 36.2% respectively; P = 0.186), in-hospital/30-day mortality (4.0% versus 3.1% respectively; P = 0.326), and postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C (24.9% versus 23.5% respectively; P = 0.578). Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with a longer operating time (359 min versus 301 min; P < 0.001), less intraoperative blood loss (200 ml versus 500 ml; P < 0.001), fewer wound infections (7.4% versus 12.2%; P = 0.008), and a shorter hospital stay (11 days versus 12 days; P < 0.001). Centres performing greater than or equal to 20 robotic pancreatoduodenectomies annually had a lower mortality rate (2.9% versus 7.3%; P = 0.009) and a lower conversion rate (6.3% versus 11.2%; P = 0.032). Conclusion: This study indicates that robotic pancreatoduodenectomy was safely implemented nationwide, without significant differences in major morbidity and mortality compared with matched open pancreatoduodenectomy patients. Randomized trials should be carried out to verify these findings and confirm the observed benefits of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy versus open pancreatoduodenectomy

The Brescia Internationally Validated European Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Surgery (EGUMIPS)

Objective: To develop and update evidence-based and consensus-based guidelines on laparoscopic and robotic pancreatic surgery. Summary Background Data: Minimally invasive pancreatic surgery (MIPS), including laparoscopic and robotic surgery, is complex and technically demanding. Minimizing the risk for patients requires stringent, evidence-based guidelines. Since the International Miami Guidelines on MIPS in 2019, new developments and key publications have been reported, necessitating an update. Methods: Evidence-based guidelines on 22 topics in 8 domains were proposed: terminology, indications, patients, procedures, surgical techniques and instrumentation, assessment tools, implementation and training, and artificial intelligence. The Brescia Internationally Validated European Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Surgery (EGUMIPS, September 2022) used the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) methodology to assess the evidence and develop guideline recommendations, the Delphi method to establish consensus on the recommendations among the Expert Committee, and the AGREE II-GRS tool for guideline quality assessment and external validation by a Validation Committee. Results: Overall, 27 European experts, 6 international experts, 22 international Validation Committee members, 11 Jury Committee members, 18 Research Committee members, and 121 registered attendees of the 2-day meeting were involved in the development and validation of the guidelines. In total, 98 recommendations were developed, including 33 on laparoscopic, 34 on robotic, and 31 on general MIPS, covering 22 topics in 8 domains. Out of 98 recommendations, 97 reached at least 80% consensus among the experts and congress attendees, and all recommendations were externally validated by the Validation Committee. Conclusions: The EGUMIPS evidence-based guidelines on laparoscopic and robotic MIPS can be applied in current clinical practice to provide guidance to patients, surgeons, policy-makers, and medical societies.</p

The Feasibility, Proficiency, and Mastery Learning Curves in 635 Robotic Pancreatoduodenectomies Following a Multicenter Training Program: "standing on the Shoulders of Giants"

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

Added value of 3D-vision during robotic pancreatoduodenectomy anastomoses in biotissue (LAEBOT 3D2D): a randomized controlled cross-over trial

Background: We tested the added value of 3D-vision on procedure time and surgical performance during robotic pancreatoduodenectomy anastomoses in biotissue. Robotic surgery has the advantage of articulating instruments and 3D-vision. Consensus is lacking on the added value of 3D-vision during laparoscopic surgery. Given the improved dexterity with robotic surgery, the added value of 3D-vision may be even less with robotic surgery. Methods: In this experimental randomized controlled cross-over trial, 20 surgeons and surgical residents from 5 countries performed robotic pancreaticojejunostomy and hepaticojejunostomy anastomoses in a biotissue organ model using the da Vinci® system and were randomized to start with either 3D- or 2D-vision. Primary endpoint was the time required to complete both anastomoses. Secondary endpoint was the objective structured assessment of technical skill (OSATS; range 12–60) rating; scored by two observers blinded to 3D/2D. Results: Robotic 3D-vision reduced the combined operative time from 78.1 to 57.3 min (24.6% reduction, p < 0.001; 20.8 min reduction, 95% confidence intervals 12.8–28.8 min). This reduction was consistent for both anastomoses and between surgeons and residents, p < 0.001. Robotic 3D-vision improved OSATS performance by 6.1 points (20.8% improvement, p = 0.003) compared to 2D (39.4 to 45.1 points, ± 5.5). Conclusion: 3D-vision has a considerable added value during robotic pancreatoduodenectomy anastomoses in biotissue in both time reduction and improved surgical performance as compared to 2D-vision

Performance with robotic surgery versus 3D- and 2D­laparoscopy during pancreatic and biliary anastomoses in a biotissue model: pooled analysis of two randomized trials

Background: Robotic surgery may improve surgical performance during minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy as compared to 3D- and 2D-laparoscopy but comparative studies are lacking. This study assessed the impact of robotic surgery versus 3D- and 2D-laparoscopy on surgical performance and operative time using a standardized biotissue model for pancreatico- and hepatico-jejunostomy using pooled data from two randomized controlled crossover trials (RCTs). Methods: Pooled analysis of data from two RCTs with 60 participants (36 surgeons, 24 residents) from 11 countries (December 2017–July 2019) was conducted. Each included participant completed two pancreatico- and two hepatico-jejunostomies in biotissue using 3D-robotic surgery, 3D-laparoscopy, or 2D-laparoscopy. Primary outcomes were the objective structured assessment of technical skills (OSATS: 12–60) rating, scored by observers blinded for 3D/2D and the operative time required to complete both anastomoses. Sensitivity analysis excluded participants with excess experience compared to others. Results: A total of 220 anastomoses were completed (robotic 80, 3D-laparoscopy 70, 2D­laparoscopy 70). Participants in the robotic group had less surgical experience [median 1 (0–2) versus 6 years (4–12), p < 0.001], as compared to the laparoscopic group. Robotic surgery resulted in higher OSATS ratings (50, 43, 39 points, p =.021 and p <.001) and shorter operative time (56.5, 65.0, 81.5 min, p =.055 and p <.001), as compared to 3D- and 2D­laparoscopy, respectively, which remained in the sensitivity analysis. Conclusion: In a pooled analysis of two RCTs in a biotissue model, robotic surgery resulted in better surgical performance scores and shorter operative time for biotissue pancreatic and biliary anastomoses, as compared to 3D- and 2D-laparoscopy