Benchmarking of robotic and laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy by using two different methods

Benchmarking; PancreatectomyBenchmarking; PancreatectomiaBenchmarking; PancreatectomíaBackground Benchmarking is an important tool for quality comparison and improvement. However, no benchmark values are available for minimally invasive spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy, either laparoscopically or robotically assisted. The aim of this study was to establish benchmarks for these techniques using two different methods. Methods Data from patients undergoing laparoscopically or robotically assisted spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy were extracted from a multicentre database (2006–2019). Benchmarks for 10 outcomes were calculated using the Achievable Benchmark of Care (ABC) and best-patient-in-best-centre methods. Results Overall, 951 laparoscopically assisted (77.3 per cent) and 279 robotically assisted (22.7 per cent) procedures were included. Using the ABC method, the benchmarks for laparoscopically assisted and robotically assisted spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy respectively were: 150 and 207 min for duration of operation, 55 and 100 ml for blood loss, 3.5 and 1.7 per cent for conversion, 0 and 1.7 per cent for failure to preserve the spleen, 27.3 and 34.0 per cent for overall morbidity, 5.1 and 3.3 per cent for major morbidity, 3.6 and 7.1 per cent for pancreatic fistula grade B/C, 5 and 6 days for duration of hospital stay, 2.9 and 5.4 per cent for readmissions, and 0 and 0 per cent for 90-day mortality. Best-patient-in-best-centre methodology revealed milder benchmark cut-offs for laparoscopically and robotically assisted procedures, with operating times of 254 and 262.5 min, blood loss of 150 and 195 ml, conversion rates of 5.8 and 8.2 per cent, rates of failure to salvage spleen of 29.9 and 27.3 per cent, overall morbidity rates of 62.7 and 55.7 per cent, major morbidity rates of 20.4 and 14 per cent, POPF B/C rates of 23.8 and 24.2 per cent, duration of hospital stay of 8 and 8 days, readmission rates of 20 and 15.1 per cent, and 90-day mortality rates of 0 and 0 per cent respectively. Conclusion Two benchmark methods for minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy produced different values, and should be interpreted and applied differently

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

Distal pancreatectomy; Pancreatic cancerPancreatectomia distal; Càncer de pàncreesPancreatectomía distal; Cáncer de páncreasBackground 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

Minimally invasive robot-assisted and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy in a pan-European registry a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND: International guidelines recommend monitoring the use and outcome of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery (MIPS). However, data from prospective international audits on minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) are lacking. This study examined the use and outcome of robot-assisted (RDP) and laparoscopic (LDP) distal pancreatectomy in the E-MIPS registry. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Post-hoc analysis in a prospective audit on MIPS, including consecutive patients undergoing MIDP in 83 centers from 19 European countries (01-01-2019/31-12-2021). Primary outcomes included intraoperative events (grade 1: excessive blood loss, grade 2: conversion/change in operation, grade 3: intraoperative death), major morbidity, and in-hospital/30-day mortality. Multivariable logistic regression analyses identified high-risk groups for intraoperative events. RDP and LDP were compared in the total cohort and high-risk groups. RESULTS: Overall, 1672 patients undergoing MIDP were included; 606 (36.2%) RDP and 1066 (63.8%) LDP. The annual use of RDP increased from 30.5% to 42.6% ( P &lt;0.001). RDP was associated with fewer grade 2 intraoperative events compared with LDP (9.6% vs. 16.8%, P &lt;0.001), with longer operating time (238 vs. 201 min, P &lt;0.001). No significant differences were observed between RDP and LDP regarding major morbidity (23.4% vs. 25.9%, P =0.264) and in-hospital/30-day mortality (0.3% vs. 0.8%, P =0.344). Three high-risk groups were identified; BMI greater than 25 kg/m 2 , previous abdominal surgery, and vascular involvement. In each group, RDP was associated with fewer conversions and longer operative times. CONCLUSION: This European registry-based study demonstrated favorable outcomes for MIDP, with mortality rates below 1%. LDP remains the predominant approach, whereas the use of RDP is increasing. RDP was associated with fewer conversions and longer operative time, including in high-risk subgroups. Future randomized trials should confirm these findings and assess cost differences.</p

Minimally invasive robot-assisted and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy in a pan-European registry a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND: International guidelines recommend monitoring the use and outcome of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery (MIPS). However, data from prospective international audits on minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) are lacking. This study examined the use and outcome of robot-assisted (RDP) and laparoscopic (LDP) distal pancreatectomy in the E-MIPS registry. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Post-hoc analysis in a prospective audit on MIPS, including consecutive patients undergoing MIDP in 83 centers from 19 European countries (01-01-2019/31-12-2021). Primary outcomes included intraoperative events (grade 1: excessive blood loss, grade 2: conversion/change in operation, grade 3: intraoperative death), major morbidity, and in-hospital/30-day mortality. Multivariable logistic regression analyses identified high-risk groups for intraoperative events. RDP and LDP were compared in the total cohort and high-risk groups. RESULTS: Overall, 1672 patients undergoing MIDP were included; 606 (36.2%) RDP and 1066 (63.8%) LDP. The annual use of RDP increased from 30.5% to 42.6% ( P &lt;0.001). RDP was associated with fewer grade 2 intraoperative events compared with LDP (9.6% vs. 16.8%, P &lt;0.001), with longer operating time (238 vs. 201 min, P &lt;0.001). No significant differences were observed between RDP and LDP regarding major morbidity (23.4% vs. 25.9%, P =0.264) and in-hospital/30-day mortality (0.3% vs. 0.8%, P =0.344). Three high-risk groups were identified; BMI greater than 25 kg/m 2 , previous abdominal surgery, and vascular involvement. In each group, RDP was associated with fewer conversions and longer operative times. CONCLUSION: This European registry-based study demonstrated favorable outcomes for MIDP, with mortality rates below 1%. LDP remains the predominant approach, whereas the use of RDP is increasing. RDP was associated with fewer conversions and longer operative time, including in high-risk subgroups. Future randomized trials should confirm these findings and assess cost differences.</p

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

Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis including patient subgroups

Background: Robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RDP) has been suggested to hold some benefits over laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) but consensus and data on specific subgroups are lacking. This systematic review and meta-analysis reports the surgical and oncological outcome and costs between RDP and LDP including subgroups with intended spleen preservation and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Methods: Studies comparing RDP and LDP were included from PubMed, Cochrane Central Register, and Embase (inception-July 2022). Primary outcomes were conversion and unplanned splenectomy. Secondary outcomes were R0 resection, lymph node yield, major morbidity, operative time, intraoperative blood loss, in-hospital mortality, operative costs, total costs and hospital stay. Results: Overall, 43 studies with 6757 patients were included, 2514 after RDP and 4243 after LDP. RDP was associated with a longer operative time (MD = 18.21, 95% CI 2.18–34.24), less blood loss (MD = 54.50, 95% CI − 84.49–24.50), and a lower conversion rate (OR = 0.44, 95% CI 0.36–0.55) compared to LDP. In spleen-preserving procedures, RDP was associated with more Kimura procedures (OR = 2.23, 95% CI 1.37–3.64) and a lower rate of unplanned splenectomies (OR = 0.32, 95% CI 0.24–0.42). In patients with PDAC, RDP was associated with a higher lymph node yield (MD = 3.95, 95% CI 1.67–6.23), but showed no difference in the rate of R0 resection (OR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.67–1.37). RDP was associated with higher total (MD = 3009.31, 95% CI 1776.37–4242.24) and operative costs (MD = 3390.40, 95% CI 1981.79–4799.00). Conclusions: RDP was associated with a lower conversion rate, a higher spleen preservation rate and, in patients with PDAC, a higher lymph node yield and similar R0 resection rate, as compared to LDP. The potential benefits of RDP need to be weighed against the higher total and operative costs in future randomized trials

Benchmarking of robotic and laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy by using two different methods

Background: benchmarking is an important tool for quality comparison and improvement. However, no benchmark values are available for minimally invasive spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy, either laparoscopically or robotically assisted. The aim of this study was to establish benchmarks for these techniques using two different methods. Methods: data from patients undergoing laparoscopically or robotically assisted spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy were extracted from a multicentre database (2006-2019). Benchmarks for 10 outcomes were calculated using the Achievable Benchmark of Care (ABC) and best-patient-in-best-centre methods. Results: overall, 951 laparoscopically assisted (77.3 per cent) and 279 robotically assisted (22.7 per cent) procedures were included. Using the ABC method, the benchmarks for laparoscopically assisted and robotically assisted spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy respectively were: 150 and 207 min for duration of operation, 55 and 100 ml for blood loss, 3.5 and 1.7 per cent for conversion, 0 and 1.7 per cent for failure to preserve the spleen, 27.3 and 34.0 per cent for overall morbidity, 5.1 and 3.3 per cent for major morbidity, 3.6 and 7.1 per cent for pancreatic fistula grade B/C, 5 and 6 days for duration of hospital stay, 2.9 and 5.4 per cent for readmissions, and 0 and 0 per cent for 90-day mortality. Best-patient-in-best-centre methodology revealed milder benchmark cut-offs for laparoscopically and robotically assisted procedures, with operating times of 254 and 262.5 min, blood loss of 150 and 195 ml, conversion rates of 5.8 and 8.2 per cent, rates of failure to salvage spleen of 29.9 and 27.3 per cent, overall morbidity rates of 62.7 and 55.7 per cent, major morbidity rates of 20.4 and 14 per cent, POPF B/C rates of 23.8 and 24.2 per cent, duration of hospital stay of 8 and 8 days, readmission rates of 20 and 15.1 per cent, and 90-day mortality rates of 0 and 0 per cent respectively. Conclusion: two benchmark methods for minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy produced different values, and should be interpreted and applied differently

Prophylactic abdominal drainage after distal pancreatectomy (PANDORINA):an international, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled, non-inferiority trial

Background: Prophylactic passive abdominal drainage is standard practice after distal pancreatectomy. This approach aims to mitigate the consequences of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) but its added value, especially in patients at low risk of POPF, is currently being debated. We aimed to assess the non-inferiority of a no-drain policy in patients after distal pancreatectomy. Methods: In this international, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled, non-inferiority trial, we recruited patients aged 18 years or older undergoing open or minimally invasive elective distal pancreatectomy for all indications in 12 centres in the Netherlands and Italy. We excluded patients with an American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) physical status of 4–5 or WHO performance status of 3–4, added by amendment following the death of a patient with ASA 4 due to a pre-existing cardiac condition. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) intraoperatively by permuted blocks (size four to eight) to either no drain or prophylactic passive drain placement, stratified by annual centre volume (&lt;40 or ≥40 distal pancreatectomies) and low risk or high risk of grade B or C POPF. High-risk was defined as a pancreatic duct of more than 3 mm in diameter, a pancreatic thickness at the neck of more than 19 mm, or both, based on the Distal Pancreatectomy Fistula Risk Score. Other patients were considered low-risk. The primary outcome was the rate of major morbidity (Clavien–Dindo score ≥III), and the most relevant secondary outcome was grade B or C POPF, grading per the International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery. Outcomes were assessed up to 90 days postoperatively and analysed in the intention-to-treat population and per-protocol population, which only included patients who received the allocated treatment. A prespecified non-inferiority margin of 8% was compared with the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI (Wald) of unadjusted risk difference to assess non-inferiority. This trial is closed and registered in the Netherlands Trial Registry, NL9116. Findings: Between Oct 3, 2020, and April 28, 2023, 376 patients were screened for eligibility and 282 patients were randomly assigned to the no-drain group (n=138; 75 [54%] women and 63 [46%] men) or the drain group (n=144; 73 [51%] women and 71 [49%] men). Seven patients in the no-drain group received a drain intraoperatively; consequently, the per-protocol population included 131 patients in the no-drain group and 144 patients in the drain group. The rate of major morbidity was non-inferior in the no-drain group compared with the drain group in the intention-to-treat analysis (21 [15%] vs 29 [20%]; risk difference –4·9 percentage points [95% CI –13·8 to 4·0]; p non-inferiority=0·0022) and the per-protocol analysis (21 [16%] vs 29 [20%]; risk difference –4·1 percentage points [–13·2 to 5·0]; p non-inferiority=0·0045). Grade B or C POPF was observed in 16 (12%) patients in the no-drain group and in 39 (27%) patients in the drain group (risk difference –15·5 percentage points [95% CI –24·5 to –6·5]; p non-inferiority&lt;0·0001) in the intention-to-treat analysis. Three patients in the no-drain group died within 90 days; the cause of death in two was not considered related to the trial. The third death was a patient with an ASA score of 4 who died after sepsis and a watershed cerebral infarction at second admission, leading to multiple organ failure. No patients in the drain group died within 90 days. Interpretation: A no-drain policy is safe in terms of major morbidity and reduced the detection of grade B or C POPF, and should be the new standard approach in eligible patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy. Funding: Ethicon UK (Johnson &amp; Johnson Medical, Edinburgh, UK).</p