Unplanned conversions of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy: short-term outcomes and suggested stepwise approach for a safe conversion.

OBJECTIVE: With the increased adoption of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy, the effects of unplanned conversions to an 'open' operation are ill-defined. This study aims to describe the impact of unplanned conversions of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy on short-term outcomes and suggest a stepwise approach for safe unplanned conversions during robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. METHODS: This is an analysis of 400 consecutive patients undergoing robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy in a single high-volume institution. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD), and significance is accepted with 95% probability. RESULTS: Between November 2012 and February 2023, 184 (46%) women and 216 (54%) men, aged 70 (68 ± 11.0) years, underwent a robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. Unplanned conversions occurred in 42 (10.5%) patients; 18 (5%) were converted due to unanticipated vascular involvement, 13 (3%) due to failure to obtain definitive control of bleeding, and 11 (3%) due to visceral obesity. Men were more likely to require a conversion than women (29 vs. 13, p = 0.05). Conversions were associated with shorter operative time (376 (323 ± 182.2) vs. 434 (441 ± 98.7) min, p < 0.0001) but higher estimated blood loss (675 (1010 ± 1168.1) vs. 150 (196 ± 176.8) mL, p < 0.0001). Patients that required an unplanned conversion had higher rates of complications with Clavien-Dindo scores of III-V (31% vs. 12%, p = 0.003), longer length of stay (8 (11 ± 11.6) vs. 5 (7 ± 6.2), p = 0.0005), longer ICU length of stay (1 (2 ± 5.1) vs. 0 (0 ± 1.3), p < 0.0001) and higher mortality rates (21% vs. 4%, p = 0.0001). The conversion rate significantly decreased over time (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Unplanned conversions of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy significantly and negatively affect short-term outcomes, including postoperative mortality. Men were more likely to require a conversion than women. The unplanned conversions rates significantly decreased over time, implying that increased proficiency and patient selection may prevent unplanned conversions. An unplanned conversion should be undertaken in an organized stepwise approach to maximize patient safety.

The Implications of Readmission on Cost and Patient Outcomes Following Distal Pancreatectomy and Splenectomy.

BACKGROUND: Robotic platform usage for distal pancreatectomy and splenectomy has grown exponentially in recent years. This study aims to identify the impact of readmission following robotic distal pancreatectomy and splenectomy and to analyze the financial implications of these readmissions. METHODS: We prospectively followed 137 patients after robotic distal pancreatectomy and splenectomy. Readmission was defined as rehospitalization within 30 days post-discharge. Total cost incorporated initial and readmission hospital costs, when applicable. Outcomes were analyzed using chi-square/Fisher's exact test and Student's t test. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD). RESULTS: Of 137 patients, 20 (14%) were readmitted. Readmitted patients were 67 (66 ± 10.3) years old and had a BMI of 30 (30 ± 7.0) kg/m2; 9 (45%) had previous abdominal operations. Non-readmitted patients were 67 (62 ± 14.7) years old and had a BMI of 28 (28 ± 5.7) kg/m2; 37 (32%) had previous abdominal operations (P = NS, for all). Readmitted patients vs non-readmitted patients had operative durations of 327 (363 ± 179.1) vs 251 (293 ± 176.4) minutes (P = .10), estimated blood loss (EBL) of 90 (159 ± 214.6) vs 100 (244 ± 559.4) mL (P = .50), and tumor diameter of 3 (4 ± 2.0) vs 3 (4 ± 2.9) cm (P = 1.00). Initial length of stay (LOS) for readmitted patients vs patients who were not readmitted was 5 (5 ± 2.7) vs 4 (5 ± 3.0) days (P = 1.00); total hospital cost of those readmitted, including both admissions, was $29,095 (32,324 ± 20,227.38) vs $24,663 (25,075 ± 10,786.45) (P = .018) for those not readmitted. DISCUSSION: Despite a similar perioperative course, readmissions were associated with increased costs. We propose thorough consideration before readmission and increased patient education initiatives will reduce readmissions after robotic distal pancreatectomy and splenectomy.

Comparative Analysis of NSQIP National Outcomes and Projected Outcomes versus Our Institutional Outcomes for Robotic Gastrectomy: The Future of Gastric Resection.

BACKGROUND: The robotic approach has vast applications in surgery; however, the utility of robotic gastrectomy has yet to be clearly defined. This study aimed to compare outcomes following robotic gastrectomy at our institution to the national patient-specific predicted outcomes data provided by the American College of Surgeons (ACS) National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP). METHODS: We prospectively studied 73 patients who underwent robotic gastrectomy under our care. ACS NSQIP outcomes after gastrectomy and predicted outcomes for our patients were compared with our actual outcomes utilizing students t test and chi-square analysis, where applicable. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD). RESULTS: Patients were 65 (66 ± 10.7) years old with a BMI of 26 (28 ± 6.5) kg/m2. 35 patients had gastric adenocarcinomas and 22 had gastrointestinal stromal tumors Operative duration was 245 (250 ± 114.7) minutes, estimated blood loss was 50 (83 ± 91.6) mL, and there were no conversions to 'open'. 1% of patients experienced superficial surgical site infections compared to the NSQIP predicted rate of 10% (P < .05). Length of stay (LOS) was 5 (6 ± 4.2) days vs NSQIP's predicted LOS of 8 (8 ± 3.2) days (P < .05). Three patients died during their postoperative hospital course (4%), due to multi-system organ failure and cardiac arrest. 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year estimated survival for patients with gastric adenocarcinoma was 76%, 63%, and 63%, respectively. DISCUSSION: Robotic gastrectomy yields salutary patient outcomes and optimal survival for varying gastric diseases, particularly gastric adenocarcinoma. Our patients experienced shorter hospital stays and reduced complications relative to patients in NSQIP and predicted outcome for our patients. Gastrectomy undertaken robotically is the future of gastric resection.

Robotic Extrahepatic Biliary Resection with Roux-en-Y Hepaticojejunostomy for Type 2 Klatskin Tumor.

BACKGROUND: Despite the widespread of laparoscopic technique in hepatobiliary tumor resection, nearly all Klatskin tumor resection is undertaken using an open approach (Marino et al. in Updates Surg 72(3):911-912. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-020-00777-8 ; Sucandy et al. in Am Surg, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003134820956336 , Am Surg, 2020;86(3):200-207; Luberice et al. in HPB (Oxford), 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hpb.2020.10.008 ; Ciria et al. in J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1002/jhbp.869 ; Chong and Choi in J Gastrointest Surg 23(9):1947-19488, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-019-04242-9 ). A minimally invasive approach for malignant extrahepatic biliary resection is rarely used due to technical complexity and concerns of oncological inferiority. In the United States, robotic technique for Klatskin tumor resection has not been adequately described. This video described our technique of robotic extrahepatic biliary resection with Roux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomy (HJ) for type 2 Klatskin tumor. METHODS: A 77-year-old man presented with obstructive jaundice. Endobiliary brushing confirmed adenocarcinoma. MRI/MRCP showed a focal lesion at the cystic duct entrance into the common hepatic duct, extending cephalad toward the biliary bifurcation. No obvious vascular invasion was identified on the CT scan. RESULTS: The operation was undertaken using a six-port technique. Systematic portal dissection was undertaken to identify the bile duct at the level of the pancreas up toward the hepatic hilum. A partial Kocher maneuver was performed to expose the area dorsal to the distal common bile duct, which allows for a more thorough lymphadenectomy and facilitates creation of a later tension-free hepaticojejunostomy. The distal common bile duct was transected, and the distal margin was sent for frozen section. The right hepatic artery coursing posterior to the common hepatic duct was skeletonized and preserved. Biliary duct bifurcation was transected at the level of the right and left duct, removing the cancer completely. Portal lymphadenectomy was completed as part of oncological staging and treatment. A total of eight lymph nodes were removed and all confirmed to be nonneoplastic on the final pathology report. For the purpose of the biliary reconstruction, a standard side-to-side stapled jejunojejunostomy was created. A jejunal mesenteric defect was closed to prevent a future internal herniation. A 60-cm Roux limb was transposed antecolically for the Roux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomy. A running technique was used to create a watertight end-to-side bilioenteric anastomosis, using 3-0 barbed sutures, 6 inches in length. A closed suction drain was placed before closing. Pathology report confirmed intraductal papillary adenocarcinoma with R-0 resection margins (proximal, distal, and radial margin). Perineural invasion was present; however, lymphovascular invasion was not identified. Total operative time was 240 minutes with 75 ml of estimated blood loss. The postoperative recovery was uneventful. One-year follow-up showed no evidence of disease recurrence or HJ anastomotic stricture. CONCLUSIONS: This video demonstrates a safe and feasible application of the robotic platform in extrahepatic bile duct cancer resection requiring fine biliary reconstruction.