Robotic Versus Open Pancreatoduodenectomy With Vein Resection and Reconstruction: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.

Objective: This study aimed to compare robotic pancreatoduodenectomy with vein resection (PD-VR) based on the incidence of severe postoperative complications (SPC). Background: Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy has been gaining momentum in recent years. Vein resection is frequently required in this operation, but no study has compared robotic and open PD-VR using a matched analysis. Methods: This was an intention-to-treat study designed to demonstrate the noninferiority of robotic to open PD-VR (2011-2021) based on SPC. To achieve a power of 80% (noninferiority margin:10%; α error: 0.05; ß error: 0.20), a 1:1 propensity score-matched analysis required 35 pairs. Results: Of the 151 patients with PD-VR (open = 115, robotic = 36), 35 procedures per group were compared. Elective conversion to open surgery was required in 1 patient with robotic PD-VR (2.9%). One patient in both groups experienced partial vein thrombosis. SPC occurred in 7 (20.0%) and 6 patients (17.1%) in the robotic and open PD-VR groups, respectively (P = 0.759; OR: 1.21 [0.36-4.04]). Three patients died after robotic PD-VR (8.6%) and none died after open PD-VR (P = 0.239). Robotic PD-VR was associated with longer operative time (611.1 ± 13.9 minutes vs 529.0 ± 13.0 minutes; P < 0.0001), more type 2 vein resection (28.6% vs 5.7%; P = 0.0234) and less type 3 vein resection (31.4% vs 71.4%; P = 0.0008), longer vein occlusion time (30 [25.3-78.3] minutes vs 15 [8-19.5] minutes; P = 0.0098), less blood loss (450 [200-750] mL vs 733 [500-1070.3] mL; P = 0.0075), and fewer blood transfusions (intraoperative: 14.3% vs 48.6%; P = 0.0041) (perioperative: 14.3% vs 60.0%; P = 0.0001). Conclusions: In this study, robotic PD-VR was noninferior to open PD-VR for SPC. Robotic and open PD-VR need to be compared in randomized controlled trials.

Postoperative results, learning curve, and outcomes of pancreatectomy with arterial resection: a single-center retrospective cohort study on 236 procedures.

BACKGROUND: Newer chemotherapy regimens are reviving the role of pancreatectomy with arterial resection (PAR) in locally advanced pancreatic cancer. However, concerns about the early outcomes and learning curve of PAR remain. This study aimed to define the postoperative results and learning curve of PAR and provide preliminary data on oncologic outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A single center's experiences (1993-2023) were retrospectively analyzed to define the postoperative outcomes and learning curve of PAR. Oncologic results were also reported. RESULTS: During the study period 236 patients underwent PAR. Eighty PAR (33.9%) were performed until 2012, and 156 were performed thereafter (66.1%). Pancreatic cancer was diagnosed histologically in 183 patients (77.5%). Induction therapy was delivered to 18 of these patients (31.0%) in the early experience and to 101 patients (80.8%) in the last decade (P<0.0001). The superior mesenteric artery (PAR-SMA), celiac trunk/hepatic artery (PAR-CT/HA), superior mesenteric/portal vein, and inferior vena cava were resected in 95 (40.7%), 138 (59.2%), 189 (80.1%), and 9 (3.8%) patients, respectively. Total gastrectomy was performed in 35 (18.5%) patients. The thirty-day mortality rate was 7.2% and ninety-day mortality rate was 9.7%. The learning curve for mortality was 106 PAR (16.0% vs. 4.6%; odds ratio, OR=0.25 [0.10-0.67], P=0.0055). Comparison between the PAR-SMA and PAR-CT/HA groups showed no differences in severe postoperative complications (25.3% vs. 20.6%), 90-day mortality (12.6% vs. 7.8%), and median overall survival. Vascular invasion was confirmed in 123 patients (67.2%). The median number (interquartile range) of examined lymph nodes was 60.5 (41.3-83) and rate of R0 resection was 66.1% (121/183). Median overall survival for PAR was 20.9 (12.5-42.8) months, for PAR-SMA was 20.2 (14.4-44) months, and for PAR-CT/HA was 20.2 (11.4-42.7). Long-term prognosis improved by study decade (1993-2002: 12.0 [5.4-25.9] months, 2003-2012: 15.1 [9.8-23.4] months, and 2013-present: 26.2 [14.3-51.5] months; P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In recent times, PAR is associated with improved outcomes despite a steep learning curve. Pancreatic surgeons should be prepared to face the technical challenge posed by PAR.

Practical implications of tumor proximity to landmark vessels in minimally invasive radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy.

Careful preoperative planning is key in minimally invasive radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (MI-RAMPS). This retrospective study aims to show the practical implications of computed tomography distance between the right margin of the tumor and either the left margin of the spleno-mesenteric confluence (d-SMC) or the gastroduodenal artery (d-GDA). Between January 2011 and June 2022, 48 minimally invasive RAMPS were performed for either pancreatic cancer or malignant intraductal mucinous papillary neoplasms. Two procedures were converted to open surgery (4.3%). Mean tumor size was 31.1 ± 14.7 mm. Mean d-SMC was 21.5 ± 18.5 mm. Mean d-GDA was 41.2 ± 23.2 mm. A vein resection was performed in 10 patients (20.8%) and the pancreatic neck could not be divided by an endoscopic stapler in 19 operations (43.1%). In patients requiring a vein resection, mean d-SMC was 10 mm (1.5-15.5) compared to 18 mm (10-37) in those without vein resection (p = 0.01). The cut-off of d-SMC to perform a vein resection was 17 mm (AUC 0.75). Mean d-GDA was 26 mm (19-39) mm when an endoscopic stapler could not be used to divide the pancreas, and 46 mm (30-65) when the neck of the pancreas was stapled (p = 0.01). The cut-off of d-GDA to safely pass an endoscopic stapler behind the neck of the pancreas was 43 mm (AUC 0.75). Computed tomography d-SMC and d-GDA are key measurements when planning for MI-RAMPS.

Tips and tricks for robotic pancreatoduodenectomy with superior mesenteric/portal vein resection and reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Open pancreatoduodenectomy with vein resection (OPD-VR) is now standard of care in patients who responded to neoadjuvant therapies. Feasibility of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) with vein resection (RPD-VR) was shown, but no study provided a detailed description of the technical challenges associated with this formidable operation. Herein, we describe the trips and tricks for technically successful RPD-VR. METHODS: The vascular techniques used in RPD-VR were borrowed from OPD-VR, as well as from our experience with robotic transplantation of both kidney and pancreas. Vein resection was classified into 4 types according to the international study group of pancreatic surgery. Each type of vein resection was described in detail and shown in a video. RESULTS: Between October 2008 and November 2021, a total of 783 pancreatoduodenectomies were performed, including 233 OPDs-VR (29.7%). RPD was performed in 256 patients (32.6%), and RPDs-VR in 36 patients (4.5% of all pancreatoduodenectomies; 15.4% of all pancreatoduodenectomies with vein resection; 14.0% of all RPDs). In RPD-VR vein resections were: 4 type 1 (11.1%), 10 type 2 (27.8%), 12 type 3 (33.3%) and 10 type 4 (27.8%). Vascular patches used in type 2 resections were made of peritoneum (n = 8), greater saphenous vein (n = 1), and deceased donor aorta (n = 1). Interposition grafts used in type 4 resections were internal left jugular vein (n = 8), venous graft from deceased donor (n = 1) and spiral saphenous vein graft (n = 1). There was one conversion to open surgery (2.8%). Ninety-day mortality was 8.3%. There was one (2.8%) partial vein thrombosis, treated with heparin infusion. CONCLUSIONS: We have reported 36 technically successful RPDs-VR. We hope that the tips and tricks provided herein can contribute to safer implementation of RPD-VR. Based on our experience, and according to data from the literature, we strongly advise that RPD-VR is performed by expert surgeons at high volume centers.

Feasibility of "cold" triangle robotic pancreatoduodenectomy.

BACKGROUND: Triangle pancreatoduodenectomy adds to the conventional procedure the en bloc removal of the retroperitoneal lympho-neural tissue included in the triangular area bounded by the common hepatic artery (CHA), the superior mesenteric artery (SMA), and the superior mesenteric vein/portal vein. We herein aim to show the feasibility of "cold" triangle robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (C-Tr-RPD) for pancreatic cancer (PDAC). METHODS: Cold dissection corresponds to sharp arterial divestment performed using only the tips of robotic scissors. After division of the gastroduodenal artery, triangle dissection begins by lateral-to-medial divestment of the CHA and anterior-to-posterior clearance of the right side of the celiac trunk. Next, after a wide Kocher maneuver, the origin of the SMA, and the celiac trunk are identified. After mobilization of the first jejunal loop and attached mesentery, the SMA is identified at the level of the first jejunal vein and is divested along the right margin working in a distal-to-proximal direction. Vein resection and reconstruction can be performed as required. C-Tr-RPD was considered feasible if triangle dissection was successfully completed without conversion to open surgery or need to use energy devices. Postoperative complications and pathology results are presented in detail. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-seven consecutive C-Tr-RPDs were successfully performed. There were three conversions to open surgery (2.3%), because of pneumoperitoneum intolerance (n = 2) and difficult digestive reconstruction. Thirty-four patients (26.7%) required associated vascular procedures. No pseudoaneurysm of the gastroduodenal artery was observed. Twenty-eight patients (22.0%) developed severe postoperative complications (≥ grade III). Overall 90-day mortality was 7.1%, declining to 2.3% after completion of the learning curve. The median number of examined lymph nodes was 42 (33-51). The rate of R1 resection (7 margins < 1 mm) was 44.1%. CONCLUSION: C-Tr-RPD is feasible, carries a risk of surgical complications commensurate to the magnitude of the procedure, and improves staging of PDAC.

Outcomes of double-layer continuous suture hepaticojejunostomy in pancreatoduodenectomy and total pancreatectomy.

BACKGROUND: This study aims to describe the technique and the results of double-layer continuous suture hepaticojejunostomy (HJ) following pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) and total pancreatectomy (TP). METHODS: A prospectively maintained database was analyzed retrospectively to identify incidence and severity of biliary leaks (BL) (ISGLS definition), as well as of HJ stenosis (HJS), cholangitis, and need for redo-HJ (in patients with a follow-up ≥3 years) in a consecutive series of 800 procedures (PD = 603; TP = 197). Predictors of biliary complications were also identified. RESULTS: BLs occurred in 5 patients (0.6%), including 2 (0.3%) combined pancreatic and biliary leaks. Rates of HJS, cholangitis, and need for redo-HJ were 6.1%, 5.4%, and 2.0%, respectively. Incidence of BL was 0.6% in open procedures (4/587) and 0.4% in robotic operations (1/213). Incidence of late biliary complications was also equivalent in open and robotic procedures. Occurrence of BL was predicted by ASA IV status and duodenal cancer, HJS by any associated vascular procedure and hepatic duct size < 8 mm, cholangitis by any associated vascular procedure and normal bilirubin/hepatic enzymes, and redo HJ by history of cholecystectomy and neuroendocrine tumor/cancer. DISCUSSION: Double layer continuous suture HJ is associated with low BL rates, and an acceptable incidence of late complications.

Treating Type 1 Diabetes by Pancreas Transplant Alone: A Cohort Study on Actual Long-term (10 Years) Efficacy and Safety.

BACKGROUND: Physiologically regulated insulin secretion and euglycemia are achievable in type 1 diabetes (T1D) by islet or pancreas transplantation. However, pancreas transplant alone (PTA) remains a debated approach, with uncertainties on its relative benefits and risks. We determined the actual long-term (10 y) efficacy and safety of PTA in carefully characterized T1D subjects. METHODS: This is a single-center, cohort study in 66 consecutive T1D subjects who received a PTA between April 2001 and December 2007, and were then all followed until 10 y since transplant. Main features evaluated were patient survival, pancreas graft function, C-peptide levels, glycemic parameters, and the function of the native kidneys. RESULTS: Ten-year actual patient survival was 92.4%. Optimal (insulin independence) or good (minimal insulin requirement) graft function was observed in 57.4% and 3.2% of patients, respectively. Six (9.0%) patients developed stage 5 or 4 chronic kidney disease. In the remaining individuals bearing a successful PTA, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) decline per year was -2.29 ± 2.69 mL/min/1.73 m2. Reduction of eGFR at 1 y post-PTA was higher in those with pre-PTA hyperfiltration and higher HbA1c concentrations; eGFR changes afterward significantly correlated with diabetes duration. In recipients with normoglycemia at 10 y, 74% of normoalbuminuric or microalbuminuric subjects pre-PTA remained stable, and 26% progressed toward a worse stage; conversely, in 62.5% of the macroalbuminuric individuals albuminuria severity regressed. CONCLUSIONS: These long-term effects of PTA on patient survival, graft function, and the native kidneys support PTA as a suitable approach to treat diabetes in selected T1D patients.

State of the art of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy.

Current evidence shows that robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) is feasible with a safety profile equivalent to either open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) or laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD). However, major intraoperative bleeding can occur and emergency conversion to OPD may be required. RPD reduces the risk of emergency conversion when compared to LPD. The learning curve of RPD ranges from 20 to 40 procedures, but proficiency is reached only after 250 operations. Once proficiency is achieved, the results of RPD may be superior to those of OPD. As for now, RPD is at least equivalent to OPD and LPD with respect to incidence and severity of POPF, incidence and severity of post-operative complications, and post-operative mortality. A minimal annual number of 20 procedures per center is recommended. In pancreatic cancer (versus OPD), RPD is associated with similar rates of R0 resections, but higher number of examined lymph nodes, lower blood loss, and lower need of blood transfusions. Multivariable analysis shows that RPD could improve patient survival. Data from selected centers show that vein resection and reconstruction is feasible during RPD, but at the price of high conversion rates and frequent use of small tangential resections. The true Achilles heel of RPD is higher operative costs that limit wider implementation of the procedure and accumulation of a large experience at most single centers. In conclusion, when proficiency is achieved, RPD may be superior to OPD with respect to CR-POPF and oncologic outcomes. Achievement of proficiency requires commitment, dedication, and truly high volumes.