Recurrent acute pancreatitis prevention by the elimination of alcohol and cigarette smoking (REAPPEAR): protocol of a randomised controlled trial and a cohort study.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Acute recurrent pancreatitis (ARP) due to alcohol and/or tobacco abuse is a preventable disease which lowers quality of life and can lead to chronic pancreatitis. The REAPPEAR study aims to investigate whether a combined patient education and cessation programme for smoking and alcohol prevents ARP. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The REAPPEAR study consists of an international multicentre randomised controlled trial (REAPPEAR-T) testing the efficacy of a cessation programme on alcohol and smoking and a prospective cohort study (REAPPEAR-C) assessing the effects of change in alcohol consumption and smoking (irrespective of intervention). Daily smoker patients hospitalised with alcohol-induced acute pancreatitis (AP) will be enrolled. All patients will receive a standard intervention priorly to encourage alcohol and smoking cessation. Participants will be subjected to laboratory testing, measurement of blood pressure and body mass index and will provide blood, hair and urine samples for later biomarker analysis. Addiction, motivation to change, socioeconomic status and quality of life will be evaluated with questionnaires. In the trial, patients will be randomised either to the cessation programme with 3-monthly visits or to the control group with annual visits. Participants of the cessation programme will receive a brief intervention at every visit with direct feedback on their alcohol consumption based on laboratory results. The primary endpoint will be the composite of 2-year all-cause recurrence rate of AP and/or 2-year all-cause mortality. The cost-effectiveness of the cessation programme will be evaluated. An estimated 182 participants will be enrolled per group to the REAPPEAR-T with further enrolment to the cohort. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was approved by the Scientific and Research Ethics Committee of the Hungarian Medical Research Council (40394-10/2020/EÜIG), all local ethical approvals are in place. Results will be disseminated at conferences and in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04647097.

Safety and Feasibility of Robotic-Assisted Drainage of Symptomatic Pancreatic Pseudocysts: A Case-Series Analysis (with video).

Background: The surgical treatment of pancreatic pseudocysts (PPs) in patients who fail nonoperative management has evolved from aggressive open to a minimally invasive approach. The application of robotic surgery in this setting is scarcely reported. The aim of this study is to analyze the safety and feasibility of the robotic approach to pancreatic pseudocyst drainage. Methods: A single centre retrospective review of consecutive patients undergoing robotic-assisted pancreatic pseudocyst surgeries in an academic tertiary institution was performed. Results: There were 14 patients studied, of whom 10 underwent cystogastrostomy and 4 Roux-En- Y cystojejunostomy. Eight patients had gallstone pancreatitis and 3 patients alcoholic pancreatitis. The mean size of cyst was 8.9 +-1cm and 57.1% located at the pancreatic body. The overall operative time of the procedure was 135 +-34 minutes. There were no open conversions. The overall success rate was 92.8%, while the primary success rate 85.7%. The major morbidity rate was 14.3% and there was no 30-day mortality. The mean post-operative hospital stay was 7 +-3 days with one recurrence of the pancreatic pseudocyst on follow-up requiring endoscopic drainage without further recurrence. Conclusions: The robotic approach for the drainage of symptomatic pancreatic pseudocyst is safe and feasible and can be considered as a viable modality for operative intervention in well-selected patients.

Rate of Post-Operative Pancreatic Fistula after Robotic-Assisted Pancreaticoduodenectomy with Pancreato-Jejunostomy versus Pancreato-Gastrostomy: A Retrospective Case Matched Comparative Study.

BACKGROUND: Different techniques of pancreatic anastomosis have been described, with inconclusive results in terms of pancreatic fistula reduction. Studies comparing robotic pancreaticogastrostomy (PG) and pancreaticojejunostomy (PJ) are scarcely reported. METHODS: The present study analyzes the outcomes of two case-matched groups of patients who underwent PG (n = 20) or PJ (n = 40) after pancreaticoduodenectomy. The primary aim was to compare the rate of post-operative pancreatic fistula. RESULTS: Operative time (375 vs. 315 min, p = 0.34), estimated blood loss (270 vs. 295 mL, p = 0.44), and rate of clinically relevant post-operative pancreatic fistula (12.5% vs. 10%, p = 0.82) were similar between the two groups. PJ was associated with a higher rate of intra-abdominal collections (7.5% vs. 0%, p = 0.002), but lower post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage (2.5% vs. 10%, p = 0.003). PG was associated with a lower rate of post-operative pancreatic fistula (POPF) (33.3% vs. 50%, p = 0.003) in the high-risk group of patients. CONCLUSIONS: The outcomes of post-operative pancreatic fistula are comparable between the two reconstruction techniques. PG may have a lower incidence of POPF in patients with high-risk of pancreatic fistula.

Robotic-Assisted versus Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy: The Results of a Case-Matched Analysis from a Tertiary Care Center.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) has been adopted relatively slowly despite the benefits of minimally invasive approach. The robotic approach can overcome the limitations of LDP, thus increasing the acceptance of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy. METHODS: We performed a 1:1 retrospective case-matched comparison among 2 groups of 35 patients who underwent robotic-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RDP) or LDP from August 2014 to April 2017. RESULTS: The operative time was similar in both groups (230 RDP vs. 205 LDP min, p = 0.382). The robotic group had a lower estimated blood loss (95 vs. 275 mL, p = 0.035). The spleen preservation rate was higher in the RDP group (100 vs. 66.7%, p = 0.027), while the conversion rate to open surgery was higher in the laparoscopic group (14.3 vs. 2.9%, p = 0.048). The overall complication rate was lower in the robotic group (25.7 vs. 37.1%, p = 0.044). There was no statistically significant difference in oncologic outcomes between the groups in terms of R0 resection rate (100% RDP vs. 85% LDP, p = 0.233) and number of harvested lymph nodes (14.4 RDP vs. 10.8 LDP, p = 0.678). CONCLUSIONS: The RDP showed a lower estimated blood loss, conversion, and morbidity rate. It offered a higher spleen preservation rate in comparison to LDP while maintaining comparable oncologic outcomes.

Robotic-assisted repair of iatrogenic common bile duct injury after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Surgical technique and outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Bile duct injury after cholecystectomy can be a life-threatening complication. Use of robotic approach to manage a complex biliary injury is in an early phase. METHODS: We have performed an analysis of our prospectively maintained database that included 12 patients who underwent robotic-assisted repair of bile duct injury after laparoscopic cholecystectomy between 2014 and 2017. RESULTS: All patients underwent robotic biliary repair within 2 weeks after primary injury. No conversion to open surgery was necessary, the estimated mean blood loss was 252 mL, and the mean operative time was 260 minutes. The mean length of stay was 9.4 days. The 30-day complication events were a subhepatic abscess and a recurrent episode of cholangitis. One patient underwent the reoperation. The mortality was null. CONCLUSION: Robotic-assisted bile duct injury repair seems to be safe and feasible. It offers promising results, thus potentially capable of modifying the management of biliary injury.