Instrumentless liver suspension for liver retraction in robotic pancreatoduodenectomy.

The popularity of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) is increasing, yet it remains a complex procedure. Outcomes are influenced by various factors, including patient-specific variables, disease characteristics, and surgical technique. Numerous and intricate details contribute to the technical success of RPD. In this study, our focus is on achieving effective and "gentle" liver retraction. The use of liver retractors has been associated with the risk of retractor-related liver injury (RRLI), which can have serious consequences. Here, we introduce a refined technique for instrumentless liver retraction in RPD, developed progressively through a series of over 300 procedures. The core concept of this technique involves suspending the liver to the diaphragmatic dome. This is accomplished by securing the round ligament to the anterior abdominal wall using transparietal sutures and attaching the fundus of the gallbladder and the anterior margin of liver segment number 3 to the diaphragm. Our consecutive series of over 300 RPDs demonstrates the feasibility and safety of this approach, with no clinically relevant RRLI observed. Instrumentless liver retraction offers a valuable refinement in RPD, streamlining the procedure while reducing potential complications associated with dedicated retractors.

Internal hernia through the Treitz fossa after robotic pancreatoduodenectomy: pathogenesis and preventive measures.

Internal hernia through the Treitz fossa following robotic pancreatoduodenectomy is a rare but potentially serious complication. In our review of 328 cases of robotic pancreatoduodenectomies, two patients (0.6%) required repeat surgery due to internal herniation of the entire small bowel through the Treitz fossa. This complication can present as afferent loop syndrome, with symptoms including nausea, vomiting, and abdominal distension, possibly leading to cholangitis and pancreatitis. Timely diagnosis and intervention are paramount, as conservative management often fails. Preventive measures involve closing the peritoneal defect in the Treitz fossa at the end of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy, particularly in lean patients with thin mesentery who are at increased risk of internal hernia due to increased mobility of the small bowel. This technical note elucidates the pathogenesis of Treitz hernia following robotic pancreatoduodenectomy and underscores the importance of closing the peritoneal breach to prevent this rare yet potentially serious complication.

The PD-ROBOSCORE: A difficulty score for robotic pancreatoduodenectomy.

BACKGROUND: Difficulty scoring systems are important for the safe, stepwise implementation of new procedures. We designed a retrospective observational study for building a difficulty score for robotic pancreatoduodenectomy. METHODS: The difficulty score (PD-ROBOSCORE) aims at predicting severe postoperative complications after robotic pancreatoduodenectomy. The PD-ROBOSCORE was developed in a training cohort of 198 robotic pancreatoduodenectomies and was validated in an international multicenter cohort of 686 robotic pancreatoduodenectomies. Finally, all centers tested the model during the early learning curve (n = 300). Growing difficulty levels (low, intermediate, high) were defined using cut-off values set at the 33rd and 66th percentile (NCT04662346). RESULTS: Factors included in the final multivariate model were a body mass index of ≥25 kg/m2 for males and ≥30 kg/m2 for females (odds ratio:2.39; P < .0001), borderline resectable tumor (odd ratio:1.98; P < .0001), uncinate process tumor (odds ratio:1.69; P < .0001), pancreatic duct size <4 mm (odds ratio:1.59; P < .0001), American Society of Anesthesiologists class ≥3 (odds ratio:1.59; P < .0001), and hepatic artery originating from the superior mesenteric artery (odds ratio:1.43; P < .0001). In the training cohort, the absolute score value (odds ratio = 1.13; P = .0089) and difficulty groups (odds ratio = 2.35; P = .041) predicted severe postoperative complications. In the multicenter validation cohort, the absolute score value predicted severe postoperative complications (odds ratio = 1.16, P < .001), whereas the difficulty groups did not (odds ratio = 1.94, P = .082). In the learning curve cohort, both absolute score value (odds ratio:1.078, P = .04) and difficulty groups (odds ratio: 2.25, P = .017) predicted severe postoperative complications. Across all cohorts, a PD-ROBOSCORE of ≥12.51 doubled the risk of severe postoperative complications. The PD-ROBOSCORE score also predicted operative time, estimated blood loss, and vein resection. The PD-ROBOSCORE predicted postoperative pancreatic fistula, delayed gastric emptying, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage, and postoperative mortality in the learning curve cohort. CONCLUSION: The PD-ROBOSCORE predicts severe postoperative complications after robotic pancreatoduodenectomy. The score is readily available via www.pancreascalculator.com.

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.