Safety and feasibility of instituting a robotic pancreas program in the Australian setting: a case series and narrative review.
distal pancreatectomy
pancreas surgery
pancreaticoduodenectomy
robotic
Journal
ANZ journal of surgery
ISSN: 1445-2197
Titre abrégé: ANZ J Surg
Pays: Australia
ID NLM: 101086634
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
26 Mar 2024
26 Mar 2024
Historique:
revised:
25
01
2024
received:
09
05
2023
accepted:
12
03
2024
medline:
26
3
2024
pubmed:
26
3
2024
entrez:
26
3
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Minimally invasive pancreatic resection has been gathering interest over the last decade due to the technical demands and high morbidity associated with these typically open procedures. We report our experience with robotic pancreatectomy within an Australian context. All patients undergoing robotic distal pancreatectomy (DP) and pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) at two Australian tertiary academic hospitals between May 2014 and December 2020 were included. Sixty-two patients underwent robotic pancreatectomy during the study period. Thirty-four patients with a median age of 68 years (range 42-84) were in the PD group whilst the DP group included 28 patients with a median age of 60 years (range 18-78). Thirteen patients (46.4%) in the DP group had spleen-preserving procedures. There were 13 conversions (38.2%) in the PD group whilst 0 conversions occurred in the DP group. The Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III complication rate was 26.4% and 17.9% in the PD and DP groups, respectively. Two deaths (5.9%) occurred within 90-days in the PD group whilst none were observed in the DP group. The median length of hospital stay was 11.5 days (range 4-56) in the PD group and 6 days (range 2-22) in the DP group. Robotic pancreatectomy outcomes at our institution are comparable with international literature demonstrating it is both safe and feasible to perform. With improved access to this platform, robotic pancreas surgery may prove to be the turning point for patients with regards to post-operative complications as more experience is obtained.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Minimally invasive pancreatic resection has been gathering interest over the last decade due to the technical demands and high morbidity associated with these typically open procedures. We report our experience with robotic pancreatectomy within an Australian context.
METHODS
METHODS
All patients undergoing robotic distal pancreatectomy (DP) and pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) at two Australian tertiary academic hospitals between May 2014 and December 2020 were included.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Sixty-two patients underwent robotic pancreatectomy during the study period. Thirty-four patients with a median age of 68 years (range 42-84) were in the PD group whilst the DP group included 28 patients with a median age of 60 years (range 18-78). Thirteen patients (46.4%) in the DP group had spleen-preserving procedures. There were 13 conversions (38.2%) in the PD group whilst 0 conversions occurred in the DP group. The Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III complication rate was 26.4% and 17.9% in the PD and DP groups, respectively. Two deaths (5.9%) occurred within 90-days in the PD group whilst none were observed in the DP group. The median length of hospital stay was 11.5 days (range 4-56) in the PD group and 6 days (range 2-22) in the DP group.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Robotic pancreatectomy outcomes at our institution are comparable with international literature demonstrating it is both safe and feasible to perform. With improved access to this platform, robotic pancreas surgery may prove to be the turning point for patients with regards to post-operative complications as more experience is obtained.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024 The Authors. ANZ Journal of Surgery published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Royal Australasian College of Surgeons.
Références
Parikh P, Shiloach M, Cohen ME et al. Pancreatectomy risk calculator: an ACS‐NSQIP resource. HPB 2010; 12: 488–497.
Asburn HJ, Moekotte AL, Vissers FL et al. The Miami international evidence‐based guidelines on minimally invasive pancreas resection. Ann. Surg. 2020; 271: 1–14.
Hoehn RS, Nassour I, Adam MA, Winters S, Paniccia A, Zureikat AH. National trends in robotic pancreas surgery. J. Gastrointest. Surg. 2021; 25: 983–990.
Korrel M, Vissers FL, van Hilst J et al. Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy: an individual patient data meta‐analysis of two randomised controlled trials. HPB 2021; 23: 323–330.
van Hilst J, de Graaf N, Hilal MA et al. The landmark series: minimally invasive pancreatic resection. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2021; 28: 1447–1456.
van Oosten AF, Ding D, Habib JR et al. Perioperative outcomes of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a propensity‐matched analysis to open and laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy. J. Gastrointest. Surg. 2021; 25: 1795–1804.
Shyr BU, Shy BS, Chen SC et al. Propensity score‐matched comparison of the oncological feasibility and survival outcomes for pancreatic adenocarcinoma with robotic and open pancreatoduodenectomy. Surg. Endosc. 2021; 36: 1507–1514.
Napoli N, Kauffmann EF, Vistoli F, Amorese G, Boggi U. State of the art of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy. Updates Surg. 2021; 73: 873–880.
Masuda H, Kotecha K, Gall T, Gill AJ, Mittal A, Samra JS. Transition from open to robotic distal pancreatectomy in a low volume pancreatic surgery country: a single Australian centre experience. ANZ J. Surg. 2022; 93: 151–159.
Narendra A, Baade PD, Aitken JF, Fawcett J, Smithers BM. Pancreaticoduodenectomy in a low‐resection volume region: a population‐level study examining the impact of hospital‐volume on surgical quality and longer‐term survival. HPB 2020; 22: 1288–1294.
Patel B, Leung U, Lee J, Bryant R, O'Rourke N, Cavallucci D. Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy in Brisbane, Australia: an initial experience. ANZ J. Surg. 2018; 88: E440–E444.
Taylor C, O'Rourke N, Nathanson L et al. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: the Brisbane experience of forty‐six cases. HPB 2008; 10: 38–42.
McCulloch P, Cook JA, Altman DG et al. IDEAL framework for surgical innovation 1: the idea and development stages. BMJ 2013; 346: f3012.
Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML et al. The Clavien‐Dindo classification of surgical complications – five year experience. Ann. Surg. 2009; 250: 187–196.
Bassi C, Marchegiani G, Dervenis C et al. The 2016 update of the International Study Group (ISGPS) definition and grading of postoperative pancreatic fistula: 11 years after. Surgery 2017; 161: 584–591.
Wente MN, Bassi C, Dervenis C et al. Delayed gastric emptying (DGE) after pancreatic surgery: a suggested definition by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS). Surgery 2007; 142: 761–768.
Wente MN, Veit JA, Bassi C et al. Postpancreatectomy haemorrhage (PPH): an International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) definition. Surgery 2008; 142: 20–25.
Klompmaker S, van Hilst J, Wellner UF et al. Outcomes after minimally‐invasive versus open pancreatoduodenectomy: a pan‐European propensity score matched study. Ann. Surg. 2020; 271: 36–363.
Gall TM, Pencavel TD, Cunningham D et al. Transition from open and laparoscopic to robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy in a UK tertiary referral hepatobiliary and pancreatic centre – early experience of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. HPB 2020; 22: 1637–1644.
Tseng JF, Pisters PW, Lee JE et al. The learning curve in pancreatic surgery. Surgery 2007; 141: 694–701.
Zureikat AH, Beane JD, Zenati MS et al. 500 minimally invasive robotic pancreatoduodenectomies: one decade of optimizing performance. Ann. Surg. 2021; 273: 966–972.
Boone BA, Zenati M, Hogg ME et al. Assessment of quality outcomes for robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy: identification of the learning curve. JAMA Surg. 2015; 150: 416–422.
Napoli N, Kauffmann EF, Perrone VG, Miccoli M, Brozzetti S, Boggi U. The learning curve in robotic distal pancreatectomy. Updates Surg. 2015; 67: 257–264.
Shakir M, Boone BA, Polanco PM et al. The learning curve for robotic distal pancreatectomy: an analysis of outcomes of the first 100 consecutive cases at a high‐volume pancreatic centre. HPB 2015; 17: 580–586.
Shyr BU, Chen SC, Shyr YM, Wang SE. Learning curves for robotic pancreatic surgery‐from distal pancreatectomy to pancreaticoduodenectomy. Medicine (Baltimore) 2018; 97: e13000.
Shi Y, Wang W, Qiu W et al. Learning curve from 450 cases of robot‐assisted pancreaticoduocectomy in a high‐volume pancreatic center: optimization of operative procedure and a retrospective study. Ann. Surg. 2021; 274: e1277–e1283.
Watkins AA, Kent TS, Gooding WE et al. Multicenter outcomes of robotic reconstruction during the early learning curve for minimally‐invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy. HPB 2018; 20: 155–165.
Shi Y, Jin J, Qiu W et al. Short‐term outcomes after robot‐assisted vs open pancreaticoduodenectomy after the learning curve. JAMA Surg. 2020; 155: 389–394.
Rice MK, Hodges JC, Bellon J et al. Association of mentorship and a formal robotic proficiency skills curriculum with subsequent generations' learning curve and safety for robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. JAMA Surg. 2020; 155: 607–615.
Al Abbas A, Hester CA, Yan J et al. Comparison of outcomes of minimally invasive versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy after neoadjuvant therapy in a national cohort of patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma. HPB 2021; 23: S62.
Kauffmann EF, Napoli N, Menonna F et al. Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy with vascular resection. Langenbecks Arch. Surg. 2016; 401: 1111–1122.
Ocuin LM, Miller‐Ocuin JL, Novak SM et al. Robotic and open distal pancreatectomy with celiac axis resection for locally advanced pancreatic body tumors: a single institutional assessment of perioperative outcomes and survival. HPB 2016; 18: 835–842.