Search

Objective: To determine the nationwide implementation and surgical outcome of minor and major robotic liver surgery (RLS) and assess the first phase of implementation of RLS during the learning curve., Background: RLS may be a valuable alternative to laparoscopic liver surgery. Nationwide population-based studies with data on implementation and outcome of RLS are lacking., Methods: Multicenter retrospective cohort study including consecutive patients who underwent RLS for all indications in 9 Dutch centers (August 2014-March 2021). Data on all liver resections were obtained from the mandatory nationwide Dutch Hepato Biliary Audit (DHBA) including data from all 27 centers for liver surgery in the Netherlands. Outcomes were stratified for minor, technically major, and anatomically major RLS. Learning curve effect was assessed using cumulative sum analysis for blood loss., Results: Of 9437 liver resections, 400 were RLS (4.2%) procedures including 207 minor (52.2%), 141 technically major (35.3%), and 52 anatomically major (13%). The nationwide use of RLS increased from 0.2% in 2014 to 11.9% in 2020. The proportion of RLS among all minimally invasive liver resections increased from 2% to 28%. Median blood loss was 150 mL (interquartile range 50-350 mL] and the conversion rate 6.3% (n=25). The rate of Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III complications was 7.0% (n=27), median length of hospital stay 4 days (interquartile range 2-5) and 30-day/in-hospital mortality 0.8% (n=3). The R0 resection rate was 83.2% (n=263). Cumulative sum analysis for blood loss found a learning curve of at least 33 major RLS procedures., Conclusions: The nationwide use of RLS in the Netherlands has increased rapidly with currently one-tenth of all liver resections and one-fourth of all minimally invasive liver resections being performed robotically. Although surgical outcomes of RLS in selected patient seem favorable, future prospective studies should determine its added value., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Background: Robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RDP) is increasingly used as an alternative to laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer but comparative multicenter studies confirming the safety and efficacy of RDP are lacking., Methods: An international, multicenter, retrospective, cohort study, including consecutive patients undergoing RDP and LDP for resectable pancreatic cancer in 33 experienced centers from 11 countries (2010-2019). The primary outcome was R0-resection. Secondary outcomes included lymph node yield, major complications, conversion rate, and overall survival., Results: In total, 542 patients after minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy were included: 103 RDP (19%) and 439 LDP (81%). The R0-resection rate was comparable (75.7% RDP vs. 69.3% LDP, p = 0.404). RDP was associated with longer operative time (290 vs. 240 min, p < 0.001), more vascular resections (7.6% vs. 2.7%, p = 0.030), lower conversion rate (4.9% vs. 17.3%, p = 0.001), more major complications (26.2% vs. 16.3%, p = 0.019), improved lymph node yield (18 vs. 16, p = 0.021), and longer hospital stay (10 vs. 8 days, p = 0.001). The 90-day mortality (1.9% vs. 0.7%, p = 0.268) and overall survival (median 28 vs. 31 months, p = 0.599) did not differ significantly between RDP and LDP, respectively., Conclusions: In selected patients with resectable pancreatic cancer, RDP and LDP provide a comparable R0-resection rate and overall survival in experienced centers. Although the lymph node yield and conversion rate appeared favorable after RDP, LDP was associated with shorter operating time, less major complications, and shorter hospital stay. The specific benefits associated with each approach should be confirmed by multicenter, randomized trials., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Benchmarking is an important tool for quality comparison and improvement. However, no benchmark values are available for minimally invasive spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy, either laparoscopically or robotically assisted. The aim of this study was to establish benchmarks for these techniques using two different methods., Methods: Data from patients undergoing laparoscopically or robotically assisted spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy were extracted from a multicentre database (2006-2019). Benchmarks for 10 outcomes were calculated using the Achievable Benchmark of Care (ABC) and best-patient-in-best-centre methods., Results: Overall, 951 laparoscopically assisted (77.3 per cent) and 279 robotically assisted (22.7 per cent) procedures were included. Using the ABC method, the benchmarks for laparoscopically assisted and robotically assisted spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy respectively were: 150 and 207 min for duration of operation, 55 and 100 ml for blood loss, 3.5 and 1.7 per cent for conversion, 0 and 1.7 per cent for failure to preserve the spleen, 27.3 and 34.0 per cent for overall morbidity, 5.1 and 3.3 per cent for major morbidity, 3.6 and 7.1 per cent for pancreatic fistula grade B/C, 5 and 6 days for duration of hospital stay, 2.9 and 5.4 per cent for readmissions, and 0 and 0 per cent for 90-day mortality. Best-patient-in-best-centre methodology revealed milder benchmark cut-offs for laparoscopically and robotically assisted procedures, with operating times of 254 and 262.5 min, blood loss of 150 and 195 ml, conversion rates of 5.8 and 8.2 per cent, rates of failure to salvage spleen of 29.9 and 27.3 per cent, overall morbidity rates of 62.7 and 55.7 per cent, major morbidity rates of 20.4 and 14 per cent, POPF B/C rates of 23.8 and 24.2 per cent, duration of hospital stay of 8 and 8 days, readmission rates of 20 and 15.1 per cent, and 90-day mortality rates of 0 and 0 per cent respectively., Conclusion: Two benchmark methods for minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy produced different values, and should be interpreted and applied differently., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of BJS Society Ltd.)

Background: While most of the evidence on minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) is derived from expert centers, nationwide outcomes remain underreported. This study aimed to evaluate the implementation and outcome of MILS on a nationwide scale., Methods: Electronic patient files were reviewed in all Dutch liver surgery centers and all patients undergoing MILS between 2011 and 2016 were selected. Operative outcomes were stratified based on extent of the resection and annual MILS volume., Results: Overall, 6951 liver resections were included, with a median annual volume of 50 resections per center. The overall use of MILS was 13% (n = 916), which varied from 3% to 36% (P < 0.001) between centers. The nationwide use of MILS increased from 6% in 2011 to 23% in 2016 (P < 0.001). Outcomes of minor MILS were comparable with international studies (conversion 0-13%, mortality <1%). In centers which performed ≥20 MILS annually, major MILS was associated with less conversions (14 (11%) versus 41 (30%), P < 0.001), shorter operating time (184 (117-239) versus 200 (139-308) minutes, P = 0.010), and less overall complications (37 (30%) versus 58 (42%), P = 0.040)., Conclusion: The nationwide use of MILS is increasing, although large variation remains between centers. Outcomes of major MILS are better in centers with higher volumes., (Copyright © 2019 International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association Inc. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)