Search

Background: In patients with hepatic artery variation (HAV), feasibility and justification of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) for periampullary lesions have been not been well established., Methods: A total of 600 patients with periampullary lesions receiving RPD or open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) were identified from our prospectively collected computer database. Surgical outcomes, oncological radicality, and survival outcomes after RPD in HAV ( +) and (-) patients were compared., Results: The incidence of HAV was 16%, including 12.7% in patients with RPD and 23.0% in those with OPD. In the HAV ( +) group, vascular injury rate had no statistical difference between the RPD (3.7%) and OPD (9.1%) patients, P = 0.404. Among the RPD patients, those with HAV ( +) had longer operation time (8.5 ± 2.5 vs. 7.7 ± 2.0 h, P = 0.013) and higher vascular injury (3.8% vs. 0.6%, P = 0.024) when compared with the HAV (-) patients. There was no significant difference between the HAV ( +) and (-) patients with RPD regarding blood loss, open conversion, vascular resection, and surgical mortality and morbidity. There was no survival difference between the HAV ( +) and (-) patients with pancreatic head adenocarcinoma after RPD. There was no survival difference between RPD and OPD in the HAV ( +) group., Conclusions: When compared with OPD, RPD is feasible and justifiable without increasing vascular injury rate for patients with HAV ( +). Hepatic artery variation has no negative impact on surgical, oncological, and survival outcomes following an RPD, if it is accurately identified pre-operatively and appropriately managed intraoperatively., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: The role of the robotic approach for pancreaticoduodenectomy has not been well established with robust data. This study aimed to reappraise feasibility and justification of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) over time., Methods: A total of 500 patients undergoing RPD were enrolled and divided into early (first 250 patients) and late (last 250 patients) groups for a comparative study., Results: The conversion rate was 8.8% overall and was significantly lower in the late group (5.6% vs. 12.0%; p = .012). The overall median intraoperative blood loss was 130 mL. Radicality of resection was similar between early and late groups. The overall surgical mortality after RPD was 1.3%. The overall surgical morbidity and major complication was 44.1% and 13.2%, respectively, and similar between early and late groups. Chyle leakage was the most common complication after RPD (25.0%), followed by postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF). The POPF rate was 8.6% overall, with 5.9% in the early group and 11.0% in the late group, p = .051. The overall delayed gastric emptying rate was 3.5%. The late group had better survival outcomes than those of the early group after RPD for ampullary adenocarcinoma (p = .027) but not for pancreatic head adenocarcinoma., Conclusions: Reappraisal of this study has confirmed that RPD is not only technically feasible without increasing surgical risks but also oncologically justified without compromising survival outcomes for both pancreatic head and other periampullary cancers over time. Moreover, RPD is associated with the benefits of low surgical mortality, blood loss, and delayed gastric emptying., (© 2023 Japanese Society of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery.)

Background/objective: Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy in ampullary cancer has never been studied. This study aimed to clarify the feasibility and justification of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy in ampullary cancer in terms of surgical risks, and oncologic and survival outcomes., Methods: A propensity score-matching comparison of robotic and open pancreaticoduodenectomy based on seven factors commonly used to predict the survival outcomes in ampullary cancer patients., Results: A total of 147 patients were enrolled, of which 101 and 46 underwent robotic and open pancreaticoduodenectomies, respectively. After propensity score-matching with a 2:1 ratio, 88 and 44 patients in the robotic and open pancreaticoduodenectomy groups were included. The operation time was of no significant difference after matching. The median intraoperative blood loss was much less in those who underwent robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy, both before (median, 120 vs. 320 c.c. P < 0.001) and after (100 vs. 335 mL P < 0.001) score-matching. There were no significant differences in terms of surgical risks, including surgical mortality, surgical morbidity, Clavien-Dindo severity classification, postoperative pancreatic fistula, delayed gastric emptying, post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage, chyle leak, bile leak, and wound infection, both before or after score-matching. The survival outcomes were also similar between the two groups, regardless of matching., Conclusions: Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy for ampullary cancer is not only technically feasible and safe without increasing surgical risks, but also oncologically justifiable without compromising surgical radicality and survival outcomes., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Bor-Shiuan Shyr, Shin-E Wang, Shih-Chin Chen, Yi-Ming Shyr, Bor-Uei Shyr have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 Asian Surgical Association and Taiwan Robotic Surgery Association. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Aim: Whether to execute pancreaticoduodenectomy or not for older people could pose a dilemma. This study clarifies the safety and justification of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) for older individuals over 80., Methods: A total of 500 patients undergoing RPD were divided into group O (≥ 80 y/o) and group Y (< 80 y/o) for comparison., Results: There were 62 (12.4%) patients in group O. Surgical mortality was 1.6% for overall patients and higher in group O, 6.5% vs 0.9%; p = 0.001. The surgical complication was comparable between groups O and Y. Delayed gastric emptying and bile leakage were higher in group O, 9.7% vs 2.5%; p = 0.004, and 6.5% vs 0.9%; p = 0.001, respectively. Length of stay was also longer in group O, with a median of 26 vs 19 days; p = 0.001. Survival outcome after RPD was poorer in group O for overall periampullary adenocarcinomas, with a 5-year survival of 48.1% vs 51.2%; p = 0.025 and also for the subgroup of pancreatic head adenocarcinoma, with a 3-year survival of 27.4% vs 42.5%; p = 0.030., Conclusion: RPD is safe and justified for the selected octogenarians and even nonagenarians, whoever is fit for a major operation. Nevertheless, pancreatic head cancer and higher mortality risk for the aged over 80 with advanced ASA score ≥ 3 should be informed as part of counselling in offering RPD., Competing Interests: All authors report no conflicts of interest in this work., (© 2023 Shyr et al.)

Background: This study is to clarify the feasibility of and justification for robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma., Methods: A 1-to-1 propensity score-matched comparison of RPD and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) was performed based on six covariates commonly used to predict the survival outcome for pancreatic adenocarcinoma., Results: A total of 130 patients were enrolled, with 65 in each study group after propensity score matching. The median operating time was longer for RPD (8.3 h vs. 7.0 h, P = 0.002). However, RPD was associated with less blood loss, lower overall surgical complication rate, and lower incidence of delayed gastric emptying. The resection radicality was oncologically similar between these two groups, but the median lymph node yield was higher for RPD (18 vs. 16, P = 0.038). Before propensity score matching, the 5-year survival was better in RPD (27.0% vs. 17.6%, P = 0.006). After matching, there was still a trend towards improved overall survival in the RPD group; however, the difference in 5-year survival between RPD and OPD was not significant (24.5% vs. 19.7%, P = 0.088)., Conclusion: RPD is not only technically feasible with no increase in surgical risk but also oncologically justifiable without compromising survival outcome. However, unlike randomized control trials, the limitations in this propensity score-matched analysis only accounted for 6 observed covariates commonly used to predict the survival outcome in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma, and confounders not included in this study could also affect our results., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Though nowadays a palliative pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) can be performed safely with relatively low mortality and acceptable morbidity rates in experienced centers, there have been no studies on the routine use of a palliative PD or on the advantages of performing surgical resection as a debulking procedure. Furthermore, the impact of resection margins on survival outcomes has been a matter of controversy. Therefore, this study aimed to clarify the role of robotic PD (RPD) in pancreatic and periampullary adenocarcinomas with positive resection margins., Methods: Patients undergoing RPDs and open PDs (OPDs) were included in this study. Based on the resection margins, the patients were divided into the R0, R1, and R2 PD groups. Surgical risks and survival outcomes were analyzed., Results: There were 348 PDs, including 29 (8.3%) palliative and 319 (91.7%) curative. Primary tumor origin, tumor sizes, perineural invasions, and abnormal serum carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) levels were factors leading to palliative resection. The multivariate analysis showed that only pancreatic head adenocarcinomas and abnormal serum CEA levels (>5 ng/mL) were independent predictors. The surgical risks between curative and palliative PD were similar. There were no significant differences in the surgical risks and other surgical parameters between palliative RPDs and OPDs. For curative resection, RPDs resulted in less blood loss, greater harvested lymph nodes yield, less postoperative complications, less delayed gastric emptying, and shorter hospital stays than OPDs. The survival outcome was significantly better following R0 resection in overall periampullary adenocarcinomas, whereas a significant survival difference was shown only between the R0 and R2 resections for pancreatic head adenocarcinomas., Conclusion: Compared with R0 PDs, palliative R1 PDs could benefit patients with pancreatic head adenocarcinomas when considering survival outcomes without increasing surgical risks. RPD can be considered for curative purposes and as an alternative for palliative management., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest: The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest related to the subject matter or materials discussed in this article., (Copyright © 2021, the Chinese Medical Association.)

This study is to clarify the feasibility and justification of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) by comparing the outcomes between RPD and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) groups. All perioperative data and outcomes were prospectively collected. There were 304 (63.9%) RPD and 172 (36.1%) OPD. The median operation time was longer in RPD group than OPD (7.5 vs 7.0 h). The blood loss was much lower in RPD group, with a median of 130 vs. 400 c.c. in OPD group. Based on Clavien-Dindo classification, grade 0 (no complication) was 51.8% in RPD group, higher than 43.2% in OPD. Delayed gastric emptying was only 3.5% in RPD group, much lower than 13.6% in OPD. Wound infection rate was also lower in RPD group, 3.2% vs. 7.7% in OPD. The postoperative hospital stay was shorter in RPD group, with a median of 20 days, vs. 24 days in OPD. There was no significant difference regarding the lymph node yield, surgical mortality, postoperative pancreatic fistula, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage, chyle leakage and bile leakage between RPD and OPD groups. For pancreatic head adenocarcinoma, the survival outcome was better in RPD group, with 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year survival of 82.9%, 45.3%, and 26.8% respectively, as compared with 63.8%, 26.2%, and 17.4% in OPD. RPD is not only feasible but also justified without increasing the surgical risks and compromising the survival outcomes. Moreover, RPD might provide benefits of less blood loss, less delayed gastric emptying, lower wound infection rate and shorter length of postoperative stay, as compared with OPD.

Background: There are no reports of performing mesopancreas dissections in robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. This study evaluated the feasibility and justification for mesopancreas level 3 dissection in robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy., Methods: Surgical outcomes after robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy and open pancreaticoduodenectomy were evaluated and compared., Results: There were 289 robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy and 162 open pancreaticoduodenectomy patients included in the study. Postoperative diarrhea occurred in 34.5% of mesopancreas level 3 dissection cases and was higher than in levels 2 and 1 dissection cases, P < .001. Blood loss in the robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy group was higher for mesopancreas level 3 dissection, with a median loss of 263 mL (P = .015). The rate of R0 resection with margin >1 mm was higher for mesopancreas level 3 dissection (93.8%) than for level 2 dissection (72.2%) (P < .001). The lymph node yield was higher for mesopancreas level 3 dissection in robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy; the median lymph node yield was 21 for level 3, 18 for level 2, and 14 for level 1 (P < .001). Compared with mesopancreas levels 1 and 2 dissections in the robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy groups, level 3 dissection did not show increased surgical mortality or postoperative complications, including postoperative pancreatic fistula, delayed gastric emptying, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage, chyle leakage, bile leakage, or wound infection. Compared with open pancreaticoduodenectomy, mesopancreas level 3 dissection in robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy had less blood loss, no delayed gastric emptying, and lower chyle leakage., Conclusion: Mesopancreas level 3 dissection in robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy is feasible without compromising surgical safety. Therefore, robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy can be recommended as a safe alternative to open pancreaticoduodenectomy for mesopancreas level 3 dissection., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Minimally invasive surgery has become a worldwide trend to reduce the wound and mitigate pain. However, the role of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) has not been well established in the era of minimally invasive surgery. It would be nearly impossible to apply minimally invasive surgery in the tedious and complicated Whipple operation without an experienced and dedicated pancreas team. The pancreatic team led by Shyr YM and Wang SE at Taipei Veterans General Hospital have already been highly accredited with a Copper Award of Symbol of National Quality (SNQ award), entitled with "Minimally Invasive Robotic Pancreatic Surgery-Small Wound for Major Pancreatic Surgery" in Taiwan in 2019. RPD was claimed to be associated with less blood loss, less delayed gastric emptying, shorter length of postoperative stay, and lower wound infection rate, but longer operative time, as compared with the traditional open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD). More than 99% of the patients undergoing minimally invasive RPD are satisfied with the surgical outcomes and would like to recommend RPD to those with periampullary lesions. RPD could be recommended not only to surgeons but also to patients in terms of surgical outcomes and patient satisfaction. Moreover, our study showed a survival benefit for pancreatic head adenocarcinoma in RPD group, with 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year survival of 82.9%, 45.3%, and 26.8%, respectively, as compared with 63.8%, 26.2%, and 17.4% in OPD.

Background: Chyle leakage is a well-known but poorly characterized complication after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). No study examined the chyle leakage after robotic PD (RPD)., Methods: Data regarding chyle leakage were prospectively collected and analyzed from patients undergoing RPD or open PD (OPD)., Results: The study included 118 RPD and 165 OPD. Overall chyle leakage rate was 12.0%, with 13.6% for RPD and 10.9% for OPD. Chyle leakage was eventually resolved in all patients through conservative treatment. The drainage volumes were significantly higher in chyle leakage group from postoperative days (PODs) 1-7, with a median of 240 mL on POD 1 and POD 7, as compared to 160 mL on POD 1 and 70 mL on POD 7 for those without chyle leakage. The number of lymph nodes involved and resected and pancreatic head adenocarcinoma affected the risk of developing chyle leakage, whereas the surgical approach used (RPD or OPD) did not., Conclusions: Chyle leakage after PD is not rare, and it can eventually be resolved through conservative treatment. The extent and radicality of the surgery probably have a significant effect on the risk of developing chyle leakage, but the surgical approach used does not., (© 2020 Japanese Society of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery.)

Background/objective: There are no reports available on patient satisfaction and quality-of-life after robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD). This study aimed to evaluate not only surgical outcomes but also patient satisfaction after RPD., Methods: Prospectively collected data for RPD were analyzed for surgical outcomes. Questionnaires were sent to patients to assess patient satisfaction regarding RPD., Results: The study included 105 patients who underwent RPD, with 44 (41.9%) patients presenting with associated surgical complications. There were no significant differences between the without and with complication groups in median console time (390 min. Vs. 373 min.), blood loss (100 mL vs. 100 mL), and harvested lymph node number (14 vs. 15). There was no surgical mortality in this study. Major complications ≥ Clavien-Dindo III occurred in 7.6% of the total 105 RPD patients. The most common complication was chyle leakage (18.1%), followed by postoperative pancreatic fistula (5.7%), intra-abdominal abscess (4.8%), delayed gastric emptying (3.8%), and post pancreatectomy hemorrhage (3.8%). Almost all of the patients responded to this RPD-related survey with "fair" to "excellent" grades for all items, except 1 (<1%) poor grade for operation service and 2 (1.9%) "not good" grades for diet tolerance., Conclusions: RPD is a feasible procedure with acceptable surgical outcomes. This patient survey with high patient satisfaction rates indicates that RPD provides acceptable satisfaction results, and the robotic approach for a major operation such as RPD has probably a higher priority than cost concerns. RPD could be recommended not only to surgeons but also to patients in terms of surgical outcomes and patient satisfaction., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Taiwan LLC.)

Background: To evaluate the surgical, oncological, and survival outcomes after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) with superior mesenteric vein (SMV)/portal vein (PV) resection by either robotic PD (RPD) or open PD (OPD)., Methods: Data of patients with periampullary lesions undergoing PD were retrieved from a prospectively collected computer database. Surgical risks as well as oncological and survival outcomes were compared between patients with (vein resection group) and without SMV/PV resection (without vein resection group)., Results: A total of 391 patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy were enrolled, including 43 (11.0%) and 384 (89.0%) patients with and without vein resection, respectively. Eleven (25.6%) of PDs with vein resection were performed using the robotic approach. Operation time in the vein resection group was significantly longer (median of 8 vs. 7 h). Blood loss, curative resection (R0) rate, and harvested lymph node number were similar between these two groups. Surgical outcomes including postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), delayed gastric emptying (DGE), postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), chyle leakage, wound infection, and hospital stay were not significantly different between the two groups. There was no survival difference between these groups, with 1- and 3-year survival rates of 92.6% and 26.5%, respectively, for vein resection group, vs. 70.3% and 37.2%, respectively, for the without vein resection group., Conclusions: PD with vein resection is technically feasible by OPD and RPD in selected patients. Additional SMV/PV would not increase the surgical risks of PD and could achieve similar survival outcomes for pancreatic head adenocarcinoma when compared to PD without vein resection.

Background: This study is to clarify the feasibility of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy in terms of surgical risks, clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula, and oncologic outcomes compared with open pancreaticoduodenectomy by using propensity score matching. Traditional open pancreaticoduodenectomy and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy have been compared only in small, retrospective, and nonrandomized cohort studies with variable quality., Methods: Prospectively collected data for pancreaticoduodenectomy were evaluated. Comparison between robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy and open pancreaticoduodenectomy was carried out after propensity-score matching. A total of 117 robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy and 128 open pancreaticoduodenectomy cases were performed during the study period. After propensity score matching, 87 cases were included for comparison in each cohort., Results: Longer operation time, less blood loss, more lymph nodes harvested, and less delayed gastric emptying were noted in the robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy cases. We found no significant difference regarding the overall postoperative complications by Clavien-Dindo classification, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage, wound infection rate, and postoperative hospital stay. Clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula was not significantly different between robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy and open pancreaticoduodenectomy, regardless of the Callery risk factor, with overall clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula of 8.0% by robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy and 12.6% by open pancreaticoduodenectomy after propensity score matching. We found no survival difference between robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy and open pancreaticoduodenectomy when the comparison was specifically performed for each primary periampullary malignancy., Conclusion: Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy is associated with less blood loss, less delayed gastric emptying, and more lymph node yield. Propensity scored-matched analysis revealed that robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy is not inferior to open pancreaticoduodenectomy in terms of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula, surgical risks, and survival outcomes., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

This study sought to identify the learning curves of console time (CT) for robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) and robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP). Perioperative outcomes were compared between the early group of surgeries performed early in the learning curve and the late group of surgeries performed after the learning curve.Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is a technically demanding and challenging procedure carrying a high morbidity.Data for RDP and RPD were prospectively collected for analysis. The learning curve was assessed by cumulative sum (CUSUM). Based on CUSUM analyses, patients were divided into the early group and the late group.There were 70 RDP and 61 RPD cases. It required 37 cases to overcome the learning curve for RDP and 20 cases for RPD. The median console time was significantly shorter in the late group for both RDP (112 minutes vs 225 minutes, P < .001) and RPD (360 minuntes vs 520 minutes, P < .001). Median blood loss was significantly less in the late group for both RDP (30 cc vs 100 cc, P = .003) and RPD (100 cc vs 200 cc, P < .001). No surgical mortality occurred in either group. Clinically relevant pancreatic fistula rate was 22.9% for RDP (32.4% in the early group vs 12.1% in the late group, P = .043), and 11.5% for RPD (0 in early group vs 17.1% in late group, P = .084).This study demonstrates that the RPD learning curve is 20 cases with prior experience of RDP and confirms the safety and feasibility of both RPD and RDP. Practice and familiarity with the robotic platform are likely to contribute to significant shortening of the learning curve in robotic pancreatic surgery, while knowledge and experience, in addition to practical skills, are also essential to minimize the potential surgical risks of RPD.

Background: Outcomes after robotic distal pancreatectomy with spleen preservation (RDP-SP) by the Warshaw technique and with splenectomy (RDP-S) were compared., Methods: All the data for patients undergoing robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) were prospectively collected., Results: A total of 66 patients were included, with 33 in each group. The console time was significantly shorter in the RDP-SP group than in the RDP-S group (165 minutes vs. 220 minutes). The median blood loss was 50 cm 3 in the RDP-SP group and 100 cm 3 in the RDP-S group. The surgical morbidity was significantly lower in RDP-SP group (18% vs. 58%). Spleen infarction (15%), gastric varices (6%) and perigastric varices (45%) after RDP-SP were not associated with any subsequent complication. Postoperative platelet count and white blood cell (WBC) count were significantly higher in the RDP-S group., Conclusions: Both RDP-SP and RDP-S are feasible in selected patients. RDP-SP is feasible and time-saving. Although gastric/perigastric varices and spleen infarction are not uncommon after RDP-SP, they appear to be clinically irrelevant., (© 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)