Explore the vast range of titles available.

BackgroundMinimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) has established advantages over the open approach. The costs associated with robotic DP (RDP) versus laparoscopic DP (LDP) make the robotic approach controversial. We sought to compare outcomes and cost of LDP and RDP using propensity matching analysis at our institution.MethodsPatients undergoing LDP or RDP between 2000 and 2021 were retrospectively identified. Patients were optimally matched using age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists status, body mass index, and tumor size. Between-group differences were analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test for continuous data, and the McNemar’s test for categorical data. Outcomes included operative duration, conversion to open surgery, postoperative length of stay, pancreatic fistula rate, pseudocyst requiring intervention, and costs.Results298 patients underwent MIDP, 180 (60%) were laparoscopic and 118 (40%) were robotic. All RDPs were matched 1:1 to a laparoscopic case with absolute standardized mean differences for all matching covariates below 0.10, except for tumor type (0.16). RDP had longer operative times (268 vs 178 min, p < 0.01), shorter length of stay (2 vs 4 days, p < 0.01), fewer biochemical pancreatic leaks (11.9% vs 34.7%, p < 0.01), and fewer interventional radiological drainage (0% vs 5.9%, p = 0.01). The number of pancreatic fistulas (11.9% vs 5.1%, p = 0.12), collections requiring antibiotics or intervention (11.9% vs 5.1%, p = 0.12), and conversion rates (3.4% vs 5.1%, p = 0.72) were comparable between the two groups. The total direct index admission costs for RDP were 1.01 times higher than for LDP for FY16-19 (p = 0.372), and 1.33 times higher for FY20-22 (p = 0.031).ConclusionsAlthough RDP required longer operative times than LDP, postoperative stays were shorter. The procedure cost of RDP was modestly more expensive than LDP, though this was partially offset by reduced hospital stay and reintervention rate.

BackgroundMinimally invasive spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (SPDP) has emerged as a parenchyma-preserving approach and has become the standard treatment for pancreatic benign and low-grade malignant lesions. Nevertheless, minimally invasive SPDP is still technically challenging, especially when vessel preservation is intended. This study aims to describe the technique and outcomes of laparoscopic (LSPDP) and robot-assisted spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (RSPDP) with intended vessel preservation, highlighting the important tips and tricks to overcome technical obstacles and optimize surgical outcomes.MethodsA retrospective observational study of consecutive patients undergoing LSPDP and RSPDP with intended vessel preservation by a single surgeon in two different centers. A video demonstrating both surgical techniques is attached.ResultsA total of 50 patients who underwent minimally invasive SPDP were included of which 88% underwent LSPDP and 12% RSPDP. Splenic vessels were preserved in 37 patients (74%) while a salvage vessel-resecting technique was performed in 13 patients (26%). The average surgery time was 178 ± 74 min for the vessel-preserving and 188 ± 57 for the vessel-resecting technique (p = 0.706) with an estimated blood loss of 100 mL in both groups (p = 0.663). The overall complication rate was 46% (n = 23) with major complications (Clavien Dindo ≥ III) observed in 14% (n = 7) of the patients. No conversions occurred. The median length of hospital stay was 4 days.ConclusionThis study presented the results after minimally invasive SPDP with intended vessel preservation by a highly experienced pancreatic surgeon. It provided tips and tricks to successfully accomplish a minimally invasive SPDP, which can contribute to quick patient rehabilitation and optimal postoperative results.

Introduction: While there is an increasing shift towards minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP), little is known about how utilization of MIDP vs. open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) has evolved over time. We aimed to determine competing temporal trends in use and outcomes of MIDP (laparoscopic and robotic) over time and to determine if a threshold of effectiveness has been reached. Methods: Adults undergoing MIDP and ODP were identified from the National Cancer Database (2010–2021) and the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database (2014–2022). Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to address baseline differences between groups before comparing outcomes. Joinpoint regression analysis (JRA) was employed to assess adjusted trends in adoption and outcomes. We calculated Annual Percentage Change (APC) and Average Annual Percentage Change (AAPC) to quantify yearly adoption rates and their trends, respectively. Results: Among 21,966 patients in the NCDB cohort, 49.5% underwent MIDP, including 33.7% laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) and 15.8% robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP), while 50.5% underwent ODP. ODP declined from 74.1% of cases (2010) to 41.1% (2021), with an AAPC of −4.9%. MIDP increased significantly throughout the study from 25.9% of cases (2010) to 58.9% (2021), with an AAPC of 6.3%. Among MIDP subgroups, there was an initial increase in LDP until 2016, after which its rate of utilization stagnated with an AAPC of 0.7% (p > 0.05). In contrast, RDP demonstrated steady growth with an AAPC of about 15% (p < 0.05). A consistent and significant decline in clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula rates occurred across all surgical approaches, with the most pronounced improvement observed in the robotic approach. MIDP approaches had significantly shorter hospital stays and lower mortality rates; however, RDP cases were associated with longer operative times compared to LDP and ODP. Conclusions: Over the past decade, the use of MIDP increased while ODP decreased. This increase was initially driven by greater use of LDP, which plateaued after 2016, and was further driven by the increased use of the robotic approach. Specifically, RDP demonstrated consistent growth, while LDP showed a decline around 2016. These findings highlight changing practice patterns, accompanied by improvements across all surgical approaches. This may provide insights for clinical training and resource allocation.

IntroductionAlthough several studies report that the robotic approach is more costly than laparoscopy, the cost-effectiveness of robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) over laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is still an issue.This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of the RDP and LDP approaches across several Spanish centres.MethodsThis study is an observational, multicenter, national prospective study (ROBOCOSTES).For one year from 2022, all consecutive patients undergoing minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy were included, and clinical, QALY, and cost data were prospectively collected. The primary aim was to analyze the cost-effectiveness between RDP and LDP.ResultsDuring the study period, 80 procedures from 14 Spanish centres were analyzed.LDP had a shorter operative time than the RDP approach (192.2 min vs 241.3 min, p = 0.004). RDP showed a lower conversion rate (19.5% vs 2.5%, p = 0.006) and a lower splenectomy rate (60% vs 26.5%, p = 0.004).A statistically significant difference was reported for the Comprehensive Complication Index between the two study groups, favouring the robotic approach (12.7 vs 6.1, p = 0.022).RDP was associated with increased operative costs of 1600 euros (p < 0.031), while overall cost expenses resulted in being 1070.92 Euros higher than the LDP but without a statistically significant difference (p = 0.064).The mean QALYs at 90 days after surgery for RDP (0.9534) were higher than those of LDP (0.8882) (p = 0.030). At a willingness-to-pay threshold of 20,000 and 30,000 euros, there was a 62.64% and 71.30% probability that RDP was more cost-effective than LDP, respectively.ConclusionsThe RDP procedure in the Spanish healthcare system appears more cost-effective than the LDP.

BackgroundThis study analyzed the Quality of Life (QoL) and cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic (LDP) versus robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP).MethodsConsecutive patients submitted to LDP or RDP from 2010 to 2020 in four high-volume Italian centers were included, with a minimum of 12 months of postoperative follow-up were included. QoL was evaluated using the EORTC QLQ-C30 and EQ-5D questionnaires, self-reported by patients. After a propensity score matching, which included BMI, gender, operation time, multiorgan and vascular resections, splenic preservation, and pancreatic stump management, the mean differential cost and Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALY) were calculated and plotted on a cost-utility plane.ResultsThe study population consisted of 564 patients. Among these, 271 (49%) patients were submitted to LDP, while 293 (51%) patients to RDP. After propensity score matching, the study population was composed of 159 patients in each group, with a median follow-up of 59 months. As regards the QoL analysis, global health and emotional functioning domains showed better results in the RDP group (p = 0.037 and p = 0.026, respectively), whereas the other did not differ. As expected, the median crude costs analysis confirmed that RDP was more expensive than LDP (16,041 Euros vs. 10,335 Euros, p < 0.001). However, the robotic approach had a higher probability of being more cost-effective than the laparoscopic procedure when a willingness to pay more than 5697 Euros/QALY was accepted.ConclusionRDP was associated with better QoL as explored by specific domains. Crude costs were higher for RDP, and the cost-effectiveness threshold was set at 5697 euros/QALY.

BackgroundLaparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) has gained popularity for the treatment of left-sided pancreatic tumors. Robotic systems represent the most recent advancement in minimally invasive surgical treatment for such tumors. Theoretically, robotic systems are considered to have several advantages over laparoscopic systems. However, there have been few studies comparing both systems in the treatment of distal pancreatectomy. We compared perioperative and oncological outcomes between the two treatment modalities.MethodsA retrospective analysis was conducted of all consecutive minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy cases performed by a single surgeon at a high-volume center between January 2015 and December 2017.ResultsThe analysis included 228 consecutive patients (LDP, n = 182; Robotic-assisted laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy [R-LDP], n = 46). Operative time was significantly longer in the R-LDP group than in the LDP group (166.4 vs. 140.7 min; p = 0.001). In a subgroup analysis of patients who underwent the spleen-preserving approach, the spleen preservation rate associated with R-LDP was significantly higher than that associated with LDP (96.8% vs. 82.5%; p = 0.02). In another subgroup analysis of patients with pancreatic cancer, there were no significant differences in median overall and disease-free survival between the two groups.ConclusionsR-LDP is a safe and feasible approach with perioperative and oncological outcomes comparable to those of LDP. R-LDP offers an added technical advantage that enables the surgeon to perform a complex procedure with good ergonomic comfort.

Background: When oncologically feasible, avoiding unnecessary splenectomies prevents patients who are undergoing distal pancreatectomy (DP) from facing significant thromboembolic and infective risks. Methods: A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, and Web Of Science identified 11 studies reporting outcomes of 323 patients undergoing intended spleen-preserving minimally invasive robotic DP (SP-RADP) and 362 laparoscopic DP (SP-LADP) in order to compare the spleen preservation rates of the two techniques. The risk of bias was evaluated according to the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. Results: SP-RADP showed superior results over the laparoscopic approach, with an inferior spleen preservation failure risk difference (RD) of 0.24 (95% CI 0.15, 0.33), reduced open conversion rate (RD of −0.05 (95% CI −0.09, −0.01)), reduced blood loss (mean difference of −138 mL (95% CI −205, −71)), and mean difference in hospital length of stay of −1.5 days (95% CI −2.8, −0.2), with similar operative time, clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (ISGPS grade B/C), and Clavien–Dindo grade ≥3 postoperative complications. Conclusion: Both SP-RADP and SP-LADP proved to be safe and effective procedures, with minimal perioperative mortality and low postoperative morbidity. The robotic approach proved to be superior to the laparoscopic approach in terms of spleen preservation rate, intraoperative blood loss, and hospital length of stay.

BackgroundThe frequency of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy is gradually exceeding that of the open approach. Our study aims to compare short-term outcomes of robotic (RDP) and laparoscopic (LDP) distal pancreatectomies for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) using a national database.MethodsThe National Cancer Database was utilized to identify patients with PDAC who underwent distal pancreatectomy from 2010–2020. Short-term technical and oncologic outcomes such as margin status and nodal harvest were included. Propensity-score matching (PSM) was performed comparing LDP and RDP cohorts. Multivariate logistic-regression models were then used to assess the impact of institutional volume on the MIDP surgical and technical oncologic outcomes.Results1537 patients underwent MIDP with curative intent. Most cases were laparoscopic (74.4%, n = 1144), with a gradual increase in robotic utilization, from 8.7% in 2010 to 32.0% of MIDP cases ten years later. For PSM, 698 LDP patients were matched with 349 RDP. The odds of conversion to an open case were 58% less in RDP (12.6%) compared to LDP (25.5%) with no statistically significant difference in technical oncologic results. There was no difference in length of stay (OR = 1.0[0.7–1.4]), 30-day mortality (OR = 0.5[0.2–2.0]) or 90-day mortality (OR = 1.1[0.5–2.4]) between RDP and LDP, although there was a higher 30-day readmission rate with RDP (OR = 1.71[1.1–2.7]). There were statistically significant differences in technical oncologic outcomes (nodal harvest, margin status, initiation of adjuvant therapy) based on MIDP volume quartiles.ConclusionLaparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomy have similar peri- and post-operative surgical and oncologic outcomes, with a higher rate of conversion to open in the laparoscopic cohort.

Background Incisional hernia (IH) results in significant morbidity to patients and financial burden to healthcare systems. We aimed to determine the incidence of IH in distal pancreatectomy (DP) patients, stratified by specimen extraction sites. Method Imaging in DP patients in our institution from 2016 to 2021 were reviewed by radiologists blinded to the operative approach. Specimen extraction sites were stratified as upper midline/umbilical (UM) versus Pfannenstiel. IH was defined as fascial defect on postoperative imaging. Patients without preoperative and postoperative imaging were excluded. Results Of the 219 patients who met our selection criteria, the median age was 64 years, 54% were female, and 64% were White. The majority were minimally invasive (MIS) procedures ( n  = 131, 60%), of which 52% ( n  = 64) had a UM incision for specimen extraction, including 45 hand-assist and 19 purely laparoscopic procedures. MIS with Pfannenstiel incisions for specimen extraction was 48% ( n  = 58), including 44 robotic and 14 purely laparoscopic procedures. Mean follow-up time was 16.3 months (standard deviation [SD] 20.8). Follow-up for MIS procedures with UM incisions was 16.6 months (SD 21.8) versus 15.5 months (SD 18.6) in the Pfannenstiel group ( p  = 0.30). MIS procedures with UM incisions for specimen extraction had a 17.8 times increase in odds of developing an IH compared with MIS procedures with Pfannenstiel extraction sites ( p  = 0.01). The overall odds of developing an IH increased by 4% for every month of follow-up (odds ratio 1.04; p  < 0.001). Conclusion A Pfannenstiel incision should be performed for specimen extraction in cases with purely laparoscopic or robotic distal pancreatectomy, when feasible.

BackgroundRobotic surgery is the most recent advanced minimally invasive approach for distal pancreatectomy. However, its benefits over laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) remain undetermined. Previous studies were limited by their small sample size or variations in surgeon skills. This study aimed to compare robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) performed by a single surgeon with LDP performed by skilled laparoscopic surgeons in a high-volume center.MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed consecutive RDP performed by a single surgeon between December 2020 and November 2021 with LDP performed by experienced surgeons during the same period in a high-volume center. Patient characteristics and perioperative variables were compared.ResultsThe analysis included 55 RDP and 146 LDP procedures. The operative time in the RDP group was significantly shorter than the LDP group (171 vs. 222 min, P < 0.001), both in spleen-preserved (154 vs. 212 min, P < 0.001) and spleen-removed (192 vs. 230 min, P = 0.005) procedures. The RDP group made more frequent use of the stapler technique for pancreas transection (87.3 vs. 68.5%, P = 0.007), and its estimated blood loss was lower (79 vs. 155 mL, P < 0.001) than the LDP group. The postoperative hospital stay in the RDP group was significantly shorter than the LDP group (8 vs. 12 days, P < 0.001). The groups were similar in their complication distributions.ConclusionRDP is as safe and feasible a minimally invasive approach as LDP. The advanced manipulation and visualization capabilities of the robotic approach in distal pancreatectomy could help reduce operative time and blood loss, and is related to shorter postoperative hospital stay.