Comment on "Robotic Distal Pancreatectomy, a Novel Standard of Care? Benchmark Values for Surgical Outcomes From 16 International Expert Centers".
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Chao PP
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10431338 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Mar
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Comment on "Robotic Distal Pancreatectomy, a Novel Standard of Care? Benchmark Values for Surgical Outcomes From 16 International Expert Centers".
Chao Phillip P PP Koea Jonathan B JB Hill Andrew G AG Srinivasa Sanket S
Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches 20230119 1
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundMinimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy is considered hazardous for the majority of authors and minimally distal pancreatectomy is still a debated topic. The aim of this study was to compare robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) using meta-analysis.MethodEMBASE, Medline and PubMed were searched systematically to identify full-text articles comparing robotic and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies. The meta-analysis was performed by using Review Manager 5.3.ResultsNine studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria and included 637 patients (246 robotic and 391 laparoscopic). RDP had a shorter hospital length of stay by 1 day (P = 0.01). On the other hand, LDP had shorter operative time by 30 min, although this was statistically nonsignificant (P = 0.12). RDP showed a significantly increased readmission rate (P = 0.04). There was no difference in the conversion rate, incidence of postoperative pancreatic fistula, International Study Group of Pancreatic Fistula grade B-C rate, major morbidity, spleen preservation rate and perioperative mortality. All surgical specimens of RDP reported R0 negative margins, whereas 7 specimens in the LDP group had affected margins.ConclusionsIn terms of feasibility, safety and oncological adequacy, there is no essential difference between the two techniques so far. The 30 min longer operative time of the RDP is due to the docking and undocking of the robot. The shorter length of stay by 1 day should be judged in combination with the increased 90-day readmission rate.
| S-EPMC4925795 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Minimally-invasive spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy is indicated for benign or borderline malignant lesions confined to the pancreatic body and tail. With the introduction of the da Vinci robotic system, preliminary case series have suggested an improved spleen preservation rate, higher rate of margin negative resections and improved lymph node yield versus the standard laparoscopic approach. In this article, we described our approach to robotic-assisted distal pancreatectomy with both vessel-conserving (Kimura) and vessel-sacrificing (Warshaw) variations.
| S-EPMC5676212 | biostudies-other
Project description:ImportanceUnderstanding the learning curve of a new complex surgical technique helps to reduce potential patient harm. Current series on the learning curve of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) are mostly small, single-center series, thus providing limited data.ObjectiveTo evaluate the length of pooled learning curves of MIDP in experienced centers.Design, setting, and participantsThis international, multicenter, retrospective cohort study included MIDP procedures performed from January 1, 2006, through June 30, 2019, in 26 European centers from 8 countries that each performed more than 15 distal pancreatectomies annually, with an overall experience exceeding 50 MIDP procedures. Consecutive patients who underwent elective laparoscopic or robotic distal pancreatectomy for all indications were included. Data were analyzed between September 1, 2021, and May 1, 2022.ExposuresThe learning curve for MIDP was estimated by pooling data from all centers.Main outcomes and measuresThe learning curve was assessed for the primary textbook outcome (TBO), which is a composite measure that reflects optimal outcome, and for surgical mastery. Generalized additive models and a 2-piece linear model with a break point were used to estimate the learning curve length of MIDP. Case mix-expected probabilities were plotted and compared with observed outcomes to assess the association of changing case mix with outcomes. The learning curve also was assessed for the secondary outcomes of operation time, intraoperative blood loss, conversion to open rate, and postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C.ResultsFrom a total of 2610 MIDP procedures, the learning curve analysis was conducted on 2041 procedures (mean [SD] patient age, 58 [15.3] years; among 2040 with reported sex, 1249 were female [61.2%] and 791 male [38.8%]). The 2-piece model showed an increase and eventually a break point for TBO at 85 procedures (95% CI, 13-157 procedures), with a plateau TBO rate at 70%. The learning-associated loss of TBO rate was estimated at 3.3%. For conversion, a break point was estimated at 40 procedures (95% CI, 11-68 procedures); for operation time, at 56 procedures (95% CI, 35-77 procedures); and for intraoperative blood loss, at 71 procedures (95% CI, 28-114 procedures). For postoperative pancreatic fistula, no break point could be estimated.Conclusion and relevanceIn experienced international centers, the learning curve length of MIDP for TBO was considerable with 85 procedures. These findings suggest that although learning curves for conversion, operation time, and intraoperative blood loss are completed earlier, extensive experience may be needed to master the learning curve of MIDP.
| S-EPMC10308297 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimTo compare the safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RADP) and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP).MethodsA literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library database up to June 30, 2015 was performed. The following key words were used: pancreas, distal pancreatectomy, pancreatic, laparoscopic, laparoscopy, robotic, and robotic-assisted. Fixed and random effects models were applied. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.ResultsSeven non-randomized controlled trials involving 568 patients met the inclusion criteria. Compared with LDP, RADP was associated with longer operating time, lower estimated blood loss, a higher spleen-preservation rate, and shorter hospital stay. There was no significant difference in transfusion, conversion to open surgery, R0 resection rate, lymph nodes harvested, overall complications, severe complications, pancreatic fistula, severe pancreatic fistula, ICU stay, total cost, and 30-day mortality between the two groups.ConclusionRADP is a safe and feasible alternative to LDP with regard to short-term outcomes. Further studies on the long-term outcomes of these surgical techniques are required.Core tipTo date, there is no consensus on whether laparoscopic or robotic-assisted distal pancreatectomy is more beneficial to the patient. This is the first meta-analysis to compare laparoscopic and robotic-assisted distal pancreatectomy. We found that robotic-assisted distal pancreatectomy was associated with longer operating time, lower estimated blood loss, a higher spleen-preservation rate, and shorter hospital stay. There was no significant difference in transfusion, conversion to open surgery, overall complications, severe complications, pancreatic fistula, severe pancreatic fistula, ICU stay, total cost, and 30-day mortality between the two groups.
| S-EPMC4790929 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundBenchmarking 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.MethodsData 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.ResultsOverall, 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.ConclusionTwo benchmark methods for minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy produced different values, and should be interpreted and applied differently.
| S-EPMC10364499 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Robotic surgery has become a promising surgical method in minimally invasive pancreatic surgery due to its three-dimensional visualization, tremor filtration, motion scaling, and better ergonomics. Numerous studies have explored the benefits of RDP over LDP in terms of perioperative safety and feasibility, but no consensus has been achieved yet. This article aimed to evaluate the benefits and drawbacks of RDP and LDP for perioperative outcomes. By June 2022, all studies comparing RDP to LDP in the PubMed, the Embase, and the Cochrane Library database were systematically reviewed. According to the heterogeneity, fix or random-effects models were used for the meta-analysis of perioperative outcomes. Odds ratio (OR), weighted mean differences (WMD), and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. A sensitivity analysis was performed to explore potential sources of high heterogeneity and a trim and fill analysis was used to evaluate the impact of publication bias on the pooled results. Thirty-four studies met the inclusion criteria. RDP provides greater benefit than LDP for higher spleen preservation (OR 3.52 95% CI 2.62-4.73, p < 0.0001) and Kimura method (OR 1.93, 95% CI 1.42-2.62, p < 0.0001) in benign and low-grade malignant tumors. RDP is associated with lower conversion to laparotomy (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.33-0.52, p < 0.00001), and shorter postoperative hospital stay (WMD - 0.57, 95% CI - 0.92 to - 0.21, p = 0.002), but it is more costly. In terms of postoperative complications, there was no difference between RDP and LDP except for 30-day mortality (RDP versus LDP, 0.1% versus 1.0%, p = 0.03). With the exception of its high cost, RDP appears to outperform LDP on perioperative outcomes and is technologically feasible and safe. High-quality prospective randomized controlled trials are advised for further confirmation as the quality of the evidence now is not high.
| S-EPMC9834369 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveSurgical skill assessment tools such as the End-to-End Assessment of Suturing Expertise (EASE) can differentiate a surgeon's experience level. In this simulation-based study, we define a competency benchmark for intraoperative robotic suturing using EASE as a validated measure of performance.DesignParticipants conducted a dry-lab vesicourethral anastomosis (VUA) exercise. Videos were each independently scored by 2 trained, blinded reviewers using EASE. Inter-rater reliability was measured with prevalence-adjusted bias-adjusted Kappa (PABAK) using 2 example videos. All videos were reviewed by an expert surgeon, who determined if the suturing skills exhibited were at a competency level expected for residency graduation (pass or fail). The Contrasting Group (CG) method was then used to set a pass/fail score at the intercept of the pass and fail cohorts' EASE score distributions.SettingKeck School of Medicine, University of Southern California.ParticipantsTwenty-six participants: 8 medical students, 8 junior residents (PGY 1-2), 7 senior residents (PGY 3-5) and 3 attending urologists.ResultsAfter 1 round of consensus-building, average PABAK across EASE subskills was 0.90 (Range 0.67-1.0). The CG method produced a competency benchmark EASE score of >35/39, with a pass rate of 10/26 (38%); 27% were deemed competent by expert evaluation. False positives and negatives were defined as medical students who passed and attendings who failed the assessment, respectively. This pass/fail score produced no false positives or negatives, and fewer JR than SR were considered competent by both the expert and CG benchmark.ConclusionsUsing an absolute standard setting method, competency scores were set to identify trainees who could competently execute a standardized dry-lab robotic suturing exercise. This standard can be used for high stakes decisions regarding a trainee's technical readiness for independent practice. Future work includes validation of this standard in the clinical environment through correlation with clinical outcomes.
| S-EPMC10923136 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIntraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) with involvement of the main pancreatic duct usually requires surgical resection. Consensus is lacking whether to partially or completely resect the pancreatic portion with a dilated main pancreatic duct. Intraoperative pancreatoscopy may be useful to determine the extent of IPMN to tailor surgical resection and was recently studied in a large prospective international study. IPMN is increasingly utilized using a robotic approach. Studies describing the technical approach to intraoperative pancreatoscopy in robotic pancreatoduodenectomy and robotic distal pancreatectomy are lacking.MethodsDuring robotic pancreatoduodenectomy, pancreatoscopy is performed once the pancreas neck is transected. The scope is advanced via a laparoscopic port into the left and right-sided pancreatic duct, guided by robotic graspers. During robotic distal pancreatectomy, pancreatoscopy is performed before complete parenchymal transection. The scope is advanced through an anterior ductotomy to examine the duct and guide the pancreatic transection line. Tips and tricks how to perform the procedure efficiently without complications are detailed.ResultsIn total, 28 robot-assisted pancreatoscopies were performed during robotic pancreatoduodenectomy and robotic distal pancreatectomy. No intraoperative complications resulting from the intraoperative pancreatoscopy were noted. In the 2 described procedures, the added time required to perform the pancreatoscopy was 6 and 17 minutes, respectively. Both patients recovered without complication and were discharged on postoperative day 5 for the robotic pancreatoduodenectomy and day 6 for the robotic distal pancreatectomy.ConclusionsIntraoperative pancreatoscopy can be safely performed during both robotic pancreatoduodenectomy and robotic distal pancreatectomy for IPMN with the involvement of the main pancreatic duct. An international prospective study has recently been completed with this technique.
| S-EPMC10431574 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy is a safe and effective surgical approach for the treatment of distal pancreatic tumors. Recently, the da Vinci single-port (SP) system (Intuitive Surgical, Inc.) was introduced to overcome the previously known limitations of this approach. Here, we report our experience with robotic SP plus one-port splenic vessel-conserving spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (RSP + 1 SVc-SpDP). A 38-year-old male patient was incidentally found to have a pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor. On May 12, 2023, RSP + 1 SVc-SpDP was performed. The robotic SP was placed at the transumbilical site, and an additional 12-mm port was placed on the left side of the patient's abdomen. The surgical procedure was based on splenic vessel-conserving, spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy. The operative time was 350 minutes, and the patient was discharged on postoperative day 8 without any complications. The initial experience of RSP + 1 SVc-SpDP using the da Vinci SP system showed the possibility of an alternative operation for distal pancreatectomy.
| S-EPMC11416887 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAlthough robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RADP) has been successfully performed since 2003, its advantages over open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) are still uncertain. The objective of this meta-analysis is to compare the clinical and oncologic safety and efficacy of RADP vs ODP.MethodsMultiple databases (PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library) were searched to identify studies that compare the outcomes of RADP and ODP (up to February, 2020). Fixed and random effects models were applied according to different conditions.ResultsA total of 7 studies from high-volume robotic surgery centers comprising 2264 patients were included finally. Compared with ODP, RADP was associated with lower estimated blood loss, lower blood transfusion rate, lower postoperative mortality rate, and shorter length of hospital stay. No significant difference was observed in operating time, the number of lymph nodes harvested, positive margin rate, spleen preservation rate, rate of severe morbidity, incidence of postoperative pancreatic fistula, and severe postoperative pancreatic fistula (grade B and C) between the 2 groups.ConclusionsWith regard to perioperative outcomes, RADP is a safe and feasible alternative to ODP in centers with expertise in robotic surgery. However, the evidence is limited and more randomized controlled trials are needed to further clearly define this role.
| S-EPMC7306371 | biostudies-literature