Evidence - Left pancreatic resection, spleen-preserving, robotically assisted

  1. Summary of the literature

    Spleen-Preserving Distal Pancreatectomy:

    Distal pancreatectomy is defined as the removal of the pancreatic tail to the left of the superior mesenteric artery (1). There are essentially two variants: an oncological variant with complete lymphadenectomy and splenectomy, and a spleen-preserving variant first described in 1943 (1).

    Reasons for preserving the spleen include the potentially negative consequences of splenectomy, such as the risk of severe infections (OPSI syndrome = overwhelming postsplenectomy infection) and generally increased postoperative morbidity (2).

    Classic indications for a possible spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy are generally masses of the pancreatic tail that are not considered primary carcinomas of the pancreas. These include findings such as benign cystic masses of the pancreatic tail with potential for malignancy, focal chronic pancreatitis related to the pancreatic tail, metastases from other malignancies (e.g., renal cell carcinoma), theoretically trauma to the pancreatic tail with duct injuries or uncontrollable bleeding, and neuroendocrine tumors according to the ENETS guidelines (3). In addition to primary pancreatic malignancies or suspicious masses, other contraindications for spleen preservation include local tumor extension, splenomegaly, or extension of inflammation to the splenic hilum (4). Generally, central vascular invasion by malignant processes, portal vein thrombosis with massive venous collaterals, acute pancreatitis, advanced liver cirrhosis, or anesthesia unfitness due to severe cardiovascular risk factors argue against surgical intervention with or without spleen preservation. Patients with an ECOG Performance Status ≥ 2 have a poorer prognosis.

    Regarding the implementation of spleen preservation, a DRG statistic from 2009-2013 showed an almost 50:50 distribution between spleen-resecting and spleen-preserving procedures (5).

    Centralization and Minimum Volumes in Pancreatic Surgery

    In high-volume centers for pancreatic surgery, postoperative mortality can be reduced and survival increased [42, 43, 44]. Against this background, the Joint Federal Committee in Germany has decided to increase the minimum volumes for complex pancreatic procedures from the current 10 to 20 resections per year starting in 2024.

    Minimally Invasive/Robot-Assisted Distal Pancreatectomy

    Laparoscopic techniques and robotics in pancreatic cancer must be differentiated with regard to distal and pancreatic head resections. The proportion of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomies was still very low at about 5% in the work of Nimptsch from 2016 (5).

    Currently, there are no data on the proportion of robot-assisted distal pancreatectomies with spleen preservation performed in Germany. However, robotics has increasingly established itself in pancreatic surgery in recent years. Due to the technical advantages of robotics, a significantly higher and especially increasing rate of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomies is to be expected.

    While robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy is considered technically highly demanding and requires a long learning curve, distal resection is technically much simpler due to the absence of any anastomoses (6).

    Thus, distal pancreatectomy is suitable at pancreatic centers with laparoscopic experience during the implementation phase of a robotics program as an ideal "entry" into robotic surgery due to its characteristics. After all, an isolated resection without reconstruction is performed. Initially, procedures on benign findings that appear uncomplicated are recommended. After the first successes, the spectrum can then be expanded to malignant tumors and resections in pancreatitis. Extended distal pancreatectomies with vascular reconstructions, as well as multivisceral resections with distal pancreatectomies, are robot-assisted possible at centers with extensive robotic and pancreatic surgical experience. Of course, this always requires a preoperative risk-benefit assessment, which may also favor a primarily open approach.

    For laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy, the patient-blinded randomized controlled LEOPARD study from the Netherlands showed faster functional recovery and less blood loss (7). While overall complication rates showed no significant difference, detailed analysis revealed some noteworthy specific differences, such as a relative risk for postoperative pancreatic fistula of 1.72 in the minimally invasive group (7).

    In the combined analysis of the LEOPARD and LAPOPS studies, the data on the non-inferiority of the minimally invasive approach were confirmed (8).

    Based on the DGAV register StuDoQ|Pancreas, a propensity score analysis was conducted, showing that the minimally invasive approach increased the rate of spleen-preserving procedures compared to the open approach, shortened hospital stay, while prolonging operation time and increasing the rate of readmissions (9).

    The advantages of open surgery compared to minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy are seen in the easier management of intraoperative complications such as vascular injuries, better estimation of the extent of resection through palpation, and generally shorter procedure times (10).

    When considering robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy in isolation, the data consist of monocentric and mostly retrospective studies on feasibility and perioperative outcomes. Some retrospective studies with small case numbers from recent years compare the results of robot-assisted with those of laparoscopic or open surgery in distal pancreatectomy (11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17) robotically and openly (18, 19) as well as all three approaches (20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27).

    Some advantages of robotics have always been demonstrated. For example, Weng et al. showed in a propensity score-matching analysis that robotics can reproduce the advantages of laparoscopic surgery (26).

    Morelli et al. increased the rate of spleen-preserving operations for benign pancreatic cysts with the robot-assisted approach compared to the open approach (27).

    Also, compared to laparoscopy, a conceivable advantage of robotics due to improved ergonomics and visualization through the telemanipulator would be a higher rate of spleen-preserving operations for benign masses. This result can indeed be demonstrated by individual studies (28, 29, 30).

    However, the data is not clear. A prospective non-randomized monocentric study could not confirm this possible advantage (12).

    A retrospective analysis of the National Cancer Database of the American College of Surgeons found that the robot-assisted approach was associated with lower 90-day mortality and fewer extended hospital stays compared to the open approach (31).

    Two meta-analyses from recent years summarize the results of monocentric observational studies (32, 33).

    The meta-analysis by Memeo summarizes 9 studies, four of which are comparative and contrast the laparoscopic with the robot-assisted approach. Ultimately, no difference in perioperative outcomes was found between laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomy (32). However, it is assumed that differences will emerge once centers have completed their learning curves.

    The meta-analysis published by Niu et al. in 2019 summarizes the results of 17 studies with 2133 patients regarding all three procedures (robot-assisted, laparoscopic, and open) (33). Ultimately, there were no significant differences between the procedures in terms of severe perioperative complications, postoperative fistula rate, and intraoperative blood loss. Compared to laparoscopy, robotics showed a longer operation time but a shorter hospital stay and a higher rate of spleen-preserving procedures. Compared to the open approach, robotics offered a shorter hospital stay and a lower overall complication rate.

    Distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy for malignant masses was investigated regarding oncological outcomes by Raoof et al. in an American registry study (34). After a median follow-up of 25 months, the robotic group (n=99) showed equally good oncological outcomes as the laparoscopic comparison group (n=605) (34).

    A meta-analysis by Zhao et al. compared robot-assisted pancreatic surgery with open pancreatic surgery (35).

    It includes 15 studies, with no RCT included, and concludes based on the current study situation that robotic distal pancreatectomy is associated with fewer blood transfusions, fewer lymph nodes removed, fewer complications, and a shorter hospital stay compared to open surgery. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of spleen preservation rate, positive resection margin, pancreatic fistula incidence, and mortality. It concludes that robot-assisted surgery is a safe and feasible alternative to open pancreatic surgery in terms of perioperative outcomes, although the evidence is still quite limited due to the lack of high-quality randomized controlled trials.

    Summary

    The advantages and disadvantages shown in the studies can be summarized as follows:

    Robotics has so far led to longer operation times and higher costs compared to laparoscopy and open surgeries. Compared to open surgeries, both robotics and laparoscopy showed less blood loss, and patients recover faster and can be discharged sooner. There are no significant differences in severe intra- and postoperative complications across the studies. Depending on the study design and endpoints, occasional differences arise, such as a higher rate of spleen preservation with robotics compared to laparoscopy in individual studies.

    Furthermore, the current evidence ultimately does not allow for a conclusive assessment and clear favoring of one approach over another at this time (2022), neither in the comparison of laparoscopic vs. open nor in the comparison of robotics with the other procedures. In particular, for the robot-assisted approach, randomized controlled trials (e.g., non-inferiority studies) are still lacking.

  2. Reviews

    Figures do matter: A literature review of 4587 robotic pancreatic resections and their implications on training.

    Levi Sandri GB, Abu Hilal M, Dokmak S, Edwin B, Hackert T, Keck T, Khatkov I, Besselink MG, Boggi U; E-AHPBA Innovation & Development Committee.J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2022 Jun 25. doi: 10.1002/jhbp.1209. Online ahead of print.PMID: 35751504 Review.

    Pancreatic Cystic Lesions: Review of the Current State of Diagnosis and Surveillance.

    Alwahbi O, Ghumman Z, van der Pol CB, Patlas M, Gopee-Ramanan P.Can Assoc Radiol J. 2022 Oct 11:8465371221130524. doi: 10.1177/08465371221130524. Online ahead of print.PMID: 36220377 Free article. Review.

    Minimally invasive surgery for pancreatic cancer-are we there yet?-a narrative review.

    Bhandare MS, Parray A, Chaudhari VA, Shrikhande SV.Chin Clin Oncol. 2022 Feb;11(1):3. doi: 10.21037/cco-21-131.PMID: 35255692 Free article. Review.

    Robotic versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Spleen-Preserving DistalPancreatectomies: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

    Rompianesi G, Montalti R, Ambrosio L, Troisi RI.J Pers Med. 2021 Jun 13;11(6):552. doi: 10.3390/jpm11060552.PMID: 34199314 Free PMC article. Review.

    Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies: A systematic review and meta-analysis on costs and perioperative outcome.

    Di Martino M, Caruso R, D'Ovidio A, Núñez-Alfonsel J, Burdió Pinilla F, Quijano Collazo Y, Vicente E, Ielpo B.Int J Med Robot. 2021 Oct;17(5):e2295. doi: 10.1002/rcs.2295. Epub 2021 Jun 16.PMID: 34085371 Review.

    State of the art robotic distal pancreatectomy: a review of the literature.

    Al Abbas AI, Zeh Iii HJ, Polanco PM.Updates Surg. 2021 Jun;73(3):881-891. doi: 10.1007/s13304-021-01070-y. Epub 2021 May 29.PMID: 34050901 Review.

    The Role of Laparoscopic Surgery in Localized Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumours.

    Ferraro V, Tedeschi M, Laera L, Ammendola M, Riccelli U, Silvestris N, Fiorentino A, Surico G, Inchingolo R, Decembrino F, de Angelis N, Memeo R.Curr Treat Options Oncol. 2021 Feb 27;22(4):27. doi: 10.1007/s11864-021-00824-5.PMID: 33641016 Review.

    Learning curve of laparoscopic and robotic pancreas resections: a systematic review.

    Chan KS, Wang ZK, Syn N, Goh BKP.Surgery. 2021 Jul;170(1):194-206. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2020.11.046. Epub 2021 Feb 2.PMID: 33541746 Review.

    Trends in Robotic Pancreaticoduodenectomy and Distal Pancreatectomy.

    Caba Molina D, Lambreton F, Arrangoiz Majul R.J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2019 Feb;29(2):147-151. doi: 10.1089/lap.2018.0421. Epub 2018 Sep 14.PMID: 30222522 Review.

    Robotic-assisted spleen preserving distal pancreatectomy: a technical review.

    Juo YY, King JC.J Vis Surg. 2017 Oct 10;3:139. doi: 10.21037/jovs.2017.08.14. eCollection 2017.PMID: 29302415 Free PMC article. Review

    Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: an up-to-date meta-analysis.

    Guerrini GP, Lauretta A, Belluco C, Olivieri M, Forlin M, Basso S, Breda B, Bertola G, Di Benedetto F.BMC Surg. 2017 Nov 9;17(1):105. doi: 10.1186/s12893-017-0301-3.PMID: 29121885 Free PMC article. Review 

    [Minimally invasive and robot-assisted surgery for pancreatic cystic tumors].

    Welsch T, Distler M, Weitz J.Chirurg. 2017 Nov;88(11):934-943. doi: 10.1007/s00104-017-0496-y.PMID: 28842736 Review. German.

    Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy: State of the art.

    Memeo R, Sangiuolo F, de Blasi V, Tzedakis S, Mutter D, Marescaux J, Pessaux P.J Visc Surg. 2016 Nov;153(5):353-359. doi: 10.1016/j.jviscsurg.2016.04.001. Epub 2016 May 12.PMID: 27185566 Free article. Review.

    Staple-free robotic distal pancreatectomy and splenectomy.

    Galvez D, Javed A, He J.J Vis Surg. 2016 Aug 8;2:137. doi: 10.21037/jovs.2016.07.01. eCollection 2016.PMID: 29078524 Free PMC article. Review.

    Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy - The first meta-analysis.

    Gavriilidis P, Lim C, Menahem B, Lahat E, Salloum C, Azoulay D.HPB (Oxford). 2016 Jul;18(7):567-74. doi: 10.1016/j.hpb.2016.04.008. Epub 2016 May 20.PMID: 27346136 Free PMC article. Review.

    Robotic versus Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy: A Meta-Analysis of Short-Term Outcomes.

    Zhou JY, Xin C, Mou YP, Xu XW, Zhang MZ, Zhou YC, Lu C, Chen RG.PLoS One. 2016 Mar 14;11(3):e0151189. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0151189. eCollection 2016.PMID: 26974961 Free PMC article. Review.

    Systematic review and meta-analysis of robotic versus laparoscopic distalpancreatectomy for benign and malignant pancreatic lesions.

    Huang B, Feng L, Zhao J.Surg Endosc. 2016 Sep;30(9):4078-85. doi: 10.1007/s00464-015-4723-7. Epub 2016 Jan 7.PMID: 26743110 Review.

    A systematic review and meta-analysis of spleen-preserving distalpancreatectomy with preservation or ligation of the splenic artery and vein.

    Partelli S, Cirocchi R, Randolph J, Parisi A, Coratti A, Falconi M.Surgeon. 2016 Apr;14(2):109-18. doi: 10.1016/j.surge.2015.11.002. Epub 2015 Dec 23.PMID: 26723134 Review.

    Minimally invasive surgical approach to pancreatic malignancies.

    Bencini L, Annecchiarico M, Farsi M, Bartolini I, Mirasolo V, Guerra F, Coratti A.World J Gastrointest Oncol. 2015 Dec 15;7(12):411-21. doi: 10.4251/wjgo.v7.i12.411.PMID: 26690680 Free PMC article. Review.

    Minimally Invasive Distal Pancreatectomy: A Single-Center Analysis of Outcome With Experience and Systematic Review of the Literature.

    Barrie J, Ammori BJ.Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2015 Aug;25(4):297-302. doi: 10.1097/SLE.0000000000000185.PMID: 26147049 Review.

    Challenges in robotic distal pancreatectomy: systematic review of current practice.

    Guerra F, Pesi B, Amore Bonapasta S, Di Marino M, Perna F, Annecchiarico M, Coratti A.Minerva Chir. 2015 Aug;70(4):241-7. Epub 2015 Apr 28.PMID: 25916194 Review.

    Robotic distal pancreatectomy: a valid option?

    Jung MK, Buchs NC, Azagury DE, Hagen ME, Morel P.Minerva Chir. 2013 Oct;68(5):489-97.PMID: 24101006 Review.

  3. Guidelines

    The Miami International Evidence-based Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreas Resection.

    Asbun HJ, Moekotte AL, Vissers FL, Kunzler F, Cipriani F, Alseidi A, D'Angelica MI, Balduzzi A, Bassi C, Björnsson B, Boggi U, Callery MP, Del Chiaro M, Coimbra FJ, Conrad C, Cook A, Coppola A, Dervenis C, Dokmak S, Edil BH, Edwin B, Giulianotti PC, Han HS, Hansen PD, van der Heijde N, van Hilst J, Hester CA, Hogg ME, Jarufe N, Jeyarajah DR, Keck T, Kim SC, Khatkov IE, Kokudo N, Kooby DA, Korrel M, de Leon FJ, Lluis N, Lof S, Machado MA, Demartines N, Martinie JB, Merchant NB, Molenaar IQ, Moravek C, Mou YP, Nakamura M, Nealon WH, Palanivelu C, Pessaux P, Pitt HA, Polanco PM, Primrose JN, Rawashdeh A, Sanford DE, Senthilnathan P, Shrikhande SV, Stauffer JA, Takaori K, Talamonti MS, Tang CN, Vollmer CM, Wakabayashi G, Walsh RM, Wang SE, Zinner MJ, Wolfgang CL, Zureikat AH, Zwart MJ, Conlon KC, Kendrick ML, Zeh HJ, Hilal MA, Besselink MG; International Study Group on Minimally Invasive Pancreas Surgery (I-MIPS).Ann Surg. 2020 Jan;271(1):1-14. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000003590.PMID: 31567509 Review.

    S3 Guideline Pancreatitis – Guideline of the German Society for Gastroenterology, Digestive and Metabolic Diseases (DGVS) https://register.awmf.org/assets/guidelines/021-003l_S3_Pankreatitis_2022-04_01.pdf

    S3 Guideline on Exocrine Pancreatic Cancer https://register.awmf.org/assets/guidelines/032-010OLl_Exokrines-Pankreaskarzinom_2022-12.pdf

    ACG Clinical Guideline: Diagnosis and Management of Pancreatic Cysts

    Elta, Grace H MD, FACG1; Enestvedt, Brintha K MD, MBA2; Sauer, Bryan G MD, MSc, FACG (GRADE Methodologist)3; Lennon, Anne Marie MD, PhD, FACG4

    American Journal of Gastroenterology: April 2018 - Volume 113 - Issue 4 - p 464-479

    doi: 10.1038/ajg.2018.14

    https://journals.lww.com/ajg/Fulltext/2018/04000/ACG_Clinical_Guideline__Diagnosis_and_Management.8.aspx

    American Gastroenterological Association Clinical Practice Update: Management of Pancreatic Necrosis.

    Baron TH, DiMaio CJ, Wang AY, Morgan KA.Gastroenterology. 2020 Jan;158(1):67-75.e1. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.07.064. Epub 2019 Aug 31.PMID: 31479658 Review.

    European experts consensus statement on cystic tumors of the pancreas.

    Del Chiaro M, Verbeke C, Salvia R, Klöppel G, Werner J, McKay C, Friess H, Manfredi R, Van Cutsem E, Löhr M, Segersvärd R; European Study Group on Cystic Tumors of the Pancreas.Dig Liver Dis. 2013 Sep;45(9):703-11. doi: 10.1016/j.dld.2013.01.010. Epub 2013 Feb 14.PMID: 23415799

Currently ongoing studies

DRKSReduction of postoperative complications after upper abdominal surgeries through the introducti

Activate now and continue learning straight away.

Single Access

Activation of this course for 3 days.

€7.99 inclusive VAT

Most popular offer

webop - Savings Flex

Combine our learning modules flexibly and save up to 50%.

from €3.70 / module

€44.50 / yearly payment

price overview

Robotik

Unlock all courses in this module.

€7.42 / month

€89.00 / yearly payment

  • literature search

    Literature search on the pages of pubmed.