Objective: The aim of this study was to develop and externally validate the first evidence-based guidelines on minimally invasive pancreas resection (MIPR) before and during the International Evidence-based Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreas Resection (IG-MIPR) meeting in Miami (March 2019). Summary Background Data: MIPR has seen rapid development in the past decade. Promising outcomes have been reported by early adopters from high-volume centers. Subsequently, multicenter series as well as randomized controlled trials were reported; however, guidelines for clinical practice were lacking. Methods: The Scottisch Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) methodology was used, incorporating these 4 items: systematic reviews using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases to answer clinical questions, whenever possible in PICO style, the GRADE approach for assessment of the quality of evidence, the Delphi method for establishing consensus on the developed recommendations, and the AGREE-II instrument for the assessment of guideline quality and external validation. The current guidelines are cosponsored by the International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the Americas Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the Asian-Pacific Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the European-African Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery, Pancreas Club, the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgery, the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, and the Society of Surgical Oncology. Results: After screening 16,069 titles, 694 studies were reviewed, and 291 were included. The final 28 recommendations covered 6 topics; laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomy, central pancreatectomy, pancreatoduodenectomy, as well as patient selection, training, learning curve, and minimal annual center volume required to obtain optimal outcomes and patient safety. Conclusion: The IG-MIPR using SIGN methodology give guidance to surgeons, hospital administrators, patients, and medical societies on the use and outcome of MIPR as well as the approach to be taken regarding this challenging type of surgery.

No abstract

Background The role of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy is still unclear, and whether robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) offers benefits over laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is unknown because large multicentre studies are lacking. This study compared perioperative outcomes between RDP and LDP. Methods A multicentre international propensity score-matched study included patients who underwent RDP or LDP for any indication in 21 European centres from six countries that performed at least 15 distal pancreatectomies annually (January 2011 to June 2019). Propensity score matching was based on preoperative characteristics in a 1 : 1 ratio. The primary outcome was the major morbidity rate (Clavien–Dindo grade IIIa or above). Results A total of 1551 patients (407 RDP and 1144 LDP) were included in the study. Some 402 patients who had RDP were matched with 402 who underwent LDP. After matching, there was no difference between RDP and LDP groups in rates of major morbidity (14.2 versus 16.5 per cent respectively; P = 0.378), postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C (24.6 versus 26.5 per cent; P = 0.543) or 90-day mortality (0.5 versus 1.3 per cent; P = 0.268). RDP was associated with a longer duration of surgery than LDP (median 285 (i.q.r. 225–350) versus 240 (195–300) min respectively; P < 0.001), lower conversion rate (6.7 versus 15.2 per cent; P < 0.001), higher spleen preservation rate (81.4 versus 62.9 per cent; P = 0.001), longer hospital stay (median 8.5 (i.q.r. 7–12) versus 7 (6–10) days; P < 0.001) and lower readmission rate (11.0 versus 18.2 per cent; P = 0.004). Conclusion The major morbidity rate was comparable between RDP and LDP. RDP was associated with improved rates of conversion, spleen preservation and readmission, to the detriment of longer duration of surgery and hospital stay.

Background: We assessed short-term outcomes after minimally invasive (laparoscopic, robot-assisted, hybrid) pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) versus open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) among European high-volume (>10 MIPDs and >20 PDs overall per year) centers. Methods: Multicenter propensity-score-matched (1:1) retrospective study on MIPD vs OPD for (pre-)malignant tumors or cysts in 14 European MIPD centers (2012-2017) and OPD data from Dutch and German pancreatic surgery registries (2014-2017). Propensity scores were based on age, sex, BMI, ASA, comorbidities, ECOG, tumor location, suspected cancer, organ involvement, and venous resection. Primary outcome: 30-day major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo 3a-5). Secondary outcomes: grade-B/C pancreatic fistula (POPF), R1-resection (< 1 mm) margin, hospital stay and 30-day mortality. Results: Of 4220 included patients, all 730 MIPD (413 laparoscopic, 184 robot-assisted, 130 hybrid) were matched to 730 OPD. Major morbidity (28% vs 29%,

Background: Theoretical advantages of robotic surgery compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery include improved instrument dexterity, 3D visualization, and better ergonomics. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine advantages of robotic surgery over laparoscopic surgery in patients undergoing liver resections. Method: A systematic literature search was conducted for studies comparing robotic assisted or totally laparoscopic liver resection. Meta-analysis of intraoperative (operative time, blood loss, transfusion rate, conversion rate), oncological (R0 resection rates), and postoperative (bile leak, surgical site infection, pulmonary complications, 30-day and 90-day mortality, length of stay, 90-day readmission and reoperation rates) outcomes was performed using a random effects model. Result: Twenty-six non-randomized studies including 2630 patients (950 robotic and 1680 laparoscopic) were included, of which 20% had major robotic liver resection and 14% had major laparoscopic liver resection. Intraoperatively, robotic liver resection was associated with significantly less blood loss (mean: 286 vs 301 mL, p < 0.001) but longer operating time (mean: 281 vs 221 min, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in conversion rates or transfusion rates between robotic liver resection and laparoscopic liver resection. Postoperatively, there were no significant differences in overall complications, bile leaks, and length of hospital stay between robotic liver resection and laparoscopic liver resection. However, robotic liver resection was associated with significantly lower readmission rates than laparoscopic liver resection (odds ratio: 0.43, p = 0.005). Conclusion: Robotic liver resection appears to offer some advantages compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery, although both techniques appear equivalent. Importantly, the quality of evidence is generally limited to cohort studies and a high-quality randomized trial comparing both techniques is needed.

Background: Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) is a demanding surgical procedure, thus explaining its slow expansion and limited popularity amongst Hepato-Pancreatico-Biliary (HPB) surgeons. However, three main advantages of robotic assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) including improved dexterity, 3D vision less surgical fatigue, may overcome some of the hurdles and ultimately lead to a wider adoption. This systematic review and network meta-analysis aims to evaluate the current literature on open and MIPD. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted for studies reporting robotic, laparoscopic and open surgery for PD. Network meta-analysis of intraoperative (operating time, blood loss, transfusion rate), postoperative (overall and major complications, pancreatic fistula, delayed gastric emptying, length of hospital stay) and oncological outcomes (R0 resection, lymphadenectomy) were performed. Results: Sixty-one studies including 62,529 patients were included in the network meta-analysis, of which 3% (n = 2131) were totally robotic (TR) and 10% (n = 6514) were totally laparoscopic (TL). There were no significant differences between surgical techniques for major complications, overall and grade B/C fistula, biliary leak, mortality and R0 resections. Transfusion rates were significantly lower in TR compared to TL and open. Operative time for TR was longer compared with open and TL. Both TL and TR were associated with significantly lower rates of wound infections, pulmonary complications, shorter length of stay and higher lymph nodes examined when compared to open. TR was associated with significantly lower conversion rates than TL. Conclusion: In summary, this network meta-analysis highlights the variability in techniques within MIPD and compares other variations to the conventional open PD. Current evidence appears to demonstrate MIPD, both laparoscopic and robotic techniques are associated with improved rates of surgical site infections, pulmonary complications, and a shorter hospital stay, with no compromise in oncological outcomes for cancer resections.

The results suggests that the difficulty of laparoscopic liver surgery is not fully assessed by the available difficulty scoring systems and prompts the development of a new difficulty score that incorporates all factors believed to increase difficulty.

Background Pancreatic resections are among the most technically demanding procedures, including a high risk of potentially life-threatening complications and outcomes strongly correlated to hospital volume and individual surgeon experience. Minimally invasive pancreatic resections (MIPRs) have become a part of standard surgical practice worldwide over the last decade; however, in comparison with other surgical procedures, the implementation of minimally invasive approaches into clinical practice has been rather slow. Objective The aim of this study was to highlight and summarize the available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the role of minimally invasive approaches in pancreatic surgery. Methods A WHO trial registry and Pubmed database literature search was performed to identify all RCTs comparing MIPRs (robot-assisted and/or laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy [DP] or pancreatoduodenectomy [PD]) with open pancreatic resections (OPRs). Results Overall, five RCTs on MIPR versus OPR have been published and seven RCTs are currently recruiting. For DP, the results of two RCTs were in favor of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) in terms of shorter hospital stay and less intraoperative blood loss, with comparable morbidity and mortality. Regarding PD, two RCTs showed similar advantages for MIPD. However, concerns were raised after the early termination of the third multicenter RCT on MIPD versus open PD due to higher complication-related mortality in the laparoscopic group and no clear other demonstrable advantages. No RCTs on robot-assisted pancreatic procedures are available as yet. Conclusion At the current level of evidence, MIDP is thought to be safe and feasible, although oncological safety should be further evaluated. Based on the results of the RCTs conducted for PD, MIPD cannot be proclaimed as the superior alternative to open PD, although promising outcomes have been demonstrated by experienced centers. Future studies should provide answers to the role of robotic approaches in pancreatic surgery and aim to identity the subgroups of patients or indications with the greatest benefit of MIPRs.