Robotic and laparoscopic hybrid pancreaticoduodenectomy: surgical techniques and early outcomes.
Wu Ji,Kai Ding,Xiaoming Kao,Changsheng He,Ning Li,Jieshou Li
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.0366-6999.20132549
IF: 6.133
2014-01-01
Chinese Medical Journal
Abstract:In recent years, the use of minimally invasive surgery in pancreas has been gradually rising in importance. There has been growing interest in performing pancreatectomy by the laparoscopic approach. However, laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) is very complicated and difficult to control and requires surgeons to have a high level of laparoscopic skills. Since LPD provides no significant benefits in terms of blood loss, morbidity rate, or median hospital stay, robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) gained surgeons’ attention. The increased dexterity granted by endo-wristed instruments, the improved threedimensional vision, and the computer filtration of the surgeon's movements have brought minimally invasive surgery into a new era.1 RPD can overcome most of the natural limitations and drawbacks of LPD mentioned above. Therefore, we propose a hybrid of laparoscopic and robotic approaches (RLPD), which may be more beneficial and effective to pancreaticoduodenectomy as it combines the advantages of both LPD and RPD. In this paper, we report our initial experience with the new method RLPD and analyze its surgical techniques and early outcomes. METHODS We prospectively collected data for all patients undergoing RLPD from October 2010 through March 2012 in the Institute of General Surgery of Jinling Hospital. The main exclusion criteria were having tumors adjacent to the portal vein or superior mesenteric vein on CT or MRI imaging for which venous resection may be necessary. Among the 10 patients retrieved from our database, their medical records were reviewed to collect the following variables: age, body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, TNM stage, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and cancer antigen 19-9, 125 (CA199, CA-125) levels, previous disease history, chief complaints when admitted, and complete pathology diagnosis. Demographic data, success rate of RLPD, duration of operation, estimated operation blood loss, length of incision, complications of surgery, length of postoperative hospital stay, pathological data, cost of the operation, cost of hospitalization and early clinical follow-up were also retrospectively collected. Our trial was approved by the hospital's ethics committee and patients’ consent was obtained. The nasogastric tube and urethral catheter were placed before the surgery. The patients were brought to the operating room and placed in reverse Trendelenberg position with legs wide apart and the angle of elevation by 30 degree to the right. Surgical techniques were briefly shown as in Table 1. Descriptive statistics were used in the following analysis. Normally distributed data are expressed as mean and standard deviation (SD) while skewed data are represented as median.Table 1: . Surgical techniques of RLPDRESULTS A total of six males and four females were included, with a median age of 57.6 years. According to preoperative CT and MRI scanning results, obstructions of common bile duct in the inferior extremity were confirmed in eight cases, while two cases had pancreatic head masses. The patients were distributed according to the WHO BMI classification for Chinese people as the following: normal (18.5-24.9): 8; overweigh (25.0-27.5): 2. According to the ASA score system, three patients were classified Grade I and seven Grade II. Five cases were Stage T1 and three cases were T2 based on cancer TNM Classification. Obstructive jaundice presented in eight patients, all of whom underwent ERCP before operation. Two patients suffered from epigastric malaise and distension. CEA elevated ((26.3±12.5) ng/ml) in five patients, and CA199 elevated ((232.5±87.2) U/ml) in seven patients. Of the 10 patients selected, nine underwent RLPD while the remaining one had to be converted to open pancreaticoduodenectomy owing to uncontrolled bleeding when dissecting the pancreatic head and uncinate. The mean operative time was (7.3±3.6) hours. The intraoperative bleeding was estimated as (320.0±123.5) ml with no transfusions. The mean length of incision was (6.5±1.2) cm. The mean hospital stay was (9.6±4.3) days. No mortality occurred. Pancreatic leak was noted in one patient during the postoperative period, but was successfully managed by conservative managements alone. Pathological examination demonstrated periampullary adenocarcinoma in seven patients and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma in two patients. At a median follow-up of (9.3±4.6) months, all patients were disease free and were doing well clinically. We calculated that the cost of operation reached (65 437± 8 251) RMB, while cost of total hospitalization was (108 096±11 744) RMB. DISSCUSION We retrospectively reviewed 10 cases of RLPD in our study, aiming to portray the clinical profiles; explore clinical significance, advantages and best management strategy; assess prognosis. The result proved that RLPD had a good clinical efficacy in controlling intraoperative bleeding, shortening discharge day, with a lower ratio of readmission and a higher satisfaction of patients. We think RLPD is worthy of popularization and application for its less invasive surgery and shorter postoperative recovery period. Although there are many advantages to robotic surgery and some clinical studies have proved it to be feasible and safe for patients with complicated HBP pathologies,2 it has long been considered difficult and was not developed or widely applied as in gastroenterology surgery. There are some shortcomings that are hard to overcome when using a robot alone. First, it is unable to operate in multi-abdomen areas simultaneously. Vision is difficult to move and adjust after the robot has been docked. The other limitation is the loss of tactile feedback, frequently leading to rupturing of suture material during knot tying. Third, it is time-consuming. It will take 8-10 hours if a surgeon finishes RPD from start to end. In 2010, Narula et al3 described hybrid pancreaticoduodenectomy, which combines robotic and laparoscopic techniques for the treatment of obstructive jaundice and pancreatic mass in five patients. They completed resection procedure laparoscopically and reconstruction procedure robotically. They concluded that complex procedures could be accomplished with minimally invasive surgical techniques using robotic instrumentation. However, the new hybrid method of RLPD technology we report here has some differences from what Narula et al described. In laparoscopic procedure, we did not divide and dissect the neck of the pancreas; we did not even free the head and uncinate process of the pancreas. These steps are left to be completed by the robot. We believe that the advantages that the da Vinci surgical robotic system offers in the articulated instrumentation and the 3-D visualization could enhance the dexterity of pancreaticoduodenectomy in creating a window between the neck of the pancreas and the portal vein, dissection of the pancreatic head from major vasculatures, lymph node, the uncinate dissection, and reconstruction of pancreaticojejunostomy and hepaticojejunostomy. We made a small sized upper midline incision, which was used to retrieve the specimen, complete gastrointestinal anastomosis was done with a stapler and jejunotomy for postoperative nutrition, a drain and nutrition feeding duct were also placed. This did not significantly increase the trauma of the surgical incision, but made these manipulations more convenient with greater certainty. This also greatly shortened overall operation time. In addition, by this hybrid technique, we usually completed the laparoscopic procedure with one surgeon, and completed the robotic procedure with another surgeon, thus saving surgeon's physical strength, and improved the efficiency of surgery. Although the advantages observed in this small series are noteworthy, it will be necessary for more long time, evidence-based outcomes to prove their efficacy like other surgeries.4,5 and further research on the cost-effectiveness is still required. We believe that hybrid procedure using both laparoscopic and robotic instrumentation is the next logical step in moving forward in the complicated field of minimally invasive surgery.