Introduction of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy following phase 2a IDEAL guidelines

• Published in: PloS one Vol. 19; no. 5; p. e0302848
• Main Authors: Mise, Yoshihiro, Miyashita, Mamiko, Yoshioka, Ryuji, Kawano, Fumihiro, Takeda, Yoshinori, Ichida, Hirofumi, Saiura, Akio
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Public Library of Science 06.05.2024; Public Library of Science (PLoS)
• Subjects: Adult; Aged; Biology and Life Sciences; Complications; Dissection; Feasibility; Feedback; Female; Fistula; Gastrointestinal diseases; Guidelines; Hospitals; Humans; Laparotomy; Ligaments; Liver; Male; Medical colleges; Medical research; Medicine and Health Sciences; Medicine, Experimental; Methods; Middle Aged; Mortality; Operative Time; Ostomy; Pancreatic Neoplasms - pathology; Pancreatic Neoplasms - surgery; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Pancreaticoduodenectomy - adverse effects; Pancreaticoduodenectomy - methods; Patients; People and Places; Postoperative; Practice guidelines (Medicine); Prospective Studies; Robotic surgery; Robotic Surgical Procedures - methods; Robotics; Small intestine; Standardization; Surgeons; Surgical techniques; Technology application; Treatment Outcome; Japan
• ISSN: 1932-6203; 1932-6203
• DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0302848

Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) is a newly introduced procedure, which is still evolving and lacks standardization. An objective assessment is essential to investigate the feasibility of RPD. The current study aimed to assess our initial ten cases of RPD based on IDEAL (Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, and Long-term study) guidelines. This was a prospective phase 2a study following the IDEAL framework. Ten consecutive cases of RPD performed by two surgeons with expertise in open procedures at a single center were assigned to the study. With objective evaluation, each case was classified into four grades according to the achievements of the procedures. Errors observed in the previous case were used to inform the procedure in the next case. The surgical outcomes of the ten cases were reviewed. The median total operation time was 634 min (interquartile range [IQR], 594-668) with a median resection time of 363 min (IQR, 323-428) and reconstruction time of 123 min (IQR, 107-131). The achievement of the whole procedure was graded as A, "successful", in two patients. In two patients, reconstruction was performed with a mini-laparotomy due to extensive pneumoperitoneum, probably caused by insertion of a liver retractor from the xyphoid. Major postoperative complications occurred in two patients. One patient, in whom the jejunal limb was elevated through the Treitz ligament, had a bowel obstruction and needed to undergo re-laparotomy. RPD is feasible when performed by surgeons experienced in open procedures. Specific considerations are needed to safely introduce RPD.