Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Learning curve of robot-assisted middle pancreatectomy (RMP): experience of the first 100 cases from a high-volume pancreatic center in China

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

Middle pancreatectomy (MP) is safe and feasible in patients with benign or low-grade malignant tumors located at the neck or proximal body of the pancreas. As a tissue-sparing operation, MP can preserve normal pancreatic function and reduce the risk of postoperative endocrine and exocrine insufficiency. However, the morbidity, especially the postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) rate, remains high. A robot-assisted surgical system may provide patients with less trauma; however, there are few reports on robot-assisted middle pancreatectomy (RMP). We describe the experience of RMP at our center to illustrate the learning curve (LC).

Methods

From August 2010 to July 2017, 100 patients underwent RMP in the Pancreatic Disease Center of Shanghai Ruijin Hospital affiliated to Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine. Patient characteristics, operative outcomes, and oncological outcomes were collected and analyzed. The CUSUM curve was analyzed according to operative time and estimated blood loss (EBL) and was used to describe the LC and identify the flexion points.

Results

Among the 100 patients who underwent RMP in our hospital, the mean age was 47.5 ± 14.2 years, and 69 patients were female. From the CUSUM curve, we found two flexion points: cases 12 and 44. After 44 cases, the rate of improvement was much faster. We separated the patients into two groups based on the LC (cases 1–44 and cases 45–100). There were significant improvements in operative time (173.1 ± 44.7 min vs. 137.3 ± 30.1 min, p < 0.001) and EBL (103.4 ± 90.0 ml vs. 69.3 ± 53.9 ml, p = 0.021). The overall POPF rate was 32% (32/100), while the incidence rate of biochemical leakage was 14% (14/100). However, there was no significant difference in the risk of POPF or other complications between the two groups. The postoperative length of stay (LOS) was also not different. The 90-day mortality rate was 1%. From our long-term follow-up, pancreatic function was preserved in most patients, with only three cases of endocrine insufficiency and two cases of exocrine insufficiency.

Conclusion

RMP was helpful and a good choice for the selected patients. PF was the main complication and has not been improved until now. There were two flexion points in the LC at cases 12 and 44. More cases are needed to gain more experience. A larger sample size and prospective studies are needed to verify the advantage of RMP.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Fitzgerald TL, Hickner ZJ, Schmitz M, Kort EJ (2008) Changing incidence of pancreatic neoplasms: a 16-year review of statewide tumor registry. Pancreas 37(2):134–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Gaujoux S, Brennan MF, Gonen M, D’Angelica MI, DeMatteo R, Fong Y, Schattner M, DiMaio C, Janakos M, Jarnagin WR, Allen PJ (2011) Cystic lesions of the pancreas: changes in the presentation and management of 1,424 patients at a single institution over a 15-year time period. J Am Coll Surg 212(4):590–600 discussion 600-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Giulianotti PC, Sbrana F, Bianco FM, Addeo P, Caravaglios G (2010) Robot-assisted laparoscopic middle pancreatectomy. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 20(2):135–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Xiao W, Zhu J, Peng L, Hong L, Sun G, Li Y (2018) The role of central pancreatectomy in pancreatic surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. HPB (Oxford) 20(10):896–904

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Crippa S, Bassi C, Warshaw AL, Falconi M, Partelli S, Thayer SP, Pederzoli P, Fernandez-del Castillo C (2007) Middle pancreatectomy: indications, short- and long-term operative outcomes. Ann Surg 246(1):69–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Goudard Y, Gaujoux S, Dokmak S, Cros J, Couvelard A, Palazzo M, Ronot M, Vullierme MP, Ruszniewski P, Belghiti J, Sauvanet A (2014) Reappraisal of central pancreatectomy a 12-year single-center experience. JAMA Surg 149(4):356–363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Paiella S, De Pastena M, Faustini F, Landoni L, Pollini T, Bonamini D, Giuliani T, Bassi C, Esposito A, Tuveri M, Salvia R (2018) Central pancreatectomy for benign or low-grade malignant pancreatic lesions - A single-center retrospective analysis of 116 cases. Eur J Surg Oncol 45(5):788–792

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Pulvirenti A, Ramera M, Bassi C (2017) Modifications in the International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) definition of postoperative pancreatic fistula. Transl Gastroenterol Hepatol 2:107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Guillemin P, Bessot M (1957) Chronic calcifying pancreatitis in renal tuberculosis: pancreatojejunostomy using an original technic. Mem Acad Chir (Paris) 83(27–28):869–871

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Lee KE, Koo do H, Kim SJ, Lee J, Park KS, Oh SK, Youn YK (2010) Outcomes of 109 patients with papillary thyroid carcinoma who underwent robotic total thyroidectomy with central node dissection via the bilateral axillo-breast approach. Surgery 148(6):1207–1213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Wexner SD, Bergamaschi R, Lacy A, Udo J, Brolmann H, Kennedy RH, John H (2009) The current status of robotic pelvic surgery: results of a multinational interdisciplinary consensus conference. Surg Endosc 23(2):438–443

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Memon S, Heriot AG, Murphy DG, Bressel M, Lynch AC (2012) Robotic versus laparoscopic proctectomy for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 19(7):2095–2101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Anderson B, Karmali S (2014) Laparoscopic resection of pancreatic adenocarcinoma: dream or reality? World J Gastroenterol 20(39):14255–14262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Chen S, Zhan Q, Jin JB, Wu ZC, Shi Y, Cheng DF, Chen H, Deng XX, Shen BY, Peng CH, Li HW (2017) Robot-assisted laparoscopic versus open middle pancreatectomy: short-term results of a randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc 31(2):962–971

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Napoli N, Kauffmann EF, Palmeri M, Miccoli M, Costa F, Vistoli F, Amorese G, Boggi U (2016) The learning curve in robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. Dig Surg 33(4):299–307

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Zhang T, Zhao ZM, Gao YX, Lau WY, Liu R (2018) The learning curve for a surgeon in robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a retrospective study in a high-volume pancreatic center. Surg Endosc 33(9):2927–2933

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Liu R, Zhao GD, Tang WB, Zhang KD, Zhao ZM, Gao YX, Hu MG, Li CG, Tan XL, Zhang X (2018) A single-team experience with robotic pancreatic surgery in 1010 cases. Nan Fang Yi Ke Da Xue Xue Bao 38(2):130–134

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Iacono C, Verlato G, Ruzzenente A, Campagnaro T, Bacchelli C, Valdegamberi A, Bortolasi L, Guglielmi A (2013) Systematic review of central pancreatectomy and meta-analysis of central versus distal pancreatectomy. Br J Surg 100(7):873–885

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Que W, Fang H, Yan B, Li J, Guo W, Zhai W, Zhang S (2015) Pancreaticogastrostomy versus pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Surg 209(6):1074–1082

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Cheng Y, Briarava M, Lai M, Wang X, Tu B, Cheng N, Gong J, Yuan Y, Pilati P, Mocellin S (2017) Pancreaticojejunostomy versus pancreaticogastrostomy reconstruction for the prevention of postoperative pancreatic fistula following pancreaticoduodenectomy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 9:CD012257

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Topal B, Fieuws S, Aerts R, Weerts J, Feryn T, Roeyen G, Bertrand C, Hubert C, Janssens M, Closset J, Belgian Section of H, and Pancreatic S (2013) Pancreaticojejunostomy versus pancreaticogastrostomy reconstruction after pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic or periampullary tumours: a multicentre randomised trial. Lancet Oncol 14(7):655–662

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Tittelbach-Helmrich D, Keck T, Wellner UF (2017) [Pancreaticogastrostomy: when and how?]. Chirurg 88(1):11–17

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Guerrini GP, Soliani P, D’Amico G, Di Benedetto F, Negri M, Piccoli M, Ruffo G, Orti-Rodriguez RJ, Pissanou T, Fusai G (2016) Pancreaticojejunostomy versus pancreaticogastrostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy: an up-to-date meta-analysis. J Invest Surg 29(3):175–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank all of the participating patients and their families, as well as the investigators, research nurses, study coordinators, and operation staff. Yusheng Shi, Yang Ma and Yue Wang contributed equally to this work, and all should be considered first authors. Xiaxing Deng, Baiyong Shen and Cheng-hong Peng also contributed equally, and they should be considered co-corresponding authors.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Yusheng Shi, Yue Wang and Jian Wang contributed equally to this article.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Pancreatic Disease Center, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China

    Yusheng Shi, Yue Wang, Yang Ma, Zhen Huo, Jiabin Jin, Yuanchi Weng, Shulin Zhao, Xiaxing Deng, Baiyong Shen & Chenghong Peng

  2. Xinhua Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China

    Jian Wang

Authors
  1. Yusheng Shi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yue Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jian Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yang Ma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Zhen Huo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jiabin Jin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Yuanchi Weng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Shulin Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Xiaxing Deng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Baiyong Shen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Chenghong Peng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Xiaxing Deng, Baiyong Shen or Chenghong Peng.

Ethics declarations

Disclosures

Yusheng Shi, Yang Ma, Yue Wang, Jian Wang, Zhen Huo, Jiabin Jin, Yuanchi Weng, Shulin Zhao, Xiaxing Deng, Baiyong Shen and Chenghong Peng have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shi, Y., Wang, Y., Wang, J. et al. Learning curve of robot-assisted middle pancreatectomy (RMP): experience of the first 100 cases from a high-volume pancreatic center in China. Surg Endosc 34, 3513–3520 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-07133-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-07133-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation