Catherine H Davis1,2, Miral S Grandhi1,2, Victor P Gazivoda1,2, Alissa Greenbaum1,2, Timothy J Kennedy1,2, Russell C Langan1,2,3, H Richard Alexander1,2, Henry A Pitt1,2, David A August4,5. 1. Division of Surgical Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, 195 Little Albany Street, New Brunswick, NJ, 08901, USA. 2. Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson University Medical School, New Brunswick, NJ, USA. 3. Department of Surgery, Saint Barnabas Medical Center, RWJBarnabas Health, Livingston, NJ, USA. 4. Division of Surgical Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, 195 Little Albany Street, New Brunswick, NJ, 08901, USA. augustda@cinj.rutgers.edu. 5. Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson University Medical School, New Brunswick, NJ, USA. augustda@cinj.rutgers.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: More complex cases are being performed robotically. This study aims to characterize trends in robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) over time and assess opportunities for advanced trainees. METHODS: Using the ACS-NSQIP database from 2014 to 2019, PD cases were characterized by operative approach (open-OPN, laparoscopic-LAP, robotic-ROB). Proficiency and postoperative outcomes were described by approach over time. RESULTS: 24,268 PDs were identified, with the ROB approach increasing from 2.8% to 7.5%. Unplanned conversion increased over time for LAP (27.7-39.0%, p = 0.003) but was unchanged for ROB cases (14.8-14.7%, p = 0.257). Morbidity increased for OPN PD (35.5-36.8%, p = 0.041) and decreased for ROB PD (38.7-30.3%, p = 0.010). Mean LOS was lower in ROB than LAP/OPN (9.5 vs. 10.9 vs. 10.9 days, p < 0.00001). Approximately, 100 AHPBA, SSO, and ASTS fellows are being trained each year in North America; however, only about 5 RPDs are available per trainee per year which is far below that recommended to achieve proficiency. CONCLUSION: Over a 6-year period, a significant increase was observed in the use of RPD without a concomitant increase in conversion rates. RPD was associated with decreased morbidity and length of stay. Despite this shift, the number of cases being performed is not adequate for all fellows to achieve proficiency before graduation.
BACKGROUND: More complex cases are being performed robotically. This study aims to characterize trends in robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) over time and assess opportunities for advanced trainees. METHODS: Using the ACS-NSQIP database from 2014 to 2019, PD cases were characterized by operative approach (open-OPN, laparoscopic-LAP, robotic-ROB). Proficiency and postoperative outcomes were described by approach over time. RESULTS: 24,268 PDs were identified, with the ROB approach increasing from 2.8% to 7.5%. Unplanned conversion increased over time for LAP (27.7-39.0%, p = 0.003) but was unchanged for ROB cases (14.8-14.7%, p = 0.257). Morbidity increased for OPN PD (35.5-36.8%, p = 0.041) and decreased for ROB PD (38.7-30.3%, p = 0.010). Mean LOS was lower in ROB than LAP/OPN (9.5 vs. 10.9 vs. 10.9 days, p < 0.00001). Approximately, 100 AHPBA, SSO, and ASTS fellows are being trained each year in North America; however, only about 5 RPDs are available per trainee per year which is far below that recommended to achieve proficiency. CONCLUSION: Over a 6-year period, a significant increase was observed in the use of RPD without a concomitant increase in conversion rates. RPD was associated with decreased morbidity and length of stay. Despite this shift, the number of cases being performed is not adequate for all fellows to achieve proficiency before graduation.
Authors: Ching-Wei D Tzeng; Amanda B Cooper; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey; Steven A Curley; Thomas A Aloia Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2013-08-26 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: Claudio Bassi; Giovanni Marchegiani; Christos Dervenis; Micheal Sarr; Mohammad Abu Hilal; Mustapha Adham; Peter Allen; Roland Andersson; Horacio J Asbun; Marc G Besselink; Kevin Conlon; Marco Del Chiaro; Massimo Falconi; Laureano Fernandez-Cruz; Carlos Fernandez-Del Castillo; Abe Fingerhut; Helmut Friess; Dirk J Gouma; Thilo Hackert; Jakob Izbicki; Keith D Lillemoe; John P Neoptolemos; Attila Olah; Richard Schulick; Shailesh V Shrikhande; Tadahiro Takada; Kyoichi Takaori; William Traverso; Charles R Vollmer; Christopher L Wolfgang; Charles J Yeo; Roberto Salvia; Marcus Buchler Journal: Surgery Date: 2016-12-28 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Melissa E Hogg; Marc G Besselink; Pierre-Alain Clavien; Abe Fingerhut; D Rohan Jeyarajah; David A Kooby; A James Moser; Henry A Pitt; Oliver A Varban; Charles M Vollmer; Herbert J Zeh; Paul Hansen Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2017-02-10 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: L Mark Knab; Mazen S Zenati; Anton Khodakov; Maryjoe Rice; Amr Al-Abbas; David L Bartlett; Amer H Zureikat; Herbert J Zeh; Melissa E Hogg Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2018-08-02 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Richard S Hoehn; Ibrahim Nassour; Mohamed A Adam; Sharon Winters; Alessandro Paniccia; Amer H Zureikat Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2020-04-20 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Carolijn L Nota; Maurice J Zwart; Yuman Fong; Jeroen Hagendoorn; Melissa E Hogg; Bas Groot Koerkamp; Marc G Besselink; I Quintus Molenaar Journal: J Vis Surg Date: 2017-08-21
Authors: N Napoli; E F Kauffmann; M Palmeri; M Miccoli; F Costa; F Vistoli; G Amorese; Ugo Boggi Journal: Dig Surg Date: 2016-05-25 Impact factor: 2.588
Authors: Carl R Schmidt; Britney R Harris; Kelsey A Musgrove; Pavan Rao; J Wallis Marsh; Alan A Thomay; Melissa E Hogg; Herbert J Zeh; Amer H Zureikat; Brian A Boone Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2020-11-02 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: Brian A Boone; Mazen Zenati; Melissa E Hogg; Jennifer Steve; Arthur James Moser; David L Bartlett; Herbert J Zeh; Amer H Zureikat Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2015-05 Impact factor: 14.766