ROBOTIC PANCREATODUODENECTOMY IN BRAZIL: LESSONS AFTER 15 YEARS OF THE FIRST CASE

DUODENOPANCREATECTOMIA ROBÓTICA NO BRASIL: LIÇÕES APÓS 15 ANOS DO PRIMEIRO CASO

Pancreatoduodenectomy is a technically-challenging surgical procedure. In experienced centers, the postoperative mortality is around 5% and postoperative complications remain high, ranging from 30 to 61%¹,¹⁸. According to Torres et al., in 52 Brazilian centers, most of hepatopancreatobiliary surgeons (65.4%) performed only open conventional pancreatoduodenectomy in 2017¹⁵. Robotic surgery has revolutionized minimally invasive surgical techniques, offering distinct advantages in various complex procedures, including pancreatoduodenectomy (Whipple procedure)¹,¹⁸. It represents a significant advancement in the surgical management of various malignant and benign conditions affecting the head of the pancreas, duodenum, bile duct, and surrounding areas, especially for pancreatic head and periampullary cancer³. This complex procedure involves resecting the pancreas head, duodenum, bile duct, and part of the stomach, followed by the gastrointestinal tract reconstruction³,⁴,¹⁴. In pancreaticoduodenectomy, surgeon volume significantly affects outcomes, thus affecting mortality and morbidity rates, lengths of stay, and costs². Tseng et al. showed that after 60 cases, the surgeon gained experience and improvement regarding blood loss, operative time, length of stay, and the achievement of negative margin resection¹⁶.

The robotic system provides surgeons with wristed instruments that mimic the movements of the human hand, but with greater precision and range of motion. This is particularly beneficial in the confined anatomical spaces of the pancreas and surrounding structures⁶. It also offers a three-dimensional, high-definition view of the operative field, allowing for better identification of critical anatomical landmarks and vascular structures¹,⁶,¹⁷. This enhanced visualization facilitates meticulous dissection and reduces the risk of intraoperative complications¹,¹⁸.

Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) is safe and feasible, and in specialized centers, the procedure is associated with longer operative times and reduced intraoperative blood loss. In addition, perioperative pain scores are significantly lower with shorter lengths of stay with the robotic approach. Regarding postoperative complications, postoperative pancreatic fistula rates are similar for minimally invasive and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD)¹³,¹⁶. A recent systematic review and meta-analyses by Lancellotti et al., including five studies with 12.984 patients, found that minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy is associated with a higher incidence of postoperative venous thromboembolism when compared to the open approach (total venous thromboembolism p<0.001; pulmonary embolism p=0.002; deep venous thrombosis p=0.004)⁷.

To date, oncological outcomes and survival are comparable between RPD and OPD. According to the current literature, RPD is either equivalent, superior, or inferior in certain aspects to OPD¹⁶. In approximately 15% of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, vascular resection (portal-mesenteric vein) is necessary³. Due to its complexity, occasional surgeons in low-volume centers without expertise in pancreatic surgery should not perform RPD.

The first OPD performed in Brazil was reported by Frederico Trigo Lopes in 1945 and is considered an important landmark in the country⁸. It was only in 2009 that the first RPD was performed at Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein in São Paulo⁹. Over the past 15 years, Brazil has seen a substantial increase in the adoption of robotic surgery, and it is estimated that approximately 140 thousand robotic procedures were performed across various surgical areas, including robotic pancreatoduodenectomies, reflecting the growing utilization of this advanced technique in managing pancreatic and periampullary diseases⁶,¹². As of 2022, only 25.2% of the Brazilian population had private health insurance coverage, indicating that most robotic pancreatoduodenectomies occur in the private sector, where leading hospitals and medical institutions have embraced robotic surgery, supporting its integration into surgical practice⁵.

Developing cost-effective models and exploring public-private partnerships can help mitigate the financial barriers to adopting this technique¹⁶. However, even though the high cost of robotic systems and associated instruments (including the initial investment, maintenance, and the cost of disposable instruments used during each procedure) remains a significant barrier to widespread adoption, studies have shown that minimally invasive major pancreatic surgery entails higher intraoperative but similar overall index hospitalization costs, mainly due to reduced length of hospital stay². This gap in research limits our understanding of the economic implications and potential benefits of robotic-assisted techniques for more complex pancreatic surgeries, highlighting the need for comprehensive studies to evaluate their cost-effectiveness and broader adoption¹¹,¹⁸.

In the largest Brazilian series of 105 robotic pancreatic resections conducted in São Paulo from March 2018 to December 2019, 51 were pancreatoduodenectomies. Morbidity was reported in 23.8% of patients, with only one mortality. Additionally, three patients (2.8%) required conversion to open surgery. Among all patients, 24 developed pancreatic fistulas, which were treated conservatively with the late removal of the pancreatic drain. However, these data come from surgeons with expertise in pancreatic and minimally invasive surgery¹⁰.

And last, but not least, the complexity of robotic procedure requires extensive training and experience⁶,¹⁸. Surgeons must undergo rigorous training to achieve proficiency in robotic pancreatoduodenectomy, which can be time-consuming and resource-intensive. The steep learning curve can initially result in longer operative time and potentially higher rates of complications, including mortality, as surgeons gain experience. Establishing comprehensive training programs and centers of excellence has been crucial in building a skilled workforce capable of performing robotic pancreatoduodenectomy. Ongoing education and hands-on experience are vital for maintaining and enhancing surgical skills¹,¹⁷,¹⁸.

The experience of over 15 years with robotic pancreatoduodenectomy in Brazil has demonstrated the significant potential of this advanced surgical technique. While challenges related to cost, accessibility, and the learning curve remain, the benefits of enhanced precision, reduced complications, and improved recovery times make robotic pancreatoduodenectomy a promising option for the management of pancreatic and periampullary diseases. Continued investment in training, research, and technological innovation will be essential for realizing the full potential of robotic surgery and expanding its impact on patient care in Brazil⁷,⁸,¹⁰.

REFERENCES

• ^1.
  Bannone E, Marchegiani G. Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy: preparing for the future. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024;9(5):395-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-1253(24)00036-0
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-1253(24)00036-0
• ^2.
  Enomoto LM, Gusani NJ, Dillon PW, Hollenbeak CS. Impact of surgeon and hospital volume on mortality, length of stay, and cost of pancreaticoduodenectomy. J Gastrointest Surg. 2014;18(4):690-700. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-013-2422-z
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-013-2422-z
• ^3.
  Fernandes ESM, Moraes-Junior JMA, Vasques RR, Belotto M, Torres OJM. Combined venous and arterial reconstruction in the triangle area after total pancreatoduodenectomy. Arq Bras Cir Dig. 2022;35:e1643. https://doi.org/10.1590/0102-672020210002e1643
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/0102-672020210002e1643
• ^4.
  Fernandes ESM, Strobel O, Girão C, Moraes-Junior JMA, Torres OJM. What do surgeons need to know about the mesopancreas. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2021;406(8):2621-32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-021-02211-y
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-021-02211-y
• ^5.
  Health System Overview. Brazil. Available at: https://www.commonwealthfund.org/sites/default/files/2020-12/2020_IntlOverview_BRAZIL.pdf Accessed: Apr. 30, 2024.
  » https://www.commonwealthfund.org/sites/default/files/2020-12/2020_IntlOverview_BRAZIL.pdf
• ^6.
  Jureidini R, Namur GN, Ribeiro TC, Bacchella T, Stolzemburg L, Jukemura J, et al. Robotic assisted versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a retrospective study. Arq Bras Cir Dig. 2023;36:e1783. https://doi.org/10.1590/0102-672020230065e1783
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/0102-672020230065e1783
• ^7.
  Lancellotti F, Patel A, Coletta D, Liguori-Carino N, Satyadas T, Barrie J, et al. Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy is associated with a higher incidence of postoperative venous thromboembolism when compared to the open approach: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2024;50(7):108314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2024.108314
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2024.108314
• ^8.
  Lopes FT. Pancreatoduodenectomy for periampullary carcinoma: report of a successful case. Rev Med São Paulo. 1945;29(2):90-6.
• ^9.
  Macedo ALV, Schraibman V, Okazaki S, Mauro FC, Epstein MG, Goldman SM, et al. Treatment of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms, neuroendocrine and periampullary pancreatic tumors using robotic surgery: a safe and feasible technique. J Robot Surg. 2011;5(1):35-41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-010-0238-3
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-010-0238-3
• ^10.
  Machado MAC, Lobo Filho MM, Mattos BH, Ardengh JC, Makdissi FF. Robotic pancreatic resection. Personal experience with 105 cases. Rev Col Bras Cir. 2020;47:e20202501. https://doi.org/10.1590/0100-6991e-20202501
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/0100-6991e-20202501
• ^11.
  Podda M, Gerardi C, Di Saverio S, Marino MV, Davies RJ, Pellino G, et al. Robotic-assisted versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for patients with benign and malignant periampullary disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of short-term outcomes. Surg Endosc. 2020;34(6):2390-409. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-020-07460-4
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-020-07460-4
• ^12.
  Santana BR, Teixeira LAC, Monteiro MS, Lima S O. Robot surgery in Brazil. Res Soc Dev. 2022;11(12):e138111233223. https://doi.org/10.33448/rsd-v11i12.33223
  » https://doi.org/10.33448/rsd-v11i12.33223
• ^13.
  Stefanova I, Vescio F, Nickel F, Merali N, Ammendola M, Lahiri RP, et al. What are the true benefits of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy for patients with pancreatic cancer? Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024;18(4-5):133-9. https://doi.org/10.1080/17474124.2024.2351398
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/17474124.2024.2351398
• ^14.
  Torres OJM, Costa RCNC, Costa FFM, Neiva RF, Suleiman TS, Souza YLMS, et al. Modified Heidelberg technique for pancreatic anastomosis. Arq Bras Cir Dig. 2017;30(4):260-63. https://doi.org/10.1590/0102-6720201700040008
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/0102-6720201700040008
• ^15.
  Torres OJM, Fernandes ESM, Vasques RR, Waechter FL, Amaral PCG, Rezende MB, et al. Pancreatoduodenectomy: Brazilian practice patterns. Arq Bras Cir Dig. 2017;30(3):190-6. https://doi.org/10.1590/0102-6720201700030007
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/0102-6720201700030007
• ^16.
  Tseng JF, Pisters PW, Lee JE, Wang H, Gomez HF, Sun CC, et al. The learning curve in pancreatic surgery. Surgery. 2007;141(5):694-701. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2007.04.001
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2007.04.001
• ^17.
  Xourafas D, Ashley SW, Clancy TE. Comparison of perioperative outcomes between open, laparoscopic, and robotic distal pancreatectomy: an analysis of 1815 patients from the ACS-NSQIP procedure-targeted pancreatectomy database. J Gastrointest Surg. 2017;21(9):1442-52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-017-3463-5
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-017-3463-5
• ^18.
  Zureikat AH, Beane JD, Zenati MS, Al Abbas AI, Boone BA, Moser AJ, et al. 500 minimally invasive robotic pancreatoduodenectomies: one decade of optimizing performance. Ann Surg. 2021;273(5):966-72. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000003550
  » https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000003550

• Financial source:

  None

Edited by

Editorial Support:

National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq).

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  02 Sept 2024
• Date of issue
  2024

History

• Received
  10 June 2024
• Accepted
  02 July 2024