Skip to main content

Learning curve of robotic-assisted splenic vessel-preserving spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy by one single surgeon: a retrospective cohort study

Abstract

Aim

Splenic vessel-preserving spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (SVP-SPDP) has a lower risk of splenic infarction than the splenicvessel-sacrificing SPDP, but it is more technically demanding. Learning curve of robotic-assisted SVP-SPDP (RSVP-SPDP) remains unreported. This study sought to analyze the perioperative outcomes and learning curve of RSVP-SPDP by one single surgeon.

Methods

Seventy-four patients who were intended to receive RSVP-SPDP at the First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University between May 2015 and January 2023 were included. The learning curve were retrospectively analyzed by using cumulative sum (CUSUM) analyses.

Results

Sixty-two patients underwent RSVP-SPDP (spleen preservation rate: 83.8%). According to CUSUM curve, the operation time (median, 318 vs. 220 min; P < 0.001) and intraoperative blood loss (median, 50 vs. 50 mL; P = 0.012) was improved significantly after 16 cases. Blood transfusion rate (12.5% vs. 3.4%; P = 0.202), postoperative major morbidity rate (6.3% vs. 3.4%; P = 0.524), and postoperative length-of-stay (median, 10 vs. 8 days; P = 0.120) improved after 16 cases but did not reach statistical difference. None of the patients had splenic infarction or abscess postoperatively.

Conclusion

RSVP-SPDP was a safe and feasible approach for selected patients after learning curve. The improvement of operation time and intraoperative blood loss was achieved after 16 cases.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Spleen-preservation distal pancreatectomy (SPDP) is performed for benign or low-grade malignant tumors of the pancreatic body and tail [1, 2], which can be performed by using two surgical techniques. One is splenic vessel-preserving (SVP-SPDP) technique (the Kimura’s technique) where only the distal pancreas is resected while the splenic vein and artery are preserved [3]. Another one is splenic vessel-sacrificing (SVS-SPDP) technique (the Warshaw’s technique) that the preserved spleen is perfused with the left gastroepiploic and short gastric vessels, which is considered simpler [4]. SVP-SPDP was preferred because of the decreased risk of splenic infarction and gastric varices compared to SVS-SPDP [5, 6]. Nevertheless, SVP-SPDP was considered more difficult than SVS-SPDP technically, because rupture of a small splenic vessel branch may obscure the surgical field, resulting in massive intraoperative bleeding and inevitably innocent splenectomy.

Nowadays minimally invasive SPDP (MI-SPDP) includes robotic-assisted and laparoscopic SPDP. Robotic-assisted SPDP was reported to have a higher rate of spleen preservation than laparoscopic SPDP owing to its 3D high-definition views and dexterous manipulation with tremor-filtration [7, 8]. However, most of the studies about robotic-assisted SPDP included SVP-SPDP and SVS-SPDP [9,10,11], and the learning curve of robotic-assisted SVP-SPDP (RSVP-SPDP) remains undocumented. Therefore, the current study sought to analyze the postoperative outcomes and learning curve of RSVP-SPDP by one single surgeon in our institute.

Materials and methods

Patient selection and data definition

Patients who were planned to receive RSVP-SPDP from May 2015 to January 2023 at the First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University were included. This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University (Approval number: [2023]286).

Postoperative 30-day complication was evaluated according to the Clavien-Dindo classification [12]. Complications with severity ≥ Clavien-Dindo classification grade III were defined as major complications. The definition of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) was determined according to the 2016 International Study Group of pancreatic surgery (ISGPS) definition [13]. Clinically relevant POPF (CR-POPF) included grade B and grade C POPF [14].

Surgical technique

All procedures were performed by one single surgeon (Prof. Xiao-Yu Yin) by using da Vinci Si Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical, Inc, Sunnyvale, California, USA). The trocar placement was similar to the previously published article [15]. Robotic permanent cautery hook and Harmonic scalpel was used as the energy device.

The surgical procedure of RSVP-SPDP was as follow: The gastrocolic ligament was divided, the stomach was lifted by the 3rd robotic arm, and the pancreas was exposed. Intraoperative ultrasound was used to determine the location of the tumor and the resection margin if necessary. The inferior border of the pancreas was dissected, and the superior mesenteric vein (SMV) and splenic vein was then identified. The retropancreatic tunnel was established along SMV. The superior border of the pancreas, and the origin of splenic artery was identified. The posterior side of pancreatic neck was dissected, and the splenic vein was exposed. The pancreas was transected by ultrasonic scalpel or stapler, and the pancreatic stump was reinforced by interrupted U-suture. The pancreas was dissected and mobilized from right to left, and the collateral branches from the splenic vessels were clipped and divided. The pancreatic tail was carefully dissected from the splenic hilum. Then the pancreas was completely removed and put in a specimen bag. Drainage tube was placed close to the pancreatic stump for postoperative fluid amylases measurement. The specimen was extracted through the assistant port.

Perioperative management and follow up

The prophylactic antibiotic was administered intraoperatively and can be administered up to 48 h postoperatively. Somatostatin or its analogs was administered postoperatively. Liquid diet was started on the postoperative day 1. The drains can be removed when the amylase level of drainage fluid was less than three times the normal upper limit. Otherwise, drains will be maintained until no drainage is present.

The patients were routinely followed up in the outpatient. Enhanced CT-scan was performed usually on the first postoperative follow up. If no significant abnormalities were found, scheduled ultrasound will be performed every 3–6 months and CT-scan will be performed every 6–12 months.

Statistical analysis

All statistical analyses were performed with SPSS version 24.0 software (IBM, Inc, Armonk, NY). The categorical variables were presented as frequencies with percentages, while the continuous variables were presented as medians with interquartile range (IQR) or mean with range. Differences between categorical variables were compared by chi square test or Fisher’s exact test. Differences between continuous variables were compared by Mann-Whitney U test. The learning curve was described by using a cumulative sum (CUSUM) curve [16]. Two-tailed P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Clinicopathological features of patients undergoing robotic-assisted SVP-SPDP

Seventy-four patients who were planned to receive RSVP-SPDP were included in this study. Finally, 62 patients underwent RVP-SPDP (splenic preservation rate: 83.8%) and the remaining 12 patients underwent robotic-assisted distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy. The reasons for unplanned splenectomy included severe tumor adhesion to the splenic vessels in 6, severe tumor adhesion to the splenic hilum in 5, and severe pancreatitis in 1.

The clinicopathological features of patients were summarized in Table 1. The learning curve of operation time (Fig. 1) was analyzed. The inflexion point was around case 16. Therefore, the patients were divided into the group 1 (cases 1–16) and group 2 (cases 17–74). There was no significant difference in the baseline features of patients, including age, sex, body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification, tumor size, and tumor pathology.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Learning curve of robotic-assisted splenic vessel-preserving spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy. The inflexion point of the operation time was around case 16

Table 1 Clinicopathological characteristics of patients who were planned to receive robotic-assisted SPDP with splenic vessels preservation

Short-term and long-term outcomes of patients undergoing robotic-assisted SVP-SPDP

The operative details and short-term outcomes of patients who were planned to receive RSVP-SPDP were summarized in Table 2. The median operation time was 243 (IQR: 195–306) minutes. The CR-POPF rate was 21.6% (grade B POPF: 16/74, 21.6%; no grade C POPF). None of the patients had splenic infarction or abscess postoperatively. The postoperative major complication rate was 4.1%. Three patients were graded as Clavien-Dindo classification grade IIIa due to percutaneous drainage for peritoneal effusion. The median postoperative length-of-stay was 8 (IQR: 7–10) days.

Table 2 Operative details and postoperative outcomes of patients who were planned to receive robotic-assisted SPDP with splenic vessels preservation

Improvements in perioperative outcomes of patients undergoing robotic-assisted SVP-SPDP

It showed that the operation time (median, 318 vs. 220 min; P < 0.001; Fig. 2A) and the intraoperative blood loss (median, 50 vs. 50 mL; P = 0.012; Fig. 2B) improved significantly after 16 cases. Blood transfusion rate (12.5% vs. 3.4%; P = 0.202; Fig. 3A), postoperative major morbidity rate (6.3% vs. 3.4%; P = 0.524; Fig. 3B), and postoperative length-of-stay (median, 10 vs. 8 days; P = 0.120; Fig. 3C) improved after 16 cases but did not reach statistical difference.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Improvement of operation time (A) and intraoperative estimated blood loss (B) in robotic-assisted splenic vessel-preserving spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy

Fig. 3
figure 3

Comparison of blood transfusion rate (A), postoperative major complications rate (B), and postoperative length-of-stay (C) in robotic-assisted splenic vessel-preserving spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy

Discussion

Owing to the increased detection rate of benign or low-grade malignant tumors in the pancreatic body and/or tail, SPDP is favored and performed by more surgeons [17, 18]. In addition, more centers have become proficient in performing MI-SPDP with advances in minimally invasive techniques. An international retrospective study demonstrated that MI-SPDP was associated with less blood loss, less abdominal abscesses, and less splenic infarctions than open SPDP [19]. Besides, robotic-assisted SPDP provides more advantages than laparoscopic SPDP, including improved spleen preservation rate, reduced intraoperative blood loss and blood transfusion [7, 8, 20, 21]. Nevertheless, no statistically significant differences in spleen preservation rates were reported between laparoscopic SPDP and robotic-assisted SPDP after crossing the learning curve (> 16 cases) [22]. However, robotic surgery also has some disadvantages, such as high surgical costs and lack of force feedback. The learning curve of robotic-assisted SVP-SPDP remains unreported to date. Therefore, the current study sought to evaluate the postoperative outcomes and learning curve of robotic-assisted SVP-SPDP by one single surgeon in our institute.

In this study, the operation time, intraoperative blood loss, CR-POPF rate, and postoperative major complication rate was comparable to the previously reported literature [1]. CUSUM analysis showed that significant improvement in operation time and intraoperative blood loss was achieved after 16 cases. The reduction in operation time is associated with shorter docking and undocking times, more skilled operations, and optimized surgical procedures. The median docking time before and after the inflexion point was 23 min and 16 min, respectively. The reduction of robotic docking time is mainly due to the increased proficiency of the assistant in placing the trocar and the operating team in adjusting the position of the robotic system. The reduction in postoperative length of stay was associated with a lower rate of major complications, although the differences did not reach statistical significance. In this study, the CR-POPF rate was 21.6%, all of which were grade B POPF and no grade C POPF. The CR-POPF rate was comparable to the previously reported study [7]. The main cause of pancreatic fistula may be the soft texture of pancreas in patients with benign or low-grade malignant pancreatic tumors [23]. Most CR-POPF only require continuous drainage until removal without additional treatment. Only 4.1% of patients required percutaneous drainage because of abdominal fluid collection. The advantage of SVP-SPDP over SVS-SPDP is the lower incidence of splenic infarction and regional portal hypertension after the procedure [24]. In this study, none of the patients had splenic infarction or regional portal hypertension during the postoperative follow-up. Collectively, this study revealed the safety and feasibility of robotic-assisted SVP-SPDP.

The present study had several limitations. First, this study was a single-center, retrospective study with a relatively small sample size, which may lead to biased results. Second, robotic-assisted SVP-SPDP may not be suitable for large pancreatic tumors close to the splenic hilum or tumors invading the splenic vessels. Most of the cases are low BMI cases, which were considered as easy-to-handle cases. In Europe and the United States, where there are many patients with high BMI, this procedure may be difficult. The long-term outcomes of robotic-assisted SVP-SPDP needs to be further explored by larger clinical trials.

Conclusion

In summary, this study revealed that robotic-assisted SVP-SPDP was a safe and feasible approach for selected patients after learning curve. The improvement of operation time and intraoperative blood loss was achieved after 16 cases.

Data availability

All data generated or analyzed during this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Sahara K, et al. Long-term outcomes after spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: results from the US Neuroendocrine Study Group. Neuroendocrinology. 2021;111(1–2):129–38.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Huang XT, et al. Values of spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy in well-differentiated non-functioning pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: a comparative study. Gastroenterol Rep (Oxf). 2022;10:goac056.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kimura W, et al. Spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy with conservation of the splenic artery and vein: techniques and its significance. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2010;17(6):813–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Warshaw AL. Conservation of the spleen with distal pancreatectomy. Arch Surg. 1988;123(5):550–3.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Hang K, et al. Splenic vessels preserving versus Warshaw technique in spleen preserving distal pancreatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Surg. 2022;103:106686.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Louis D, et al. Gastric bleeding risk following spleen preserving distal pancreatectomy with excision of the splenic vessels: a long-term follow-up. HPB (Oxford). 2017;19(4):345–51.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Lof S, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: multicentre analysis. Br J Surg. 2021;108(2):188–95.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Chen S, et al. Robotic approach improves spleen-preserving rate and shortens postoperative hospital stay of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a matched cohort study. Surg Endosc. 2015;29(12):3507–18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Esposito A, et al. Robotic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy: the Verona experience. Updates Surg. 2021;73(3):923–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Takagi K, et al. Robotic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy with preservation of Splenic vessels using the Gastrohepatic Ligament Approach: the Superior Window Approach in the Kimura Technique. Dig Surg. 2022;39(4):137–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Lin X, et al. Kimura-first strategy for robotic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy: experiences from 61 consecutive cases in a single institution. Gland Surg. 2021;10(1):186–200.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Clavien PA, et al. The Clavien-Dindo classification of Surgical Complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg. 2009;250(2):187–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Bassi C, et al. The 2016 update of the International Study Group (ISGPS) definition and grading of postoperative pancreatic fistula: 11 years after. Surgery. 2017;161(3):584–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Schuh F, et al. A simple classification of pancreatic Duct size and texture predicts postoperative pancreatic fistula: a classification of the International Study Group of pancreatic Surgery. Ann Surg. 2023;277(3):e597–e608.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Huang XT, et al. Learning curves of resection and reconstruction procedures in robotic-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy by a single surgeon: a retrospective cohort study of 160 consecutive cases. Gastroenterol Rep (Oxf). 2023;11:goad042.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Shi Y, et al. Learning curve from 450 cases of Robot-assisted pancreaticoduocectomy in a high-volume pancreatic center: optimization of Operative Procedure and a retrospective study. Ann Surg. 2021;274(6):e1277–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Dasari A, et al. Trends in the incidence, prevalence, and survival outcomes in patients with neuroendocrine tumors in the United States. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3(10):1335–42.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Pandey P, et al. Follow-up of incidentally detected pancreatic cystic Neoplasms: do baseline MRI and CT features predict Cyst Growth? Radiology. 2019;292(3):647–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Paiella S, et al. Long term outcome after minimally invasive and open Warshaw and Kimura techniques for spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy: International Multicenter retrospective study. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2019;45(9):1668–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Eckhardt S, et al. Robotic-assisted Approach improves Vessel Preservation in spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy. Dig Surg. 2016;33(5):406–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Hong S, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for left-sided pancreatic tumors: a single surgeon’s experience of 228 consecutive cases. Surg Endosc. 2020;34(6):2465–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Yang SJ, et al. Revisiting the potential advantage of robotic surgical system in spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy over conventional laparoscopic approach. Ann Transl Med. 2020;8(5):188.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Mendoza AS 3rd, et al. Predictive factors associated with postoperative pancreatic fistula after laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a 10-year single-institution experience. Surg Endosc. 2016;30(2):649–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Nakata K, et al. Minimally invasive preservation versus splenectomy during distal pancreatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2018;25(11):476–88.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

None.

Funding

This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 82203105).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

Conception and design: X.Y.Y. Collection and assembly of data: X.T.H., J.Z.X., J.P.C., W.C., L.H.C. Data analysis and interpretation: X.T.H., J.Z.X., X.Y.Y. Manuscript writing and revision: X.T.H., J.Z.X., X.Y.Y. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xiao-Yu Yin.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University (Approval number: [2023]286) and was performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The requirement for informed consent was waived by the Ethics Committee of the First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University because of the retrospective nature of the study.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

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

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Huang, XT., Xie, JZ., Cai, JP. et al. Learning curve of robotic-assisted splenic vessel-preserving spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy by one single surgeon: a retrospective cohort study. BMC Surg 23, 382 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12893-023-02294-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12893-023-02294-y

Keywords