Goh, Brian K P

Objective: To evaluate the institutional learning curve of robotic liver resection (RLR), its association with surgical complexity and outcomes in an international multicenter cohort. Summary of Background Data: RLR is increasingly adopted worldwide, but the dynamics of the learning process and its impact on surgical outcomes remain poorly defined. Methods: This international, multicenter, retrospective cohort study included consecutive patients who underwent RLR between 06/2013 and 12/2024 across 22 expert centers. Based on the first 150 cases at each center, three phases were used to define the learning curve: operative time for competency, major complications for proficiency, and textbook outcome for mastery. Risk-adjusted generalized additive models were used to assess the learning process. Benchmark performance was compared to international reference values. Results: Among 2,331 patients, the most common indications were hepatocellular carcinoma (36%), benign lesions (23%) and colorectal liver metastases (21%). Operative time decreased after achieving competency (case #62), from 240 to 220 minutes ( P <0.001). Major morbidity reached a plateau during the proficiency phase (cases #63–138; 9% vs. 11%, P =0.144), while progression to mastery (cases #139–150) was associated with a higher rate of textbook outcome (76% vs. 87%, P =0.021). In contrast, conversion (5.1% vs. 4.9% vs. 2%), bile leak (4.0% vs. 5.3% vs. 3.8%), and 90-day mortality (0.7% vs. 0.9% vs. 0.9%) remained low and stable across all learning phases. Importantly, benchmark criteria for operative time, hospital stay, and textbook outcome were met across all complexity groups, including during the early learning phase. Conclusions: Robotic liver surgery shows progressive outcome improvement with early achievement of benchmark-level results and stable performance across increasing complexity. These findings indicate that, in experienced centers, RLR can be safely implemented and integrated into clinical practice, supporting its key role in modern hepatobiliary surgery.

Abstract Background Indocyanine green (ICG) fluorescence imaging is increasingly incorporated into robotic liver resections (RLR), yet clinical practice regarding timing, dosage, and staining techniques is divergent. Aims This international expert survey aimed to characterize current practices for ICG in RLR. Methods Experts in RLR were invited to participate based on surgical volume (experience of 50 RLR and 30 annual RLR). A 74-item questionnaire was developed following a literature search and reviewed by a steering committee. The survey addressed indications, timing, dosage, imaging technology, benefits, limitations, training, and future directions of ICG use. Responses collected between September and October 2025 were analyzed. Results Seventy experts from 19 countries completed the survey, corresponding to an 88% response rate. Centers performed a median of 180 annual liver resections, including 55 RLR. Most experts used ICG (96%) during RLR. Anatomical demarcation (91%), tumor localization (60%), and biliary anatomy assessment (60%) were the most frequent indications. 60% of experts use preoperative ICG, while intraoperative ICG is mainly administered for demarcation (67%) and biliary tract visualization (40%). Considerable heterogeneity exists in dosage, timing, and staining techniques, particularly in cirrhotic livers and for tumor localization. Only half of the experts had standard operating procedures, whereas 64% expressed the need for a higher degree of standardization. Reported benefits of ICG use included improved anatomical orientation, margin assessment, lesion detection, and support during complex resections. Perceived limitations included background fluorescence, tissue penetration and variable staining in diseased parenchyma. 80% anticipated improved outcomes with combined ICG and three-dimensional image-guidance. Conclusion ICG fluorescence is widely used in RLR and is an important cornerstone for precision-guided robotic liver surgery. Standardized clinical practice guidelines, structured training, and technological improvements in imaging and navigation systems are claimed to optimize its clinical use.

Importance Adjuvant chemotherapy regimens may be administered after pancreatic resection for adenocarcinoma arising from intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (A-IPMNs), although the evidence supporting their use is limited. Objective To evaluate the survival benefit associated with contemporary adjuvant chemotherapy regimens after resection in A-IPMNs between 2017 and 2023. Design, Setting, and Participants This retrospective cohort study was an international, multicenter study with 69 participating centers across Europe, North America, South America, and the Asia-Pacific region. Patients undergoing resection for A-IPMNs were included. Data were analyzed from May to August 2025. Intervention Contemporary adjuvant chemotherapy regimens, such as gemcitabine-capecitabine (GemCap); 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRINOX), modified FOLFIRINOX (mFOLFIRINOX), and S-1. Main Outcome and Measure Overall survival (months). Results Among 1321 patients (median [IQR] age 70 [63 to 76] years; 713 males [54.0%] and 608 females [46.0%]), 781 patients (59.1%) received adjuvant chemotherapy, while in 181 patients (13.7%) it was omitted due to poor patient fitness. Of patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy, 568 patients (72.6%) received contemporary regimens, including GemCap (232 patients [29.7%]), FOLFIRINOX (176 patients [22.5%]), mFOLFIRINOX (71 patients [9.1%]), and S-1 (70 patients [9.0%]). The median (IQR) follow-up for the cohort was 64.2 (40.4 to 85.0) months, and the median overall survival was 73.8 months (95% CI, 66.4 to 81.9 months). After 90-day landmark analysis and exclusion of patients ineligible for chemotherapy, adjuvant chemotherapy vs no adjuvant chemotherapy (propensity score–matched populations, 243:243 patients) was not associated with improved overall survival (median, 82.3 months; 95% CI, 78.2 months to not applicable [NA] vs not reached; 95% CI, 75.3 months to NA; P = .58). Contemporary regimens vs no adjuvant chemotherapy (propensity score–matched populations, 309:309 patients) was not associated with longer survival, and a mean survival benefit greater than 4.2 months over 5 years was excluded (difference in restricted mean survival, 1.26 months; 95%, −1.72 to 4.24 months). Treatment outcomes did not vary by chemotherapy regimen or disease characteristic (eg, N stage or carbohydrate antigen 19-9 level). Conclusions and Relevance In this study, contemporary adjuvant chemotherapy was not associated with improved overall survival in A-IPMNs, and a randomized clinical trial is indicated.

Objective: To establish international benchmark values for relevant outcome parameters in robotic Whipple. Summary Background Data: For safe adoption of surgical innovation, robust quality control is essential. Benchmarking is a validated tool for assessing surgical performance. Recent international consensus identified establishing benchmark values for robotic Whipple as top priority. Methods: We analyzed consecutive patients undergoing robotic Whipple between 2020-2023 with a minimum one-year follow-up. Reference centers were required to perform ≥15 cases/year, be scientifically active in the field, and maintain a prospective database. Benchmark criteria included benign or resectable malignant disease without neoadjuvant therapy, arterial resection, major co-morbidities, or significant previous abdominal surgery. Benchmarks were established for 13 outcome parameters. Result: The benchmark cohort comprised 418 patients from 12 centers across four continents. Benchmark values were: conversion rate ≤4.3%, transfusion rate ≤2.1%, 6-month mortality ≤2.2%, major complications ≤23.2%, and CCI® ≤20.9. Clinically relevant pancreatic fistula (grade B/C) and hemorrhage (grade B/C) rates were ≤23.6% and ≤12.7%, respectively. For pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (n=123), the benchmark for lymph node yield was ≥20. Higher surgical difficulty was associated with increased overall postoperative morbidity (R 2 =0.38, P =0.019), higher center caseload with reduced pancreas-specific complications (R 2 =0.28, P =0.044). Independent POPF predictors included duct diameter ≤4 mm (OR 1.37, 95% CI: 1.03, 1.82), anticoagulation (OR 2.45, 95% CI: 1.47, 3.99), and indication other than PDAC (OR 2.33, 95% CI: 1.68, 3.27). Conclusions: This study establishes the first international benchmarks for robotic Whipple, demonstrating oncologic outcomes and morbidity comparable to open surgery with the benefits of minimally invasive surgery.

Importance Total pancreatectomy (TP) is indicated for advanced pancreatic cancer or multifocal tumors. Furthermore, TP may be performed to avoid the risk of pancreatic fistula in selected patients to improve the perioperative risk profile. Objective To define reference values for TP based on a low-risk cohort treated at expert centers. Design, Setting, and Participants This multicenter study analyzed outcomes from patients undergoing primary TP for malignant or benign lesions from 25 international expert centers from January 2017 to November 2023. Low-risk patients undergoing TP (LR-TP) were without vascular resections or significant comorbidities. Exposures TP. Main Outcomes and Measures Twenty reference values were derived from the 75th or the 25th percentile of the median values of all centers. Outcomes of LR-TP were compared with a cohort of TP with vascular resection, TP due to high-risk pancreatic anastomosis, and the benchmark values for low-risk pancreatoduodenectomy. Results Of 994 patients, 333 (33.5%; median [IQR] age, 66 [58-72] years; 171 male [51.4%]) qualified as the LR-TP cohort. Reference values included blood loss (≤1000 mL), major complications (≤37%), 3-month postoperative mortality (&amp;lt;6%), and retrieved lymph nodes (≥29). Compared with TP with vascular resections, reference cutoffs were not met for major complications (51% vs LR-TP ≤37%) and 90-day mortality (11% vs LR-TP ≤6%). For TP due to high-risk anastomosis, failure to rescue rate (38% vs ≤6%) and 90-day mortality (11% vs LR-TP ≤6%) were not met. Compared with pancreatoduodenectomy, reference values for postoperative mortality were 3 times higher for LR-TP (≤2% vs ≤6%) and less for resected lymph nodes (≥16 vs ≥29). Conclusions and Relevance This case-control study provided global reference values for TP, indicating significantly higher postoperative morbidity and mortality compared with pancreatoduodenectomy. Perioperative morbidity of TP was especially increased in patients with vascular resections. These reference values can serve for quality control of pancreatic surgery.

Objective: To establish benchmark cutoffs for robotic liver resection (R-LR), encompassing both major and minor resections, and to determine the impact of patient selection on outcomes. Background: R-LR is a key advancement in minimally invasive liver surgery but lacks standardized benchmarks, especially for minor resections. While guidelines endorse R-LR, its role in optimizing outcomes remains unclear. This study establishes the first benchmarks for R-LR, enabling comparisons across surgical modalities and refining patient selection. Methods: This retrospective, multicenter study analyzed consecutive adult patients undergoing R-LR at 30 international centers (2020–2023). Benchmark centers had an annual case volume of ≥15 R-LR. Benchmark criteria included ASA ≤2, no major comorbidities, no prior liver resections, and Child-Pugh A status. Benchmark cutoffs for 14 key outcomes were set at the 50th and 75th percentiles of median values across benchmark centers. Multivariable logistic regression identified predictors of textbook outcomes. Results: Eighteen high-volume centers contributed 4028 cases with 2632 (65.3%) meeting benchmark criteria. Malignancy was the indication in 29.6%, most commonly hepatocellular carcinoma followed by colorectal liver metastases. Major liver resection was performed in 42.6%. The distribution of Iwate difficulty scores was low (25.4%), intermediate (53.9%), advanced (15.9%), and expert (4.9%). Benchmark cutoffs were established for minor and major resection, and stratified by Iwate low (0-3), intermediate (4-6) and high (7-12): Open conversion (≤6.5% minor, ≤10.5% major), major complications within 90 days (≤5.2% minor, ≤16.7% major), R1 resection (≤9.2% minor, ≤6.7% major). Benchmark cases performed at low-volume centers were able to achieve outcomes within the corresponding benchmark cutoffs. In fact, patient selection reflected by the proportion of benchmark patients, rather than case volume, was associated with textbook outcomes. Conclusions: This study defines R-LR benchmarks, emphasizing patient selection over center volume for optimal outcomes. Benchmark cutoffs guide training and support the expansion of R-LR.

Abstract Background Robotic Whipple holds the promise to overcome safety concerns associated with laparoscopy, paving the way for widespread implementation of minimal-invasive surgery in this complex procedure. However, randomized data comparing robot vs. open Whipple demonstrate more pancreas-specific complications and R1-resections in the robotic arm. Recent international consensus identified establishing benchmarks as critical to ensure safe adoption of the robot. Benchmarking is a validated quality improvement tool, enabling comparison of surgical performance. Aims The aim was to define benchmarks for outcome parameters in robotic Whipple. Methods We analyzed consecutive patients undergoing robotic Whipple from January 2020 until December 2023 in 11 centers across 4 continents, with a minimum one-year follow-up. Centers had to perform ≥15 cases/year and have mounted their learning curve. Benchmark criteria included benign or resectable malignant disease without neoadjuvant therapy, arterial resection, major co-morbidities, or significant previous abdominal surgery. Medians across centers represented benchmark cutoffs. Results Eleven centers performed 1’037 Whipple procedures, of which 603 (58%) were benchmark cases. One third (n=192) were pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) patients. Key benchmarks at 6 months included ≤1.2% mortality, ≤24.2% major complications, and ≤ 8.7 points Comprehensive Complication Index®. Pancreas-specific cutoffs included ≤13.0% postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) B/C and ≤3.4% post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage B/C, with 100% R0-resection and ≥19 harvested lymph nodes in PDAC patients. One-year actuarial overall and recurrence-free survival was 87% and 77%. In the entire cohort POPF B/C occurred in 16% (n=195). Independent POPF predictors included duct diameter ≤4mm (OR 1.79 95%CI [1.27-2.55]), anticoagulation (OR 3.68 95%CI [2.14-6.24]), and indication other than PDAC (OR 3.17, 95%CI [2.13-4.85]). Conclusion This study establishes benchmarks for key outcomes in robotic Whipple, demonstrating oncologic adequacy and morbidity comparable to open surgery. Risk factors for POPF in open surgery also hold true in the robotic approach.

AbstractBackgroundThe anatomical structure around the pancreatic head is very complex and it is important to understand its precise anatomy and corresponding anatomical approach to safely perform minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD). This consensus statement aimed to develop recommendations for elucidating the anatomy and surgical approaches to MIPD.MethodsStudies identified via a comprehensive literature search were classified using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network method. Delphi voting was conducted after experts had drafted recommendations, with a goal of obtaining >75% consensus. Experts discussed the revised recommendations with the validation committee and an international audience of 384 attendees. Finalized recommendations were made after a second round of online Delphi voting.ResultsThree clinical questions were addressed, providing six recommendations. All recommendations reached at least a consensus of 75%. Preoperatively evaluating the presence of anatomical variations and superior mesenteric artery (SMA) and superior mesenteric vein (SMV) branching patterns was recommended. Moreover, it was recommended to fully understand the anatomical approach to SMA and intraoperatively confirm the SMA course based on each anatomical landmark before initiating dissection.ConclusionsMIPD experts suggest that surgical trainees perform resection based on precise anatomical landmarks for safe and reliable MIPD.

AbstractBackgroundSurgical views with high resolution and magnification have enabled us to recognize the precise anatomical structures that can be used as landmarks during minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP). This study aimed to validate the usefulness of anatomy‐based approaches for MIDP before and during the Expert Consensus Meeting: Precision Anatomy for Minimally Invasive HBP Surgery (February 24, 2021).MethodsTwenty‐five international MIDP experts developed clinical questions regarding surgical anatomy and approaches for MIDP. Studies identified via a comprehensive literature search were classified using Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network methodology. Online Delphi voting was conducted after experts had drafted the recommendations, with the goal of obtaining >75% consensus. Experts discussed the revised recommendations in front of the validation committee and an international audience of 384 attendees. Finalized recommendations were made after a second round of online Delphi voting.ResultsFour clinical questions were addressed, resulting in 10 recommendations. All recommendations reached at least a 75% consensus among experts.ConclusionsThe expert consensus on precision anatomy for MIDP has been presented as a set of recommendations based on available evidence and expert opinions. These recommendations should guide experts and trainees in performing safe MIDP and foster its appropriate dissemination worldwide.