Pratschke, Johann

Abstract Background Robotic left pancreatectomy (RLP) is increasingly adopted worldwide. Current guidelines suggest a learning curve of 21 cases, yet its impact on major morbidity and oncological quality remains uncertain. Methods A retrospective multicentre international study was undertaken across 10 centres in the UK, Spain, Germany, the USA, and Australia (2014–2025). Consecutive patients undergoing RLP were categorised into competency (first 21 cases per centre) or proficiency phase (>21). The primary outcome was major morbidity (Clavien–Dindo grade ≥ IIIa), and secondary outcome was the R1-margin rate. Mixed-effects logistic regression and risk-adjusted cumulative sum (RA-CUSUM) analyses were performed. Results 521 patients underwent RLP, including 200 (38.4%) in the competency phase and 321 (61.6%) in the proficiency phase. Median age was 63 years (IQR 54–73), and 56.4% were female. Rates of major morbidity were similar between phases (14.5% versus 14.0%, P = 0.981), as were R1 margin rates (21.6% versus 19.7%, P = 0.092). Independent predictors of major morbidity included male sex (OR 1.76, P = 0.037), preoperative pancreatitis (OR 2.23, P = 0.031), and multivisceral resection (OR 2.29, P = 0.034). Among patients with adenocarcinoma (n = 110), prolonged operative time (OR 1.39 per hour, P = 0.004) and nodal positivity (OR 2.62, P = 0.047) predicted R1 resection, while learning phase was not associated with margin status. RA-CUSUM demonstrated no excess morbidity over time in any centre. Conclusions In this first multicentre international analysis, the learning phase of RLP did not increase the risk of major morbidity or compromise oncological quality. These findings support the safe global adoption of RLP with appropriate training and case selection.

Objective: The aim of this study was to define robust benchmark values for the surgical treatment of perihilar cholangiocarcinomas (PHC) to enable unbiased comparisons. Background: Despite ongoing efforts, postoperative mortality and morbidity remains high after complex liver surgery for PHC. Benchmark data of best achievable results in surgical PHC treatment are however still lacking. Methods: This study analyzed consecutive patients undergoing major liver surgery for PHC in 24 high-volume centers in 3 continents over the recent 5-year period (2014–2018) with a minimum follow-up of 1 year in each patient. Benchmark patients were those operated at high-volume centers (≥50 cases during the study period) without the need for vascular reconstruction due to tumor invasion, or the presence of significant co-morbidities such as severe obesity (body mass index ≥35), diabetes, or cardiovascular diseases. Benchmark cutoff values were derived from the 75th or 25th percentile of the median values of all benchmark centers. Results: Seven hundred eight (39%) of a total of 1829 consecutive patients qualified as benchmark cases. Benchmark cut-offs included: R0 resection ≥57%, postoperative liver failure (International Study Group of Liver Surgery): ≤35%; in-hospital and 3-month mortality rates ≤8% and ≤13%, respectively; 3-month grade 3 complications and the CCI: ≤70% and ≤30.5, respectively; bile leak-rate: ≤47% and 5-year overall survival of ≥39.7%. Centers operating mostly on complex cases disclosed better outcome including lower post-operative liver failure rates (4% vs 13%; P = 0.002). Centers from Asia disclosed better outcomes. Conclusion: Surgery for PHC remains associated with high morbidity and mortality with now the availability of benchmark values covering 21 outcome parameters, which may serve as key references for comparison in any future analyses of individuals, group of patients or centers.