A prospective non-randomised single-center study comparing laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomy

Comparison of surgical outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy versus laparoscopic and open resections: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RADP) has been developed with the aim of improving surgical quality and overcoming the limitations of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) and open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) for pancreatic resections. A systematic search was performed in the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and China Biology Medicine databases up to December 2016 for studies that compared the surgical outcomes of RADP vs. LDP or ODP for pancreatic resections. The weighted mean differences, odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated, and the data were combined using the random-effects model. The GRADE system was used to interpret the primary outcomes of this meta-analysis. A total of seventeen non-randomized observational clinical studies involving 2133 patients satisfied the eligibility criteria. Compared with LDP, RADP was associated with a longer operative time (P = 0.018), a shorter hospital length of stay (P = 0.030), and a higher rate of spleen preservation (P = 0.022). Moreover, RADP was associated with a shorter hospital LOS (P = 0.014) and a lower total complication rate (P = 0.034) than ODP. We found no statistically significant differences between the techniques in the mean estimated blood loss, severe complication rate, incidence of total pancreatic fistulas or incidence of severe pancreatic fistulas. The overall quality of evidence was poor for all outcomes. This meta-analysis indicates that RADP may be safe and comparable in terms of surgical results to LDP and ODP. Further RCTs are needed to confirm the outcomes of this meta-analysis.

Chyle leak after pancreatic surgery: validation of the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery classification

BACKGROUND

Chyle leak is an uncommon complication after pancreatic surgery. The chyle leak incidence, definition, diagnosis, and treatment had been reported heterogeneously so far. Recently a consensus definition and grading system was published by the International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery. This study aims to evaluate the differences in the clinical and economic burden of chyle leak applying the new definition.

METHODS

All data from patients who underwent pancreatic surgery for any disease from January 2014 to December 2016 were retrieved from the institutional prospective database. The 2017 International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery definition and classification were applied. The classification was validated analyzing the differences in major complications, length of stay, and hospitalization costs.

RESULTS

A total of 945 patients was the final population. A chyle leak was reported in 43 patients (4.5%). Grade A chyle leak occurred in 10 patients (23.3%), Grade B chyle leak in 31 patients (72.1%), and Grade C chyle leak in 2 patients (4.6%). Chyle leak occurred as unique postoperative complication in 29 cases (67.4%). The economic analysis showed that the average costs of the 3 grades were 2,806, 7,150 and 15,684 euros respectively (P < .001). Furthermore, the length of stay, the rates of septic events, and major complications were significantly different among the 3 grades (P = .008, P = .004, and P < .001, respectively). Of note, we did not find any intraoperative factor associated with chyle leak.

CONCLUSION

The present study confirms the validity of the International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery classification of chyle leak. The 3 grades of chyle leak proposed identify reliably clinical and economical differences among the chyle leak cases.

Which method of distal pancreatectomy is cost-effective among open, laparoscopic, or robotic surgery?

Background

The aim of this study was to analyze the clinical and economic impact of robotic distal pancreatectomy, laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy, and open distal pancreatectomy.

Methods

All consecutive patients who underwent distal pancreatic resection for benign and malignant diseases between January 2012 and December 2015 were prospectively included. Cost analysis was performed; all charges from patient admission to discharge were considered.

Results

There were 21 robotic (RDP), 25 laparoscopic (LDP), and 43 open (ODP) procedures. Operative time was longer in the RDP group (RDP =345 minutes, LDP =306 min, ODP =251 min, P=0.01). Blood loss was higher in the ODP group (RDP =192 mL, LDP =356 mL, ODP =573 mL, P=0.0002). Spleen preservation was more frequent in the RDP group (RDP =66.6%, LDP =61.9%, ODP =9.3%, P=0.001). The rate of patients with Clavien-Dindo > grade III was higher in the ODP group (RDP =0%, LDP =12%, ODP =23%, P=0.01), especially for non-surgical complications, which were more frequent in the ODP group (RDP =9.5%, LDP =24%, ODP =41.8%, P=0.02). Length of hospital stay was increased in the ODP group (ODP =19 days, LDP =13 days, RDP =11 days, P=0.007). The total cost of the procedure, including the surgical procedure and postoperative course was higher in the ODP group (ODP =30,929 Euros, LDP =22,150 Euros, RDP =21,219 Euros, P=0.02).

Conclusions

Cost-effective results of RDP seem to be similar to LDP with some better short-term outcomes.

Oncologic outcomes after robot-assisted versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: Analysis of the National Cancer Database

BACKGROUND

How the oncologic outcomes after robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) compare to those after laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) remains unknown.

METHODS

Using the National Cancer Database (NCDB), we analyzed all patients undergoing LDP or RDP for resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma over a 4-year period (2010-2013).

RESULTS

Of the 704 eligible patients, 605 (86%) underwent LDP and 99 (14%) underwent RDP. The median follow-up for patients was 25 months. There were no differences in the two groups with respect to sociodemographic, clinicopathologic, or treatment characteristics. On comparing LDP versus RDP, there was no difference in the margin-positive rate (15% vs 16%; P = 0.84); lymph nodes examined (12 vs 11; P = 0.67); overall survival (hazard ratio [HR], 1.1, 95% confidence intervals [CI], 0.7 to 1.7; 28 vs 25 months; P = 0.71); hospital stay (6 vs 5 days; P = 0.14); time to chemotherapy (50 vs 52 days; P = 0.65); 30-day readmission (9.4% vs 9.1%; P = 0.92); and mortality (1% vs 0%; P = 0.28). Patients undergoing LDP had a significantly higher conversion rate to open or minimally invasive pancreatic cancer resections compared with RDP (27% vs 10%; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The early national experience with RDP demonstrates similar oncologic outcomes to LDP, with a significantly lower conversion rate.

Reappraisal of post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH) classifications: do we need to redefine grades A and B?

BACKGROUND

Post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH) remains a major complication. The aim of this study was to reappraise the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) classification.

METHODS

The clinical utility of the ISGPS classification was tested on consecutive pancreatic resections performed at the Pancreas Institute of the University of Verona Hospital.

RESULTS

PPH occurred in 65 of the 2429 patients (6.8%) undergoing pancreatic resection. Outcome of patients without PPH and with grade A PPH were comparable in terms of mortality, length of stay, ICU stay and readmission. Patients with grade B late and mild and grade B early and severe PPH had similar hospital stay and mortality rates, but differed in relaparotomy rate (10.1 vs. 81.2%, p < 0.01). Replacing "time of PPH onset" criterion with post-operative pancreatic fistula (POPF), severe PPH alone, mild PPH/POPF and severe PPH/POPF differed significantly for hospital stay (14 vs. 23 vs. 35 days, p < 0.01) and mortality rate (0 vs. 4 vs. 25%, p = 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Grade A PPH shared the same outcome of patients without PPH. Grade B PPH included two categories of patients with different treatment modalities. The use of "concomitant POPF" instead of "time of onset" segregated three discrete categories that differed significantly in terms of clinical outcomes and management.

Short- and mid-term outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatosplenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: A retrospective propensity score-matched study

BACKGROUND

Robotic distal pancreatectomy exhibits short-term benefits over laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. The use of minimal invasive techniques to carry out distal pancreatosplenectomy (DPS) for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains controversial and has not gained popular acceptance. A comparative study was designed to analyze the short- and mid-term outcomes of robotic DPS (RDPS) versus laparoscopic DPS (LDPS) on patients with PDAC.

METHODS

The baseline characteristics, perioperative outcomes and survival data among patients who underwent RDPS (n = 35) versus LDPS (n = 35) for PDAC between December 2011 and December 2015 were compared after a 1:1 propensity score matching.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in the operative time, blood loss, blood transfusion rate, and morbidity and pancreatic fistula rates between the RDPS and LDPS groups. RDPS significantly reduced the rate of conversion to laparotomy (5.7% vs. 22.9% when compared with LDPS, p = 0.04). There were no significant differences in R0 resection rates, number of harvested lymph nodes, positive to harvested lymph node ratios, and disease-free survival and overall survival rates between the two groups. A Cox proportional hazards analysis showed N1 stage to be significantly associated with worse survival and suggested that chemotherapy might prolong overall survival in these PDAC patients.

CONCLUSIONS

This single-center study demonstrated that RDPS was safe and efficacious in treatment of PDAC. When compared with LDPS, RDPS was associated with a reduced rate of conversion to open surgery. There were no significantly differences in oncological outcomes and mid-term survival rates between the groups of patients who underwent RDPS or LDPS.

Do patients benefit more from robot assisted approach than conventional laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy? A meta-analysis of perioperative and economic outcomes

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Robotic approach has improved the ergonomics of conventional laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP), but whether patients benefit more from robot assisted distal pancreatectomy (RADP) is still controversial. This meta-analysis aims to compare the perioperative and economic outcomes of RADP with LDP.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was carried out on PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library between January 1990 and March 2017. All eligible studies comparing RADP versus LDP were included. Perioperative and economic outcomes constituted the end points.

RESULTS

13 English studies with 1396 patients were included. Regarding to intraoperative outcomes, RADP was associated with a significant decrease in conversion rate (OR = 0.52; 95%CI: 0.34, 0.78; P = 0.002). Although the spleen-preserving rates were comparable between RADP and LDP, a significant higher splenic vessels conservation rate was observed in the RADP group (OR = 4.71; 95%CI: 1.77, 12.56; P = 0.002). No statistically significant differences were found at operation time, estimated blood loss and blood transfusion rate. Concerning postoperative outcomes, pooled data indicated the overall morbidity, pancreatic fistula and the length of hospital stay did not differ significantly between the RADP and LDP groups. And concerning pathological outcomes, positive margin rate and the number of lymph nodules harvested were comparable between the two groups. The operative cost of RADP was almost double that of LDP (WMD = 2350.2 US dollars; 95%CI: 1165.62, 3534.78; P = 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

RADP showed a slight technical advantage. But whether this benefit is worth twofold cost should be considered by patient's individuation.

Robotics in HPB surgery

Some major procedures and an assessment of their impact in the field

Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a French prospective single-center experience and cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

Benefits and cost-effectiveness of robotic approach for distal pancreatectomy (DP) remain debated. In this prospective study, we aim to compare the short-term results and real costs of robotic (RDP) and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP).

METHODS

From 2011 until 2016, all consecutive patients underwent minimally invasive DP were included and data were prospectively collected. Patients were assigned in two groups, RDP and LDP, according to the availability of the Da Vinci® Surgical System for our Surgical Unit.

RESULTS

A minimally invasive DP was performed in 38 patients with a median age of 61 years old (44-83 years old) and a BMI of 26 kg/m² (20-31 kg/m²). RDP group (n = 15) and LDP group (n = 23) were comparable concerning demographic data, BMI, ASA score, comorbidities, malignant lesions, lesion size, and indication of spleen preservation. Median operative time was longer in RDP (207 min) compared to LDP (187 min) (p = 0.047). Conversion rate, spleen preservation failure, and perioperative transfusion rates were nil in both groups. Pancreatic fistula was diagnosed in 40 and 43% (p = 0.832) of patients and was grade A in 83 and 80% (p = 1.000) in RDP and LDP groups, respectively. Median postoperative hospital stay was similar in both groups (RDP: 8 days vs. LDP: 9 days, p = 0.310). Major complication occurred in 7% in RDP group and 13% in LDP group (p = 1.000). Ninety-days mortality was nil in both groups. No difference was found concerning R0 resection rate and median number of retrieved lymph nodes. Total cost of RDP was higher than LDP (13611 vs. 12509 €, p < 0.001). The difference between mean hospital incomes and costs was negative in RDP group contrary to LDP group (- 1269 vs. 1395 €, p = 0.040).

CONCLUSION

Short-term results of RDP seem to be similar to LDP but the high cost of RDP makes this approach not cost-effective actually.

Surgical resection of pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasm by minimally invasive surgery-the robotic approach?

Over the past decade, there has been increasing adoption of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery world-wide and this has naturally expanded to the management of pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (PNENs). More recently, robotic pancreatic surgery (RPS) was introduced to overcome the limitations during laparoscopic pancreatic surgery (LPS). Due to the relative rarity of PNEN and the novelty of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery in particular RPS today, the evidence for robotic surgery in PNENs remains extremely limited. Presently, the available evidence is limited to a few low level retrospective case-control studies. These studies suggest that RPS may be associated with a higher splenic preservation rates and lower open conversion rates compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery. Ideally a prospective randomized trial should be performed but this would be extremely challenging due to the rarity of PNEN, making it almost impossible to conduct a sufficiently powered trial.

Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: an up-to-date meta-analysis

Background

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) reduces postoperative morbidity, hospital stay and recovery as compared with open distal pancreatectomy. Many authors believe that robotic surgery can overcome the difficulties and technical limits of LDP thanks to improved surgical manipulation and better visualization. Few studies in the literature have compared the two methods in terms of surgical and oncological outcome. The aim of this study was to compare the results of robotic (RDP) and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy.

Methods

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted of control studies published up to December 2016 comparing LDP and RDP. Two Reviewers independently assessed the eligibility and quality of the studies. The meta-analysis was conducted using either the fixed-effect or the random-effect model.

Results

Ten studies describing 813 patients met the inclusion criteria. This meta-analysis shows that the RDP group had a significantly higher rate of spleen preservation [OR 2.89 (95% confidence interval 1.78-4.71, p < 0.0001], a lower rate of conversion to open OR 0.33 (95% CI 0.12-0.92), p = 0.003] and a shorter hospital stay [MD -0.74; (95% CI -1.34 -0.15), p = 0.01] but a higher cost than the LDP group, while other surgical outcomes did not differ between the two groups.

Conclusion

This meta-analysis suggests that the RDP procedure is safe and comparable in terms of surgical results to LDP. However, even if the RDP has a higher cost compared to LDP, it increases the rate of spleen preservation, reduces the risk of conversion to open surgery and is associated to shorter length of hospital stay.

Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: A comparative study of clinical outcomes and costs analysis

BACKGROUND

The robotic surgery cost presents a critical issue which has not been well addressed yet. This study aims to compare the clinical outcomes and cost differences of robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP).

METHODS

Data were abstracted prospectively from 2011 to 2017. An independent company performed the financial analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 28 RDP and 26 LDP were included. The mean operative time was significantly lower in the LDP (294 vs 241 min; p = 0.02). The main intra and post-operative data were similar, except for the conversion rate (RDP: 3.6% vs LDP: 19.2%; p = 0.04) and hospital stay (RDP: 8.9 vs LDP 13.1 days; p = 0.04). The mean total costs were similar in both groups (RDP: 9198.64 € vs LDP: 9399.74 €; p > 0.5).

CONCLUSIONS

RDP showed lower conversion rate and shorter hospital stay than LDP at the price of longer operative time. RDP is financially comparable to LDP.

Comparison of Perioperative Outcomes between Open, Laparoscopic, and Robotic Distal Pancreatectomy: an Analysis of 1815 Patients from the ACS-NSQIP Procedure-Targeted Pancreatectomy Database

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery is gaining acceptance for distal pancreatectomy (DP). Nevertheless, no multi-institutional data exist to demonstrate the ideal clinical circumstances for use and the efficacy of the robot compared to the open or laparoscopic techniques, in terms of perioperative outcomes.

METHODS

The 2014 ACS-NSQIP procedure-targeted pancreatectomy data for patients undergoing DP were analyzed. Demographics and clinicopathological and perioperative variables were compared between the three approaches. Univariate and multivariable analyses were used to evaluate outcomes.

RESULTS

One thousand eight hundred fifteen DPs comprised 921 open distal pancreatectomies (ODPs), 694 laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies (LDPs), and 200 robotic distal pancreatectomies (RDPs). The three groups were comparable with respect to demographics, ASA score, relevant comorbidities, and malignant histology subtype. Compared to the ODP group, patients undergoing RDP had lower T-stages of disease (P = 0.0192), longer operations (P = 0.0030), shorter hospital stays (P < 0.0001), and lower postoperative 30-day morbidity (P = 0.0476). Compared to the LDP group, RDPs were longer operations (P < 0.0001) but required fewer concomitant vascular resections (P = 0.0487) and conversions to open surgery (P = 0.0068). On multivariable analysis, neoadjuvant therapy (P = 0.0236), malignant histology (P = 0.0124), pancreatic reconstruction (P = 0.0006), and vascular resection (P = 0.0008) were the strongest predictors of performing an ODP.

CONCLUSIONS

The open, laparoscopic, and robotic approaches to distal pancreatectomy offer particular advantages for well-selected patients and specific clinicopathological contexts; therefore, clearly demonstrating the most suitable use and superiority of one technique over another remains challenging.

Recent Advances in Pancreatic Cancer Surgery

OPINION STATEMENT

Pancreatic cancer surgery is a continuously evolving field. Despite tremendous advances in perioperative outcomes, pancreatic resection is still associated with substantial morbidity, and mortality is not nil. Institutional caseload is a well-established determinant of patient outcomes, and centralization to experienced centers is essential to the safety and oncological appropriateness of the resection. Minimally invasive approaches are increasingly applied for pancreatic resection, even in cancer patients. Nevertheless, the level of evidence in this field remains low. Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy appears potentially beneficial towards some perioperative outcomes, although its oncological results remain incompletely studied. Data regarding perioperative and oncologic outcomes for minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (Whipple's resection) is even less mature, but suggest that similar results as the open approach can be achieved in selected, high-volume centers. Conversely, its indiscriminate adoption by inexperienced surgeons and institutions has potential deleterious effects given its steep learning curve. Newer neoadjuvant treatment protocols display enhanced ability to downstage advanced tumors, increasing candidates for potentially curative surgery. Conversely, putative benefits of neoadjuvant treatment in patients with technically resectable tumors have not been reliably demonstrated and its optimal indications remain highly controversial.

[Minimally invasive and robot-assisted surgery for pancreatic cystic tumors]

BACKGROUND

The indications for resection of pancreatic cystic lesions (PCL) are often complex and the operative risk has to be balanced against the risk of malignant transformation. The aim of the study was to provide a synopsis of the current treatment results of minimally invasive surgery for PCL.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed using the Medline database (PubMed). Subsequently, the retrieved literature was selectively reviewed.

RESULTS

No published prospective randomized controlled trials have yet addressed the comparison of open and minimally invasive surgery of PCL; however, retrospective case studies have demonstrated the feasibility, safety and a comparable morbidity after minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (DP), pancreatoduodenectomy (PD), central (CP) or total pancreatectomy and enucleation. Whereas most DPs are performed laparoscopically, the experience of minimally invasive PD has been consolidated for the robot-assisted approach but is concentrated in only a few centers. The number of published reports on minimally invasive organ-sparing pancreas procedures (e. g. CP or enucleation) for PCL is scarce; however, the available (selected) results are promising.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive surgery for PCL has the potential to reduce the operative trauma to the patients, while at the same time causing comparable or less morbidity. This requires an increasing specialization of complex minimally invasive resections. The clinical use of robotic systems will grow for the latter cases. A prospective registry of the results should be mandatory for quality management.

Value-based assessment of robotic pancreas and liver surgery

Current healthcare economic evaluations are based only on the perspective of a single stakeholder to the healthcare delivery process. A true value-based decision incorporates all of the outcomes that could be impacted by a single episode of surgical care. We define the value proposition for robotic surgery using a stakeholder model incorporating the interests of all groups participating in the provision of healthcare services: patients, surgeons, hospitals and payers. One of the developing and expanding fields that could benefit the most from a complete value-based analysis is robotic hepatopancreaticobiliary (HPB) surgery. While initial robot purchasing costs are high, the benefits over laparoscopic surgery are considerable. Performing a literature search we found a total of 18 economic evaluations for robotic HPB surgery. We found a lack of evaluations that were carried out from a perspective that incorporates all of the impacts of a single episode of surgical care and that included a comprehensive hospital cost assessment. For distal pancreatectomies, the two most thorough examinations came to conflicting results regarding total cost savings compared to laparoscopic approaches. The most thorough pancreaticoduodenectomy evaluation found non-significant savings for total hospital costs. Robotic hepatectomies showed no cost savings over laparoscopic and only modest savings over open techniques. Lastly, robotic cholecystectomies were found to be more expensive than the gold-standard laparoscopic approach. Existing cost accounting data associated with robotic HPB surgery is incomplete and unlikely to reflect the state of this field in the future. Current data combines the learning curves for new surgical procedures being undertaken by HPB surgeons with costs derived from a market dominated by a single supplier of robotic instruments. As a result, the value proposition for stakeholders in this process cannot be defined. In order to solve this problem, future studies must incorporate (I) quality of life, survival, and return to independent function alongside data such as (II) intent-to-treat analysis of minimally-invasive surgery accounting for conversions to open, (III) surgeon and institution experience and operative time as surrogates for the learning curve; and (IV) amortization and maintenance costs as well as direct costs of disposables and instruments.

Minimally invasive hepatopancreatobiliary surgery in North America: an ACS-NSQIP analysis of predictors of conversion for laparoscopic and robotic pancreatectomy and hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

Procedural conversion rates represent an important aspect of the feasibility of minimally invasive surgical (MIS) approaches. This study aimed to outline the rates and predictors of procedural completion/conversion for MIS hepatectomy and pancreatectomy.

METHODS

All 2014 ACS-NSQIP laparoscopic and robotic hepatectomy and pancreatectomy procedures were identified and grouped into pure, open assist, or unplanned conversion to open. Risk adjusted multinomial logistic regression models were generated with completion (Pure) set as the primary outcome.

RESULTS

1667 (laparoscopic = 1360, robotic = 307) resections were captured. After risk adjustment, robotic DP was associated with similar open assist (relative risk ratio -1.9%, P = 0.602), but lower unplanned conversion (-8.2%, P = 0.004) and open assist + unplanned conversion (-10.1%, P = 0.015) compared to laparoscopic DP; while robotic PD was associated with lower open assist (-22.2%, P < 0.001), unplanned conversions (-15%, P = 0.006) and open assist + unplanned conversions (-37.2, P < 0.001) compared to laparoscopic PD. The robotic and laparoscopic approaches to hepatectomy were not associated with differences in pure MIS completion rates (P = NS) after risk adjustment.

CONCLUSIONS

The robotic approach to pancreatectomy was associated with higher rates of pure MIS completion compared to laparoscopy, whereas no difference in MIS completion rates was noted for robotic versus laparoscopic hepatectomy.

The Largest European Single-Center Experience: 300 Laparoscopic Pancreatic Resections

BACKGROUND

Although laparoscopic pancreatic resection (LPR) has become routine, large single-center series are still lacking. Our aim was to analyze the results of a large European single-center series of LPR.

STUDY DESIGN

Between January 2008 and September 2015, 300 LPRs were performed and studied prospectively, including 165 (55%) distal pancreatectomies, 68 (23%) pancreaticoduodenectomies (PDs), 30 (10%) enucleations, 35 (11%) central pancreatectomies, and 2 (1%) total pancreatectomies.

RESULTS

Mean age was 54 ± 15.4 years old (range 17 to 87 years), and most patients were women (58%). Laparoscopic pancreatic resection was performed for malignancy (46%), low potential malignant (44%), or benign (10%) diseases. The mean operative durations were 211 ± 102 minutes (range 30 to 540 minutes) for the entire population and 351 ± 59 minutes (range 240 to 540 minutes) for PD, and decreased with the learning curve. Mean blood loss was 229 ± 269 mL (range 0 to 1,500 mL), and 13 patients (4%) received transfusions. Conversion to an open procedure was required in 12 patients (4%), and only 5 in the last 250 patients (14% vs 2%; p < 0.001). Mortality occurred in 4 (1.3%) patients and only after PD (5.8%). Common complications were pancreatic fistula (n = 124, 41%), bleeding (n = 35, 12%), and reoperation (n = 28, 9%). The postoperative outcomes were less favorable in procedures with a reconstruction phase (n = 105) than in those without (n = 195), with increased mortality (3.8% vs 0%; p = 0.04), overall morbidity (76% vs % 52%; p < 0.001), and mean hospital stay (26 ± 15 days vs 16 ± 10 days; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic pancreatic resection without a reconstruction phase has excellent outcomes; LPR with a reconstruction phase, especially PD, has less favorable outcomes, and further randomized studies are required to draw conclusions on the safety and benefits of this approach.

[Robot-assisted pancreatic resection]

Although robot-assisted pancreatic surgery has been considered critically in the past, it is nowadays an established standard technique in some centers, for distal pancreatectomy and pancreatic head resection. Compared with the laparoscopic approach, the use of robot-assisted surgery seems to be advantageous for acquiring the skills for pancreatic, bile duct and vascular anastomoses during pancreatic head resection and total pancreatectomy. On the other hand, the use of the robot is associated with increased costs and only highly effective and professional robotic programs in centers for pancreatic surgery will achieve top surgical and oncological quality, acceptable operation times and a reduction in duration of hospital stay. Moreover, new technologies, such as intraoperative fluorescence guidance and augmented reality will define additional indications for robot-assisted pancreatic surgery.

Minimally invasive pancreatic resections: cost and value perspectives

BACKGROUND

The number of minimally invasive pancreatic resections (MIPR) performed for benign or malignant disease, have increased in recent years. However, there is limited information regarding cost/value implications.

METHODS

An international conference evaluating MIPR was held during the 12th Bi-Annual International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association (IHPBA) World Congress in Sao Paulo, Brazil, on April 20th, 2016. This manuscript summarizes the presentations that reviewed current topics in cost and value as they pertain to MIPR.

RESULTS

Compared to the open approach, MIPR's are associated with higher operative costs but lower postoperative costs. However, measurements of patient value (defined as improvement in both quantity and quality of life) and financial value (using incremental cost-effectiveness ratio) are required to determine the true value at societal level.

CONCLUSION

Challenges remain as to how the potential benefits, both to the patient and the healthcare system as a whole, are measured. Research comparing MIPR versus other techniques for pancreatectomy will require appropriate and valid measurement tools, some of which are yet to be refined. Nonetheless, the experience to date would support the continued development of MIPR by experienced surgeons in high-volume pancreatic centers, married with appropriate review and recalibration.

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND

The first International conference on Minimally Invasive Pancreas Resection was arranged in conjunction with the annual meeting of the International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association (IHPBA), in Sao Paulo, Brazil on April 19th 2016. The presented evidence and outcomes resulting from the session for minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) is summarized and addressed perioperative outcome, the outcome for cancer and patient selection for the procedure.

METHODS

A literature search was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to compare MIDP and open distal pancreatectomy. Patient selection was discussed based on plenary talks, panel discussions and a worldwide survey on MIDP.

RESULTS

Of 582 studies, 52 (40 observational and 12 case-matched) were included in the assessment for outcome for LDP (n = 5023) vs. ODP (n = 16,306) whereas 16 observational comparative studies were identified for cancer outcome. No randomized trials were identified. MIDP resulted in similar outcome to ODP with a tendency for lower blood loss and shorter hospital stay in the MIDP group.

DISCUSSION

Available evidence for comparison of MIDP to ODP is weak, although the number of studies is high. Observed outcomes of MIDP are promising. In the absence of randomized control trials, an international registry should be established.

Distal pancreatectomy for benign and low grade malignant tumors: Short-term postoperative outcomes of spleen preservation-A systematic review and update meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The value of spleen preservation with distal pancreatectomy (DP) for benign and low grade malignant tumors remains unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the short-term postoperative clinical outcomes in patients undergoing DP with splenectomy (DPS) or spleen preservation (SPDP).

METHODS

Online database search was performed (2000 to present); key bibliographies were reviewed. Studies comparing patients undergoing DP with either DPS or SPDP, and assessing postoperative complications were included.

RESULTS

Meta-analysis of included data showed SPDP patients had significantly less operative blood loss, shorter duration of hospitalization, lower incidence of fluid collection and abscess, lower incidence of postoperative splenic and portal vein thrombosis, and lower incidence of new onset postoperative diabetes. For the whole group, there was no difference in incidence of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) (RR = 0.95; 95%CI 0.65-1.40, P = 0.80), however, subgroup analysis of studies using ISGPF criteria showed that DPS patients had increased rates of Grade B/C POPF (RR = 1.35; 95%CI 1.08-1.70, P = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

SPDP for benign and low grade malignant tumors is associated with shorter hospital stay and decreased morbidity compared to DPS. J. Surg. Oncol. 2017;115:137-143. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Laparoscopic surgery for pancreatic neoplasms: the European association for endoscopic surgery clinical consensus conference

BACKGROUND

Introduced more than 20 years ago, laparoscopic pancreatic surgery (LAPS) has not reached a uniform acceptance among HPB surgeons. As a result, there is no consensus regarding its use in patients with pancreatic neoplasms. This study, organized by the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES), aimed to develop consensus statements and clinical recommendations on the application of LAPS in these patients.

METHODS

An international panel of experts was selected based on their clinical and scientific expertise in laparoscopic and open pancreatic surgery. Each panelist performed a critical appraisal of the literature and prepared evidence-based statements assessed by other panelists during Delphi process. The statements were further discussed during a one-day face-to-face meeting followed by the second round of Delphi. Modified statements were presented at the plenary session of the 24th International Congress of the EAES in Amsterdam and in a web-based survey.

RESULTS

LAPS included laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP), pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD), enucleation, central pancreatectomy, and ultrasound. In general, LAPS was found to be safe, especially in experienced hands, and also advantageous over an open approach in terms of intraoperative blood loss, postoperative recovery, and quality of life. Eighty-five percent or higher proportion of responders agreed with the majority (69.5%) of statements. However, the evidence is predominantly based on retrospective case-control studies and systematic reviews of these studies, clearly affected by selection bias. Furthermore, no randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been published to date, although four RCTs are currently underway in Europe.

CONCLUSIONS

LAPS is currently in its development and exploration stages, as defined by the international IDEAL framework for surgical innovation. LDP is feasible and safe, performed in many centers, while LPD is limited to few centers. RCTs and registry studies are essential to proceed with the assessment of LAPS.

Minimally Invasive Distal Pancreatectomy: Review of the English Literature

BACKGROUND

Recently, the superiority of the minimally invasive approach, which results in a better cosmetic result, faster recovery, and shorter length of hospital stay, is a technique that has been progressively recognized as it has developed. And the minimally invasive approach has been applied to distal pancreatectomy (DP), which is a standard method for the treatment of benign, borderline, and part of malignant lesions of the pancreatic body and tail. This article aims to analyze the types, postoperative recovery, and outcomes of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic search of the scientific literature was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, online journals, and the Internet for all publications on LDP. Articles were selected if the abstract contained patients who underwent LDP for pancreatic diseases. All selected articles were reviewed and analyzed.

RESULTS

If there were no contraindications for LDP, this operation is suitable for benign, borderline, or malignant tumors of the pancreatic body and tail, which should try to be performed with preservation of the spleen. LDP is safe and feasible under some conditions to experienced surgeon. Single-incision laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (S-LDP) and robotic laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (R-LDP) perioperative outcomes are similar with conventional multi-incision laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (C-LDP). And the advantages of S-LDP and R-LDP require further exploration. With the application of enhanced recovery program (ERP), length of hospital stay and costs are reduced.

CONCLUSIONS

LDP is safe and feasible under some conditions. Compared with open distal pancreatectomy, LDP has a lot of advantages; a trend was observed for LDP to replace traditional open surgery. LDP combined with ERP is expected to become standard in the treatment of pancreatic body and tail lesions.

The treatment of hyperinsulinemic hypoglycaemia in adults: an update

BACKGROUND

Treatment of hyperinsulinemic hypoglycaemia (HH) is challenging due to the rarity of this condition and the difficulty of differential diagnosis. The aim of this article is to give an overview of the recent literature on the management of adult HH.

METHODS

A search for reviews, original articles, original case reports between 1995 and 2016 in PubMed using the following keywords: hyperinsulinemic hypoglycaemia, insulinoma, nesidioblastosis, gastric bypass, autoimmune hypoglycaemia, hyperinsulinism, treatment was performed.

RESULTS

One hundred and forty articles were selected and analysed focusing on the most recent treatments of HH.

CONCLUSIONS

New approaches to treatment of HH are available including mini-invasive surgical techniques and alternative local-regional ablative therapy for benign insulinoma and everolimus for malignant insulinoma. A correct differential diagnosis is of paramount importance to avoid unnecessary surgical operations and to implement the appropriate treatment mainly in the uncommon forms of HH, such as nesidioblastosis and autoimmune hypoglycaemia.

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy: State of the art

Over recent years, minimally invasive pancreatic resections have increasingly been reported in the literature. Even though pancreatic surgery is still considered a challenge for surgeons due to its technical difficulties and high morbidity, the development and spread of robotic surgery has highlighted a new interest, which has induced a rapid spread of robotic approaches for pancreatic resections. This study presents a systematic review of the literature regarding robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy in order to assess the safety and feasibility of robotic pancreatic resection.

Development of Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Surgery: an Evidence-Based Systematic Review of Laparoscopic Versus Robotic Approaches

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic and robotic surgery of the pancreas has only recently emerged as viable treatment options for benign and malignant disease. This review seeks to evaluate the current body of evidence on these approaches to pancreaticoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy.

METHODS

A systematic review of large published series was performed utilizing the PubMed search engine.

RESULTS

Based on these reports, both the laparoscopic and robotic techniques for these complex procedures appear to be safe and effective, if performed by high volume experienced pancreatic surgeons. The advantages of each approach are highlighted, emphasizing the data available on the learning curve and potential dissemination.

CONCLUSIONS

Both minimally invasive approaches to pancreatic resection are safe and feasible.

Intraoperative workload in robotic surgery assessed by wearable motion tracking sensors and questionnaires

BACKGROUND

The introduction of robotic technology has revolutionized radical prostatectomy surgery. However, the potential benefits of robotic techniques may have trade-offs in increased mental demand for the surgeon and the physical demand for the assisting surgeon. This study employed an innovative motion tracking tool along with validated workload questionnaire to assess the ergonomics and workload for both assisting and console surgeons intraoperatively.

METHODS

Fifteen RARP cases were collected in this study. Cases were performed by 10 different participants, six primarily performed console tasks and four primarily performed assisting tasks. Participants had a median 12 (min-3, max-25) years of surgical experience. Both console and assisting surgeons performed robotic prostatectomy cases while wearing inertial measurement units (IMUs) that continuously track neck, shoulder, and torso motion without interfering with the sterile environment. Postoperatively, participants completed a workload questionnaire (SURG-TLX) and a body part discomfort questionnaire.

RESULTS

Twenty-six questionnaires were completed from 13 assisting and 13 console surgeons over the 15 cases. Postoperative pain was reported highest for the right shoulder and neck. Mental demands were 41 % higher for surgeons at the console than assisting (p < 0.05), while physical demands were not significantly different. Assisting surgeons worked in demanding neck postures for 58 % of the procedure compared to 24 % for the console surgeon (p < 0.01). Surgeons at the console were primarily static and showed 2-5 times fewer movements than assisting surgeons (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Postures were more ergonomic during console tasks than when assisting by the bedside; however, the console may constrain postures leading to static loads that have been associated with musculoskeletal symptoms for the neck, torso, and shoulders. The IMU sensors were effective at quantifying ergonomics in robotic prostatectomies, and these methods and findings have broad applications to other robotic procedures.

First experience with robotic spleen-saving, vessel-preserving distal pancreatectomy in Singapore: a report of three consecutive cases

INTRODUCTION

The use of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) has increased worldwide due to the reported advantages associated with this minimally invasive procedure. However, widespread adoption is hindered by its technical complexity. Robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) was introduced to overcome this limitation, but worldwide experience with RDP is still lacking. There is presently evidence that RDP is associated with decreased conversion rate and increased splenic preservation as compared to LDP.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective study on our initial experience with robotic spleen-saving, vessel-preserving distal pancreatectomy (SSVP-DP) between July 2013 and April 2014.

RESULTS

Three consecutive patients underwent attempted robotic SSVP-DP. The indications were a 2.1-cm indeterminate cystic neoplasm, 4.5-cm solid pseudopapillary neoplasm and 1.2-cm pancreatic neuroendocrine tumour. For all three patients, the procedure was completed without conversion, and the spleen, with its main vessels, was successfully conserved. The median total operation time, blood loss and postoperative stay were 350 (range 300-540) minutes, 200 (range 50-300) mL and 7 (range 6-14) days, respectively. Two patients had minor Clavien-Dindo Grade I complications (one Grade A pancreatic fistula and one postoperative ileus). One patient had a Clavien-Dindo Grade IIIa complication (Grade B pancreatic fistula requiring percutaneous drainage). All patients were well at the time of reporting after at least six months of follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Our preliminary experience with robotic SSVP-DP confirmed the feasibility of the procedure.

Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy - The first meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy is considered hazardous for the majority of authors and minimally distal pancreatectomy is still a debated topic. The aim of this study was to compare robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) using meta-analysis.

METHOD

EMBASE, Medline and PubMed were searched systematically to identify full-text articles comparing robotic and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies. The meta-analysis was performed by using Review Manager 5.3.

RESULTS

Nine studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria and included 637 patients (246 robotic and 391 laparoscopic). RDP had a shorter hospital length of stay by 1 day (P = 0.01). On the other hand, LDP had shorter operative time by 30 min, although this was statistically nonsignificant (P = 0.12). RDP showed a significantly increased readmission rate (P = 0.04). There was no difference in the conversion rate, incidence of postoperative pancreatic fistula, International Study Group of Pancreatic Fistula grade B-C rate, major morbidity, spleen preservation rate and perioperative mortality. All surgical specimens of RDP reported R0 negative margins, whereas 7 specimens in the LDP group had affected margins.

CONCLUSIONS

In terms of feasibility, safety and oncological adequacy, there is no essential difference between the two techniques so far. The 30 min longer operative time of the RDP is due to the docking and undocking of the robot. The shorter length of stay by 1 day should be judged in combination with the increased 90-day readmission rate.

Robotic pancreatectomies

Pancreatic surgery represents one of the most challenging fields in general surgery. Its complexity is related to the severity of the disease and the technical skills required for surgical approach. Given this, most pancreatic resections are performed through classic open surgery. Minimally invasive approaches are gradually gaining widespread popularity also in this specific setting, as for distal resections and enucleations. The robotic platform, due to its 3-dimensional vision and articulated movements, represents the natural progress of laparoscopic surgery overcoming the technical defaults and opening up the possibility to perform major pancreatic resections as pancreaticoduodenectomies. This review focuses on the impact of robotic platform in pancreatic surgery in terms of surgical and oncological outcome.

Comparative health technology assessment of robotic-assisted, direct manual laparoscopic and open surgery: a prospective study

Background

Despite many publications reporting on the increased hospital cost of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) compared to direct manual laparoscopic surgery (DMLS) and open surgery (OS), the reported health economic studies lack details on clinical outcome, precluding valid health technology assessment (HTA).

Methods

The present prospective study reports total cost analysis on 699 patients undergoing general surgical, gynecological and thoracic operations between 2011 and 2014 in the Italian Public Health Service, during which period eight major teaching hospitals treated the patients. The study compared total healthcare costs of RAS, DMLS and OS based on prospectively collected data on patient outcome in addition to healthcare costs incurred by the three approaches.

Results

The cost of RAS operations was significantly higher than that of OS and DMLS for both gynecological and thoracic operations (p < 0.001). The study showed no significant difference in total costs between OS and DMLS. Total costs of general surgery RAS were significantly higher than those of OS (p < 0.001), but not against DMLS general surgery. Indirect costs were significantly lower in RAS compared to both DMLS general surgery and OS gynecological surgery due to the shorter length of hospital stay of RAS approach (p < 0.001). Additionally, in all specialties compared to OS, patients treated by RAS experienced a quicker recovery and significantly less pain during the hospitalization and after discharge.

Conclusions

The present HTA while confirming higher total healthcare costs for RAS operations identified significant clinical benefits which may justify the increased expenditure incurred by this approach.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00464-016-4991-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Laparoscopic pancreatic surgery for benign and malignant disease

Laparoscopic surgery for benign and malignant pancreatic lesions has slowly been gaining acceptance over the past decade and is being introduced in many centres. Some studies suggest that this approach is equivalent to or better than open surgery, but randomized data are needed to assess outcomes. In this Review, we aim to provide a comprehensive overview of the state of the art in laparoscopic pancreatic surgery by aggregating high-quality published evidence. Various aspects, including the benefits, limitations, oncological efficacy, learning curve and latest innovations, are discussed. The focus is on laparoscopic Whipple procedure and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for both benign and malignant disease, but robot-assisted surgery is also addressed. Surgical and oncological outcomes are discussed as well as quality of life parameters and the cost efficiency of laparoscopic pancreatic surgery. We have also included decision-aid algorithms based on the literature and our own expertise; these algorithms can assist in the decision to perform a laparoscopic or open procedure.

Robotic versus Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy: A Meta-Analysis of Short-Term Outcomes

AIM

To compare the safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RADP) and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP).

METHODS

A literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library database up to June 30, 2015 was performed. The following key words were used: pancreas, distal pancreatectomy, pancreatic, laparoscopic, laparoscopy, robotic, and robotic-assisted. Fixed and random effects models were applied. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

RESULTS

Seven non-randomized controlled trials involving 568 patients met the inclusion criteria. Compared with LDP, RADP was associated with longer operating time, lower estimated blood loss, a higher spleen-preservation rate, and shorter hospital stay. There was no significant difference in transfusion, conversion to open surgery, R0 resection rate, lymph nodes harvested, overall complications, severe complications, pancreatic fistula, severe pancreatic fistula, ICU stay, total cost, and 30-day mortality between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

RADP is a safe and feasible alternative to LDP with regard to short-term outcomes. Further studies on the long-term outcomes of these surgical techniques are required.

Core tip

To date, there is no consensus on whether laparoscopic or robotic-assisted distal pancreatectomy is more beneficial to the patient. This is the first meta-analysis to compare laparoscopic and robotic-assisted distal pancreatectomy. We found that robotic-assisted distal pancreatectomy was associated with longer operating time, lower estimated blood loss, a higher spleen-preservation rate, and shorter hospital stay. There was no significant difference in transfusion, conversion to open surgery, overall complications, severe complications, pancreatic fistula, severe pancreatic fistula, ICU stay, total cost, and 30-day mortality between the two groups.

Pan-European survey on the implementation of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery with emphasis on cancer

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive (MI) pancreatic surgery appears to be gaining popularity, but its implementation throughout Europe and the opinions regarding its use in pancreatic cancer patients are unknown.

METHODS

A 30-question survey was sent between June and December 2014 to pancreatic surgeons of the European Pancreatic Club, European-African Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association and 5 European national pancreatic societies. Incomplete responses were excluded.

RESULTS

In total, 237 pancreatic surgeons responded. After excluding 34 incomplete responses, 203 responses from 27 European countries were included. 164 (81%) surgeons were employed at a university hospital, 184 (91%) performed advanced MI surgery and 148 (73%) performed MI distal pancreatectomy. MI pancreatoduodenectomy was performed by 42 (21%) surgeons, whereas 9 (4.4%) surgeons had performed more than 10 procedures. Robot-assisted MI pancreatic surgery was performed by 28 (14%) surgeons. 63 (31%) surgeons expected MI distal pancreatectomy for cancer to be inferior to open distal pancreatectomy concerning oncological outcomes. 151 (74%) surgeons expected to benefit from training in MI distal pancreatectomy and 149 (73%) were willing to participate in a randomized trial on this topic.

CONCLUSIONS

MI distal pancreatectomy is a common procedure, although its use for cancer is still disputed. MI pancreatoduodenectomy is still an uncommon procedure. Specific training and a randomized trial regarding MI pancreatic cancer surgery are welcomed.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for benign and malignant pancreatic lesions

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The number of published series on minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy has significantly increased. Robotic systems can overcome some limitations of laparoscopy. This study aimed to compare two techniques in distal pancreatectomy.

METHODS

Multiple electronic databases were systematically searched to identify studies (up to July 2015) that compared perioperative outcomes between robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP). Relative risks with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated.

RESULTS

Nine studies were enrolled in this review. Four studies reported on operative time, indicating no difference between the RDP and LDP groups (WMD = 21.55, 95 % CI -65.28-108.37, P = 0.63). No significant difference between the two groups was indicated with respect to the number of patients who converted to open (OR 0.35, 95 % CI 0.11-1.13, P = 0.08), spleen preservation rate (OR 2.37, 95 % CI 0.50-11.30, P = 0.28), and transfusion rate (OR 1.30, 95 % CI 0.54-3.13, P = 0.56). In addition, no difference was indicated in the incidence of pancreatic fistulas (OR 1.05, 95 % CI 0.67-1.65, P = 0.83) and length of hospital stay between the two groups (WMD = -0.61, 95 % CI -1.40-0.19, P = 0.13).

CONCLUSIONS

RDP seems to be a safe and effective alternative to LDP. Large randomized controlled trials are needed to verify the results of this meta-analysis.

Minimally invasive pancreatic surgery - a review

During the past 20 years the application of a minimally invasive approach to pancreatic surgery has progressively increased. Distal pancreatectomy is the most frequently performed procedure, because of the absence of a reconstructive phase. However, middle pancreatectomy and pancreatoduodenectomy have been demonstrated to be safe and feasible as well. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is recognized as the gold standard treatment for small tumors of the pancreatic body-tail, with several advantages over the traditional open approach in terms of patient recovery. The surgical treatment of lesions of the pancreatic head via a minimally invasive approach is still limited to a few highly experienced surgeons, due to the very challenging resection and complex anastomoses. Middle pancreatectomy and enucleation are indicated for small and benign tumors and offer the maximum preservation of the parenchyma. The introduction of a robotic platform more than ten years ago increased the interest of many surgeons in minimally invasive treatment of pancreatic diseases. This new technology overcomes all the limitations of laparoscopic surgery, but actual benefits for the patients are still under investigation. The increased costs associated with robotic surgery are under debate too. This article presents the state of the art of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery.