Robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy--a comparative study

Surgical Therapy for Pancreatic and Periampullary Cancer

Surgery is the key component of treatment for pancreatic and periampullary cancers. Pancreatectomy is complex, and there are numerous perioperative and intraoperative factors that are important for achieving optimal outcomes. This article focuses specifically on key aspects of the surgical management of periampullary and pancreatic cancers.

Robotic Pancreaticoduodenectomy: Operative Steps (With Video)

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy represents actually an emerging procedure for robot-assisted surgery. Considering complexity, extensive dissection, and difficult restoration of the digestive continuity, it remains a challenge for surgeons. The embedded video (Supplemental Digital Content 1, http://links.lww.com/SLE/A146) reports our standardized technique for robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. In conclusion, robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy is feasible and can be safely performed. Further evaluation with clinical trials is required to validate its real benefits.

Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy: A comprehensive review

BACKGROUND

While an increasing number of open procedures are now routinely performed laparoscopically or robotically, minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) remains one of the most challenging operations in abdomen. The aim of this study is to evaluate the current status and development of MIPD.

METHODS

Embase, Medline, and PubMed databases were searched to identify studies up to and including Feb 2016 using the keywords "laparoscopic", or "laparoscopy", or "hand-assisted", or "minimally invasive", or "robotic", or "da vinci" combined with "pancreaticoduodenectomy", or "duodenopancreatectomy", "Whipple", or "pancreatic resection". Articles written in English with more than 10 cases were included for review.

RESULTS

Thirty-two articles representing 2209 patients were included for review. The weighted average operative time and intraoperative blood loss was 427.3 min and 289.4 mL respectively. A total of 375 patients required conversion to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD), with an overall conversion rate of 17.8%. The postoperative severe complications (the Clavien-Dindo Classification ≥ III) occurred in 3.8%-33.0% patients, with an overall severe morbidity of 14.3%. Particularly, the overall incidence of clinically significant postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) was 8.0%. There were 26 perioperative death cases in total, with an overall postoperative mortality rate of 2.3%. The weighted average number of collected lymph nodes was 17.9, and R0 resection ranged from 60.0% to 100.0%. Comparisons between MIPD and OPD showed that MIPD increased operative time, decreased intraoperative blood loss and shortened the length of hospital stay, but the overall morbidity and mortality were comparable.

CONCLUSIONS

MIPD is technically feasible and safe in highly selected patients and can offer acceptable oncological outcomes. But concerns such as long-term outcomes, cost-effectiveness analysis, and learning curve analysis should be fully demonstrated before the popularization of this challenging procedure.

Revisiting robotic approaches to endocrine neoplasia: do the data support their continued use?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Although the advent of the robot has revolutionized the modern treatment of endocrine neoplasia, substantial controversies exist on its applicability, safety and benefits over the conventional laparoscopic operations. The present review aims to review the recent literature on various robotic approaches in treating thyroid, parathyroid, adrenal and pancreatic endocrine neoplasia and see whether its continued use should be supported.

RECENT FINDINGS

In summary, the role of robotic thyroidectomy has been clearly established and should be continued by experienced surgeons on selected patients. Because of the limited availability of evidence, the feasibility of robotic parathyroidectomy has yet to be elucidated. With proven favorable perioperative outcomes, robotic adrenalectomy and pancreatectomy should be continued as potential alternatives to conventional surgery.

SUMMARY

Robotic endocrine procedures still play a pivotal role in minimally invasive endocrine surgery with demonstrable safety and effectiveness. Future research should embark on prospective randomized-controlled trials on robotic endocrine procedures to collect higher level of evidence and long-term survival data.

The surgical outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy versus laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary neoplasms: a comparative study of a single center

BACKGROUND

Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is a difficult and complex operation. The introduction of robotics has opened up new angles in pancreatic surgery. This study aims to assess the surgical outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy relative to its laparoscopic counterpart.

METHODS

A retrospective study was designed to compare the surgical outcomes of 27 robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) and 25 laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD). Perioperative data, including operating time, complication, morbidity and mortality, estimated blood loss, and postoperative length of stay, were analyzed.

RESULTS

The robotic group exhibited significantly shorter operative time (mean 387 vs. 442 min), shorter hospital stay (mean 17 vs. 24 days), and less blood loss (mean 219 vs. 334 ml) than those in the LPD group. No statistical difference was observed between the two groups in terms of complication rate, mortality rate, R0 resection rate, and number of harvested lymph node.

CONCLUSIONS

RPD is more efficient and secure process than LPD among properly selected patients. RPD is therefore a feasible alternative to the laparoscopic procedure. Further studies are needed to evaluate the cost effectiveness of the robotic approach for PD.

Pancreatic cancer: Open or minimally invasive surgery?

Pancreatic duct adenocarcinoma is one of the most fatal malignancies, with R0 resection remaining the most important part of treatment of this malignancy. However, pancreatectomy is believed to be one of the most challenging procedures and R0 resection remains the only chance for patients with pancreatic cancer to have a good prognosis. Some surgeons have tried minimally invasive pancreatic surgery, but the short- and long-term outcomes of pancreatic malignancy remain controversial between open and minimally invasive procedures. We collected comparative data about minimally invasive and open pancreatic surgery. The available evidence suggests that minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) is as safe and feasible as open PD (OPD), and shows some benefit, such as less intraoperative blood loss and shorter postoperative hospital stay. Despite the limited evidence for MIPD in pancreatic cancer, most of the available data show that the short-term oncological adequacy is similar between MIPD and OPD. Some surgical techniques, including superior mesenteric artery-first approach and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy with major vein resection, are believed to improve the rate of R0 resection. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is less technically demanding and is accepted in more pancreatic centers. It is technically safe and feasible and has similar short-term oncological prognosis compared with open distal pancreatectomy.

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy

Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is considered one of the most complex and technically challenging abdominal surgeries performed by general surgeons. With increasing use of minimally invasive surgery, this operation continues to be performed most commonly in an open fashion. Open PD (OPD) is characterized by high morbidity and mortality rates in published series. Since the early 2000s, use of robotics for PD has slowly evolved. For appropriately selected patients, robotic PD (RPD) has been shown to have less intraoperative blood loss, decreased morbidity and mortality, shorter hospital length of stay, and similar oncological outcomes compared with OPD. At our high-volume center, we have found lower complication rates for RPD along with no difference in total cost when compared with OPD. With demonstrated non-inferior oncologic outcomes for RPD, the potential exists that RPD may be the future standard in surgical management for pancreatic disease. We present a case of a patient with a pancreatic head mass and describe our institution's surgical technique for RPD.

Oncologic and Perioperative Outcomes Following Selective Application of Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy for Periampullary Malignancies

BACKGROUND

Data are sparse regarding patient selection criteria or evaluating oncologic outcomes following laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD). Having prospectively limited LPD to patients with resectable disease defined by National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) criteria, we evaluated perioperative and long-term oncologic outcomes of LPD compared to a similar cohort of open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD).

METHODS

Consecutive patients (November 2010-February 2014) undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) for periampullary adenocarcinoma were reviewed. Patients were excluded from further analysis for benign pathology, conversion to OPD for portal vein resection, and contraindications for LPD not related to their malignancy. Outcomes of patients undergoing LPD were analyzed in an intention-to-treat manner against a cohort of patients undergoing OPD.

RESULTS

These selection criteria resulted in offering LPD to 77 % of all cancer patients. Compared to the OPD cohort, LPD was associated with significant reductions in wound infections (16 vs. 34 %; P = 0.038), pancreatic fistula (17 vs. 36 %; P = 0.032), and median hospital stay (9 vs. 12 days; P = 0.025). Overall survival (OS) was not statistically different between patients undergoing LPD vs. OPD for periampullary adenocarcinoma (median OS 27.9 vs. 23.5 months; P = 0.955) or pancreatic adenocarcinoma (N = 28 vs. 22 patients; median OS 20.7 vs. 21.1 months; P = 0.703).

CONCLUSIONS

The selective application of LPD for periampullary malignancies results in a high degree of eligibility as well as significant reductions in length of stay, wound infections, and pancreatic fistula. Overall survival after LPD is similar to OPD.

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.

Minimally Invasive Surgery for Pancreatic Disease - Current Status

Laparoscopic procedures have advanced to represent the new gold standard in many surgical fields. Although application in pancreatic surgery is hampered by the friable nature of the gland and the difficulty of its exposure, advanced technology and surgeons' experience are leading to an expansion of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery. Addressing the whole range of main operative procedures, this review analyzes the literature data so far to give an overview about the current status of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery, its indications and limitations. In acute pancreatitis, a step-up approach from percutaneous drainage to retroperitoneoscopic necrosectomy seems beneficial. Transgastric necrosectomy also preserves the retroperitoneal compartment in contrast to the laparoscopic approach, which has widely been abandoned. In tumor pathology, laparoscopic access is adequate for small benign lesions in the pancreatic tail and body. Oncological outcome shows to be at least equal to the open procedure. Concerning laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy, there is no evidence for a patients' benefit currently although several studies prove that it can be done.

The Learning Curve in Robotic Pancreaticoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Few data are available on the learning curve (LC) in robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (RAPD) and no study specifically addresses the LC of a single surgeon.

METHODS

The LC of a single surgeon in RAPD was determined using the cumulative sum method, based on operative time (OT). Data were extracted from a prospectively maintained database and analyzed retrospectively considering all events occurring within 90 days of index operation.

RESULTS

Seventy RAPD were analyzed. One operation was converted to open surgery (1.4%). One patient died within 30 days (1.4%) and one within 90 days (2.8%). Postoperative complications occurred in 53 patients (75.7%) and exceeded Clavien-Dindo grade IIIb in 7 patients (10%). OT dropped after 33 operations from a mean of 564 ± 101.7 min to a mean of 484.1 ± 77.9 min (p = 0.0005) and was associated to reduced incidence of delayed gastric emptying (72.7 vs. 48.7%; p = 0.039). The rate of hospital readmission improved after 40 operations from 20.0 (8 of 40) to 3.3% (1 of 30) (p = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

RAPD was safely feasible in selected patients. OT dropped after the first 33 operations and was associated with reduced rate of delayed gastric emptying. Readmission rate improved after 40 operations.

Systemic Review of the Feasibility and Advantage of Minimally Invasive Pancreaticoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD), which includes laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD), is a complex procedure that needs to be performed by experienced surgeons. However, the safety and oncologic performance have not yet been conclusively determined.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed using the Embase, Medline, and PubMed databases to identify all studies published up to March 2015. Articles written in English containing the keywords: "pancreaticoduodenectomy" or "Whipple operation" combined with "laparoscopy," "laparoscopic," "robotic," "da vinci," or "minimally invasive surgery" were selected. Furthermore, to increase the power of evidence, articles describing more than ten MIPDs were selected for this review.

RESULTS

Twenty-six articles matched the review criteria. A total of 780 LPDs and 248 RPDs were included in the current review. The overall conversion rate to open surgery was 9.1 %. The weighted average operative time was 422.6 min, and the weighted average blood loss was 321.1 mL. The weighted average number of harvested lymph nodes was 17.1, and the rate of microscopically positive tumor margins was 8.4 %. The cumulative morbidity was 35.9 %, and a pancreatic fistula was reported in 17.0 % of cases. The average length of hospital stay was 12.4 days, and the mortality rate was 2.2 %.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, after reviewing one-thousand cases in the current literature, we conclude that MIPD offers a good perioperative, postoperative, and oncologic outcome. MIPD is feasible and safe in well-selected patients.

Advances in the Surgical Management of Resectable and Borderline Resectable Pancreas Cancer

Successful surgical resection offers the only chance for cure in patients with pancreatic cancer. However, pancreatic resection is feasible in less than 20% of the patients. In this review, the current state of surgical management of pancreatic cancer is discussed. The definition of resectability based on cross-sectional imaging and the technical aspects of surgery, including vascular resection and/or reconstruction, management of aberrant vascular anatomy and extent of lymphadenectomy, are appraised. Furthermore, common pancreatic resection-specific postoperative complications and their management are reviewed.

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.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of minimally invasive versus open approach for pancreaticoduodenectomy

BACKGROUNDS AND OBJECTIVE

The technique of minimally invasive pancreatic surgeries has evolved rapidly, including minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD). However, controversy on safety and feasibility remains when comparing the MIPD with the open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD); therefore, we aimed to compare MIPD and OPD with a systemic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

Multiple electronic databases were systematically searched to identify studies (up to February 2016) comparing MIPD with OPD. Intra-operative outcomes, oncologic data, postoperative complications and postoperative recovery were evaluated.

RESULTS

Twenty-two retrospective studies including 6120 patients (1018 MIPDs and 5102 OPDs) were included. MIPD was associated with a reduction in estimated blood loss (WMD -312.00 ml, 95 % CI -436.30 to -187.70 ml, p < 0.001), transfusion rate (OR 0.41, 95 % CI 0.30-0.55, p < 0.001), wound infection (OR 0.37, 95 % CI 0.20-0.66, p < 0.001) and length of hospital stay (WMD -3.57 days, 95 % CI -5.17 to -1.98 days, p < 0.001). Meanwhile, MIPD group has a higher R0 resection rate (OR 1.47, 95 % CI 1.18-1.82, p < 0.001) and more lymph nodes harvest (WMD 1.74, 95 % CI 1.03-2.45, p < 0.001). However, it had longer operation time (WMD 83.91 min, 95 % CI 36.60-131.21 min, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between the two procedures in morbidities (p = 0.86), postoperative pancreatic fistula (p = 0.17), delayed gastric empting (p = 0.65), vascular resection (p = 0.68), reoperation (p = 0.33) and mortality (p = 0.90).

CONCLUSIONS

MIPD can be a reasonable alternative to OPD with potential advantages. However, further large-volume, well-designed RCTs with extensive follow-ups are suggested to confirm and update the findings of our analysis.

Robotic-assisted pancreatic surgery

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic surgery is a challenging application of minimally invasive surgery. Due to the complexity of the surgical technique, requiring dissection along major abdominal vessels as well as delicate reconstruction involving biliary, pancreatic and enteric anastomoses, reports on laparoscopic pancreatic surgery have been scanty. With the advent of robotic-assisted surgery, however, the increased dexterity granted by endo-wristed instruments, the improved three-dimensional vision and the computer filtration of the surgeon's movements have brought minimally invasive pancreatic surgery into a new era.

METHODS

As the surgical group which has performed the highest number of robotic-assisted pancreatic procedures worldwide, we review the state of the art of minimally invasive robotic-assisted pancreatic surgery. Clinical results from all major robotic-assisted pancreatic surgery series are considered.

RESULTS

Preliminary reports from the published major pancreatic surgery series show encouraging results, with morbidity and mortality comparable to open surgery. Preliminary data on cancer survival rates also appear to be similar to open series.

CONCLUSION

Robotic-assisted pancreatic surgery is safe and feasible for all pancreatic diseases. The complexity of pancreatic procedures warrant them to be carried out in specialised centres, where short- and long-term outcomes seem to be similar to the ones achieved in open surgery.

Initial Experience With Robotic Pancreatic Surgery: Technical Feasibility and Oncological Implications

Robotic surgery has been introduced in the field of minimally invasive surgery to improve the handling of high-demanding procedures with encouraging results. We aimed to evaluate the clinical safety and the oncological adequacy of robot-assisted pancreatic surgery by analyzing a consecutive series in terms of surgical and oncological outcomes. A total of 53 consecutive cases including 36 pancreatoduodenectomies (PD) and 14 distal pancreatectomies (DP) were evaluated. The overall postoperative morbidity and mortality were 32% and 3.8%, respectively. Radical resection was achieved in 93.7% of PD and 100% of DP, with a mean number of harvested lymph nodes of 29.8 for PD and 20.5 for DP. The 3-year cumulative overall survival was 44.2% and 73.9% for patient with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and nonductal malignancy, respectively. Robotic technology may be useful to reproduce conventional open pancreatic surgery with a minimally invasive approach, overcoming some of the intrinsic limitations of conventional laparoscopy.

Laparoscopic Pancreatic Resections for Cancer: Pushing the Boundaries

Laparoscopic pancreatic resection (distal pancreatectomy, pancreaticoduodenectomy, including pancreaticoduodenectomy with vascular resections) for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is a technically demanding procedure, and the available evidence from selected high-volume centers suggest it to be well within the oncological principles of surgery for cancer, though this remains to be proven in a randomized study. This review summarizes the present status of laparoscopic resections for pancreatic cancer.

Minimally invasive surgical approach to pancreatic malignancies

Pancreatic surgery for malignancy is recognized as challenging for the surgeons and risky for the patients due to consistent perioperative morbidity and mortality. Furthermore, the oncological long-term results are largely disappointing, even for those patients who experience an uneventfully hospital stay. Nevertheless, surgery still remains the cornerstone of a multidisciplinary treatment for pancreatic cancer. In order to maximize the benefits of surgery, the advent of both laparoscopy and robotics has led many surgeons to treat pancreatic cancers with these new methodologies. The reduction of postoperative complications, length of hospital stay and pain, together with a shorter interval between surgery and the beginning of adjuvant chemotherapy, represent the potential advantages over conventional surgery. Lastly, a better cosmetic result, although not crucial in any cancerous patient, could also play a role by improving overall well-being and patient self-perception. The laparoscopic approach to pancreatic surgery is, however, difficult in inexperienced hands and requires a dedicated training in both advanced laparoscopy and pancreatic surgery. The recent large diffusion of the da Vinci(®) robotic platform seems to facilitate many of the technical maneuvers, such as anastomotic biliary and pancreatic reconstructions, accurate lymphadenectomy, and vascular sutures. The two main pancreatic operations, distal pancreatectomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy, are approachable by a minimally invasive path, but more limited interventions such as enucleation are also feasible. Nevertheless, a word of caution should be taken into account when considering the increasing costs of these newest technologies because the main concerns regarding these are the maintenance of all oncological standards and the lack of long-term follow-up. The purpose of this review is to examine the evidence for the use of minimally invasive surgery in pancreatic cancer (and less aggressive tumors), with particular attention to the oncological results and widespread reproducibility of each technique.

Robot-assisted laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: a prospective, matched, mid-term follow-up study

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy is a novel minimally invasive surgery technique, and its effectiveness and safety remain unknown in patients with borderline malignant or malignant diseases. This study aimed to prospectively evaluate the effectiveness and safety of RLPD versus open PD (OPD).

METHODS

Between January 2010 and December 2013, 180 eligible patients were prospectively hospitalized for elective RLPD (n = 60) or OPD (n = 120). They were matched for tumor location, tumor type, tumor size, ASA classification, age, and sex. The main outcome measures included demographics, intraoperative variables, morbidity, postoperative recovery, and mid-term evaluation.

RESULTS

Over the study period, the RLPD group had a significantly longer but decreasing operative time (median 410 vs. 323 min; P < 0.001), less blood loss (median 400 vs. 500 mL; P = 0.005), better nutritional status recovery, expedited off-bed return to activity (3.2 vs. 4.8 d; P < 0.001), faster resumption of bowel movement (3.6 vs. 5.2 d; P < 0.001), and shorter hospital stay (20 vs. 25 d; P = 0.002) compared to the OPD group. The two groups had similar surgical morbidities and mortality as well as R0 resection rate and number of lymph nodes resected. Among patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma, the two groups had similar overall and disease-free survival (ACTRN12614000299606).

CONCLUSIONS

This first largest, prospective matched study demonstrated that for treating selected borderline and malignant pathologies, RLPD was associated with a significant learning curve effect and expedited postoperative recovery, but had a surgical and oncological safety profile similar to OPD.

Minimally Invasive Techniques for Resection of Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors

Surgical resection remains the treatment of choice for primary pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNETs), because it is associated with increased survival. Minimally invasive procedures are a safe modality for the surgical treatment of PNETs. In malignant PNETs, laparoscopy is not associated with a compromise in terms of oncologic resection, and provides the benefits of decreased postoperative pain, better cosmetic results, shorter hospital stay, and a shorter postoperative recovery period. Further prospective, multicenter, randomized trials are required for the analysis of these minimally invasive surgical techniques for the treatment of PNETs and their comparison with traditional open pancreatic surgery.

Minimally invasive surgical approach compared with open pancreaticoduodenectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis on the feasibility and safety

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy have started utilization tentatively; however, the clinical benefits are still controversial. This study aims to evaluate the safety and efficiency of minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed through PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library database without restriction to regions, publication types, or languages. Nine studies that compared laparoscopic/robotic with open pancreaticoduodenectomy were included. Fixed or random-effects models was used to measure the pooled estimates. Sensitivity and subgroup analysis were performed to evaluate the study quality.

RESULTS

Patients who underwent minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy experienced longer operative time (P=0.007), but the estimated blood loss (P=0.007), length of stay, (P=0.02), and wound infection (P=0.04) decreased. Perioperative complications, such as pancreatic fistula, delayed gastric emptying, hemorrhage, bile leakage, reoperation, and mortality, were of no significant differences. Pathologically, lymph node number was similar (P=0.11); meanwhile, margin R0 ratio was higher in minimally invasive approach group (P=0.03). Subgroup analysis manifested robotic surgery spent comparable surgical time (P=0.16) as laparotomy, with earlier discharge (P=0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis indicates minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy may be associated with shorter hospital stay, less estimated blood loss, and positive margin rate without compromising surgical safety as open surgery. Surgical duration of robotic method could even be equivalent as laparotomy. Minimally invasive approach can be a reasonable alternative to laparotomy pancreaticoduodenectomy with potential advantages. Nevertheless, future large-volume, well-designed RCTs with extensive follow-up are awaited to confirm and update the findings of this analysis.

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma: role in 2014 and beyond

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for pancreatic adenocarcinoma has found new avenues for performing pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) procedures, a historically technically challenging operation. Multiple studies have found laparoscopic PD to be safe, with equivalent oncologic outcomes as compared to open PD. In addition, several series have described potential benefits to minimally invasive PD including fewer postoperative complications, shorter hospital length of stay, and decreased postoperative pain. Yet, despite these promising initial results, laparoscopic PDs have not become widely adopted by the surgical community. In fact, the vast majority of pancreatic resections performed in the United States are still performed in an open fashion, and there are only a handful of surgeons who actually perform purely laparoscopic PDs. On the other hand, robotic assisted surgery offers many technical advantages over laparoscopic surgery including high-definition, 3-D optics, enhanced suturing ability, and more degrees of freedom of movement by means of fully-wristed instruments. Similar to laparoscopic PD, there are now several case series that have demonstrated the feasibility and safety of robotic PD with seemingly equivalent short-term oncologic outcomes as compared to open technique. In addition, having the surgeon seated for the procedure with padded arm-rests, there is an ergonomic advantage of robotics over both open and laparoscopic approaches, where one has to stand up for prolonged periods of time. Future technologic innovations will likely focus on enhanced robotic capabilities to improve ease of use in the operating room. Last but not least, robotic assisted surgery training will continue to be a part of surgical education curriculum ensuring the increased use of this technology by future generations of surgeons.

Pancreatic cancer surgery: past, present, and future

The history of pancreatic cancer surgery, though fraught with failure and setbacks, is punctuated by periods of incremental progress dependent upon the state of the art and the mettle of the surgeons daring enough to attempt it. Surgical anesthesia and the aseptic techniques developed during the latter half of the 19(th) century were instrumental in establishing a viable setting for pancreatic surgery to develop. Together, they allowed for bolder interventions and improved survival through the post-operative period. Surgical management began with palliative procedures to address biliary obstruction in advanced disease. By the turn of the century, surgical pioneers such as Alessandro Codivilla and Walther Kausch were demonstrating the technical feasibility of pancreatic head resections and applying principles learned from palliation to perform complicated anatomical reconstructions. Allen O. Whipple, the namesake of the pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD), was the first to take a systematic approach to refining the procedure. Perhaps his greatest contribution was sparking a renewed interest in the surgical management of periampullary cancers and engendering a community of surgeons who advanced the field through their collective efforts. Though the work of Whipple and his contemporaries legitimized PD as an accepted surgical option, it was the establishment of high-volume centers of excellence and a multidisciplinary approach in the later decades of the 20(th) century that made it a viable surgical option. Today, pancreatic surgeons are experimenting with minimally invasive surgical techniques, expanding indications for resection, and investigating new methods for screening and early detection. In the future, the effective management of pancreatic cancer will depend upon our ability to reliably detect the earliest cancers and precursor lesions to allow for truly curative resections.

Robotic surgery of the pancreas: The current state of the art

Pancreatic surgery is one of the most technically challenging and complex types of surgery. Most pancreatic surgery is performed with the open technique, yet minimally invasive surgery has become the standard of care for many other intra-abdominal operations. The unique qualities of the robotic platform have made this approach to pancreatic surgery safe and feasible with at least equivalent if not better results than the open platform in terms of surgical and oncological outcomes.

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy: comparison of complications and cost to the open approach

BACKGROUND

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RP) has shown some advantages over open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OP) but no data has been published providing a cost comparison.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of all pancreaticoduodenectomies at a single quaternary cancer referral center was performed. Patient demographics, comorbidities, operative characteristics, complications, and charge data were recorded, and then compared using standard statistical methods.

RESULTS

71 pancreaticoduodenectomies were performed: 22 RP and 49 OP. Patients undergoing OP had similar demographics, comorbidities, pathology, and oncologic characteristics as patients undergoing RP. While operative charges were higher for RP, once inpatient stay associated costs and follow-up costs were included, there was no difference in total costs between RP and OP.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing RP have equivalent rates of R0 resection as OP, and benefit from decreased number of complications, surgical site infections, and length of stay in the intensive care unit. Once cost of complications and follow-up are incorporated, no significant difference between procedures exists. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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.

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: single-surgeon experience

BACKGROUND

Innovations in surgical strategies and technologies have facilitated laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD). However, data regarding the short-term and long-term results of LPD are sparse, and this procedure is the primary focus of the current study.

METHODS

Between October 2010 and October 2013, a total of 31 consecutive patients received LPD, including hand-assisted laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy, total laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy, and laparoscopic pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy. Data regarding short-term surgical outcomes and long-term oncological results were collected prospectively.

RESULTS

The median operative time was 515.0 min (interquartile range 465.0-585.0 min). The median intraoperative estimated blood loss was 260.0 mL (interquartile range 150.0-430.0 mL). Conversion to open pancreaticoduodenectomy was required in three patients (9.7%) due to intraoperative pneumoperitoneum intolerance (n = 1, 3.2%) and tumor adherence to the superior mesenteric vein (n = 2, 6.5%). No significant differences between the surgical approaches were observed in regard to intraoperative and postoperative data. Postoperative severe complications (Clavien ≥ III) were detected in three (9.7%) patients, including one grade C pancreatic fistula, one grade B postoperative bleeding event, and one afferent loop obstruction. There were no deaths within 30 days following LPD. The final pathological results revealed duodenal adenocarcinoma in 14 (45.2%) patients, ampullary adenocarcinoma in four (12.9%) patients, distal common bile duct cancer in six (19.4%) patients, pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma in five (16.1%) patients, gastrointestinal stroma tumor in one (3.2%) patient, and chronic pancreatitis in one (3.2%) patient. All patients suffering from tumors underwent R0 resection (n = 30, 100.0%), with the optimal number of collected lymph nodes (median: 13, interquartile range 11-19). At the most recent follow-up, 20 patients were still alive, and the 1-, and 3-year overall survival for patients with duodenal adenocarcinoma were 100.0 and 71.4%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

According to this study, LPD is feasible and technically safe for highly selected patients and can offer acceptable oncological outcomes and long-term survival.

Robot-assisted laparoscopic hepaticojejunostomy for advanced malignant biliary obstruction

INTRODUCTION

To report our experience in palliative hepaticojejunostomy for advanced malignant biliary obstruction by means of robotic approach

METHODS

Robot-assisted laparoscopic hepaticojejunostomy for advanced malignant biliary obstruction was performed in nine patients from May 2009 to April 2014.

RESULTS

During the study period, robotic hepaticojejunostomy for advanced malignant biliary obstruction was completed successfully in nine patients. Roux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomy and double (hepaticojejunostomy, and gastrojejunostomy) bypass were performed in five and four patients, respectively. The mean operating time was 212.8 minutes. The mean blood loss was 38.7 mL. The overall complication rate was 22.2%. Bile leak complication occurred in one patient only. There was no procedure-related mortality. The mean postoperative hospital stay was 13.3 days. Five patients received palliative systemic chemotherapy after bypass surgery. The mean survival time was 11.1 months. During follow up, only three patients with cholangiocarcinoma had recurrent biliary obstruction after end-to-side hepaticojejunostomy due to tumor progression, and needed percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage. Among these nine patients, there were a total of eight episodes of readmission in four patients due to tumor-related symptoms or complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Robot-assisted laparoscopic hepaticojejunostomy for advanced malignant biliary obstruction had a low complication rate and was associated with an improved quality of life.

Minimally invasive pancreatectomy for cancer: a critical review of the current literature

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has transformed operative practices by offering patients procedures with reduced hospital stay and recovery compared to that of open operations. In spite of the advantages of a MIS approach, the application to pancreatectomy has only recently emerged. This review aims to analyze and discuss available comparative studies as they relate to resection techniques for treatment of malignant disease. A PubMed search was used to obtain original studies and meta-analyses relating to MIS pancreatectomy from 2008 to 2013. Several studies were identified that reported on the application of MIS specifically to the treatment of cancer, many of which were retrospective, single-institution studies. Notwithstanding an inherent selection bias, several studies suggest that MIS can provide equivalent R0 resection rates, number of lymph nodes harvested, and survival to that of open resection. Furthermore, parameters such as blood loss and length of stay are significantly reduced in patients treated with MIS. The current literature supports the conclusion that MIS is safe and effective as a treatment for cancer in well-selected patients in the hands of experienced surgeons. However, the published studies to date are observational in nature and therefore higher quality studies will be needed to support the application and generalizability of MIS in the treatment of pancreatic malignancies.

European Association of Endoscopic Surgeons (EAES) consensus statement on the use of robotics in general surgery

Following an extensive literature search and a consensus conference with subject matter experts the following conclusions can be drawn: 1. Robotic surgery is still at its infancy, and there is a great potential in sophisticated electromechanical systems to perform complex surgical tasks when these systems evolve. 2. To date, in the vast majority of clinical settings, there is little or no advantage in using robotic systems in general surgery in terms of clinical outcome. Dedicated parameters should be addressed, and high quality research should focus on quality of care instead of routine parameters, where a clear advantage is not to be expected. 3. Preliminary data demonstrates that robotic system have a clinical benefit in performing complex procedures in confined spaces, especially in those that are located in unfavorable anatomical locations. 4. There is a severe lack of high quality data on robotic surgery, and there is a great need for rigorously controlled, unbiased clinical trials. These trials should be urged to address the cost-effectiveness issues as well. 5. Specific areas of research should include complex hepatobiliary surgery, surgery for gastric and esophageal cancer, revisional surgery in bariatric and upper GI surgery, surgery for large adrenal masses, and rectal surgery. All these fields show some potential for a true benefit of using current robotic systems. 6. Robotic surgery requires a specific set of skills, and needs to be trained using a dedicated, structured training program that addresses the specific knowledge, safety issues and skills essential to perform this type of surgery safely and with good outcomes. It is the responsibility of the corresponding professional organizations, not the industry, to define the training and credentialing of robotic basic skills and specific procedures. 7. Due to the special economic environment in which robotic surgery is currently employed special care should be taken in the decision making process when deciding on the purchase, use and training of robotic systems in general surgery. 8. Professional organizations in the sub-specialties of general surgery should review these statements and issue detailed, specialty-specific guidelines on the use of specific robotic surgery procedures in addition to outlining the advanced robotic surgery training required to safely perform such procedures.

[Robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy]

AIM

To compare the results of robot-assisted and conventional techniques of pancreatoduodenectomy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

It was performed the retrospective investigation of results of robot-assisted and conventional pylorus-preserving pancreatoduodenectomy in 7 and 7 patients respectively.

RESULTS

Duration of robot-assisted and conventional surgery was 460.71±119.77 and 288.57±62.2 minutes, volume of blood loss--414.28±285.36 and 400±163.30 ml respectively. Postoperative complications after robot-assisted technique were classified as Grade I according to Clavien-Dindo classification. Pancreatic fistulae were absent (ISGPF (2005)). Lower duration of abdominal drainage and opioid analgesia were observed. Also narcotic drugs were required by not all patients after robot-assisted surgery. Histological study revealed the large number of excised lymphatic nodes.

CONCLUSION

Obvious advantage of robot-assisted operation was precision of great vessels and lymphatic nodes dissection, performing anastomoses. Robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy corresponds to all requirements inherent to radical cancer surgery.

Laparoscopic pancreatic reconstruction technique following laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy

With the advance of laparoscopic experiences and techniques, it is carefully regarded that laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (lap-PD) is feasible and safe in managing perimapullary pancreatic pathology. Especially, laparoscopic management of remnant pancreas can be a critical step toward completeness of minimally invasive PD. According to available published reports, there is a wide range of technical differences in choosing surgical options in managing remnant pancreas after lap-PD. For the evidence-based surgical approach, it would be ideal to test potential techniques by randomized controlled trials, but, currently, it is thought to be very difficult to expect those clinical trials to be successful because there are still a lack of expert surgeons with sound surgical techniques and experience. In addition, lap-PD is so complicated and technically demanding that many surgeons are still questioning whether this surgical approach could be standardized and popular like laparoscopic cholecystectomy. In general, surgical options are usually chosen based on following question: (1) Is it simple? (2) Is it easy and feasible? (3) Is it secure and safe? (4) Is there any supporting scientific evidence? It would be interesting to estimate which surgical technique would be appropriate in managing remnant pancreas under these considerations. It is hoped that a well standardized multicenter-based randomized control study would be successful to test this fundamental issues based on sound surgical techniques and scientific background.

Robotic surgery of the pancreas

Pancreatic surgery is one of the most challenging and complex fields in general surgery. While minimally invasive surgery has become the standard of care for many intra-abdominal pathologies the overwhelming majority of pancreatic surgery is performed in an open fashion. This is attributed to the retroperitoneal location of the pancreas, its intimate relationship to major vasculature and the complexity of reconstruction in the case of pancreatoduodenectomy. Herein, we describe the application of robotic technology to minimally invasive pancreatic surgery. The unique capabilities of the robotic platform have made the minimally invasive approach feasible and safe with equivalent if not better outcomes (e.g., decreased length of stay, less surgical site infections) to conventional open surgery. However, it is unclear whether the robotic approach is truly superior to traditional laparoscopy; this is a key point given the substantial costs associated with procuring and maintaining robotic capabilities.

Laparoscopic resection of pancreatic adenocarcinoma: Dream or reality?

Laparoscopic pancreatic surgery is in its infancy despite initial procedures reported two decades ago. Both laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) and laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) can be performed competently; however when minimally invasive surgical (MIS) approaches are implemented the indication is often benign or low-grade malignant pathologies. Nonetheless, LDP and LPD afford improved perioperative outcomes, similar to those observed when MIS is utilized for other purposes. This includes decreased blood loss, shorter length of hospital stay, reduced post-operative pain, and expedited time to functional recovery. What then is its role for resection of pancreatic adenocarcinoma? The biology of this aggressive cancer and the inherent challenge of pancreatic surgery have slowed MIS progress in this field. In general, the overall quality of evidence is low with a lack of randomized control trials, a preponderance of uncontrolled series, short follow-up intervals, and small sample sizes in the studies available. Available evidence compiles heterogeneous pathologic diagnoses and is limited by case-by-case follow-up, which makes extrapolation of results difficult. Nonetheless, short-term surrogate markers of oncologic success, such as margin status and lymph node harvest, are comparable to open procedures. Unfortunately disease recurrence and long-term survival data are lacking. In this review we explore the evidence available regarding laparoscopic resection of pancreatic adenocarcinoma, a promising approach for future widespread application.

Treatment of distal cholangiocarcinoma

Distal cholangiocarcinoma (DCC) is a rare, aggressive malignancy with an increasing incidence during past few years. The great majority of distal bile duct cancers are adenocarcinomas that preferentially invade adjacent organs and metastasize to regional lymph nodes. Surgical resection remains the only potentially curative treatment at present. Nevertheless, resectability rates range from 21% to 96% either due to local vascular invasion or distant metastasis. Therefore, DCC is related with a poor prognosis. Thus, new treatments for DCC are becoming a hot spot of research in recent years. This article reviews the progress in the treatment of DCC in terms of radical surgery, palliative surgery and interventional therapy as well as adjuvant therapy.

Efficacy and safety of minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy vs open pancreaticoduodenectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM: To evaluate the safety and efficacy between minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy and open pancreaticoduodenectomy.

METHODS: Medline, EMBASE, Science Direct and Springer link databases (till March 31, 2014) were searched by computer to collect the articles that compared the efficacy and safety of minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy vs open pancreaticoduodenectomy. The trials were selected according to the inclusive and exclusive criteria, and the quality of the included trials was assessed. The data were extracted and analyzed using RevMan 5.2.7 software.

RESULTS: A total of 8 articles were included in the present meta-analysis. The meta-analysis showed that there were no significant differences in perioperative complications, mortality, pancreatic fistula, delayed gastric empty, postoperative hemorrhage, reoperation, mortality or R0 resection rate between the minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy group and open pancreaticoduodenectomy group (P > 0.05). There were significant differences in operative time, estimated blood loss and length of hospital stays between the two groups (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis indicates that minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy is associated with shorter hospital stay and less estimated blood loss compared with open surgery, although there are no differences in preoperational complications or postoperative pathological diagnosis. Minimally invasive approach can be a reasonable alternative to laparotomy pancreaticoduodenectomy with potential advantages. Nevertheless, future large-volume, well-designed randomized control trials with extensive follow-up are awaited to confirm and update the findings of this analysis.

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a systematic literature review

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) is gaining momentum, but there is still uncertainty regarding its safety, reproducibility, and oncologic appropriateness. This review assesses the current status of LPD.

METHODS

Our literature review was conducted in Pubmed. Articles written in English containing five or more LPD were selected.

RESULTS

Twenty-five articles matched the review criteria. Out of a total of 746 LPD, 341 were reported between 1997 and 2011 and 405 (54.2 %) between 2012 and June 1, 2013. Pure laparoscopy (PL) was used in 386 patients (51.7 %), robotic assistance (RA) in 234 (31.3 %), laparoscopic assistance (LA) in 121 (16.2 %), and hand assistance in 5 (0.6 %). PL was associated with shorter operative time, reduced blood loss, and lower rate of pancreatic fistula (vs LA and RA). LA was associated with shorter operative time (vs RA), but with higher blood loss and increased incidence of pancreatic fistula (vs PL and RA). Conversion to open surgery was required in 64 LPD (9.1 %). Operative time averaged 464.3 min (338-710) and estimated blood 320.7 mL (74-642). Cumulative morbidity was 41.2 %, and pancreatic fistula was reported in 22.3 % of patients (4.5-52.3 %). Mean length of hospital stay was 13.6 days (7-23), showing geographic variability (21.9 days in Europe, 13.0 days in Asia, and 9.4 days in the US). Operative mortality was 1.9 %, including one intraoperative death. No difference was noted in conversion rate, incidence of pancreatic fistula, morbidity, and mortality when comparing results from larger (≥30 LPD) and smaller (≤29 LPD) series. Pathology demonstrated ductal adenocarcinoma in 30.6 % of the specimens, other malignant tumors in 51.7 %, and benign tumor/disease in 17.5 %. The mean number of lymph nodes examined was 14.4 (7-32), and the rate of microscopically positive tumor margin was 4.4 %.

CONCLUSIONS

In selected patients, operated on by expert laparoscopic pancreatic surgeons, LPD is feasible and safe.

Does minimally-invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy have advantages over its open method? A meta-analysis of retrospective studies

Background

While more and more open procedures now routinely performed using laparoscopy, minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) remains one of the most challenging abdominal procedures. Therefore, we carried out this meta-analysis to evaluate whether MIPD is safe, feasible and worthwhile.

Methods

PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched to identify studies published between January 1994 and November 2013 comparing MIPD with open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD). Intraoperative outcomes, oncologic safety, postoperative complications, and postoperative recovery were evaluated.

Results

11 retrospective studies representing 869 patients (327 MIPDs, 542 OPDs) were included. MIPD was associated with a reduction in estimated blood loss (MD −361.93 ml, 95% CI −519.22 to −204.63 ml, p<0.001, I² = 94%), wound infection (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.78, p = 0.007, I² = 0%), and hospital stay (MD −2.64 d, 95% CI −4.23 to −1.05 d, p = 0.001, I² = 78%). However, it brings longer operative time (MD 105 min, 95% CI 49.73 to 160.26 min, p<0.001, I² = 93%). There were no significant differences between the two procedures in likelihood of overall complications (p = 0.05), pancreatic fistula (PF) (p = 0.86), delayed gastric empting (DGE) (p = 0.96), positive surgical margins (p = 0.07), retrieval of lymph nodes (p = 0.48), reoperation (p = 0.16) and mortality (p = 0.64).

Conclusions

Our results suggest that MIPD is currently safe, feasible and worthwhile. But considering the selection bias, complexity of MIPD and lack of long-term oncologic outcomes, we suggest it be performed in a high-volume pancreatic surgery center in selected patients.

Duodenopancreatectomy: open or minimally invasive approach?

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) is a complex procedure, offered to selected patients at institutions highly experienced with the procedure. It is still not clear if this approach may enhance patient recovery and reduce postoperative complications comparing to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD), as demonstrated for other abdominal procedures.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted to identify studies comparing MIPD and OPD. Perioperative outcomes (e.g., morbidity and mortality, pancreatic fistula rates, blood loss) constituted the study end points. Metaanalyses were performed using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

For the metaanalysis, 8 studies including 204 patients undergoing MIPD and 419 patients undergoing OPD were considered suitable. The patients in the two groups were similar with respect to age, sex and histological diagnosis, and different with respect to tumor size, rate of pylorus preservation, and type of pancreatic anastomosis. There were no statistically significant differences between MIPD and OPD regarding development of delayed gastric emptying (DGE), pancreatic fistula, wound infection, or rates of reoperation and overall mortality. MIDP resulted in lower post-operative complication rates, less intra-operative blood loss, shorter hospital stays, lower blood transfusion rates, higher numbers of harvested lymph nodes, and improved negative margin status rates. However, MIPD was associated with longer operating times when compared to OPD.

CONCLUSIONS

The MIPD procedure is feasible, safe, and effective in selected patients. MIPD may have some potential advantages over OPD, and should be performed and further developed by use in selected patients at highly experienced medical centers.

Defining the learning curve for team-based laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to define the learning curves for laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) with and without laparoscopic reconstruction, using paired surgical teams consisting of advanced laparoscopic-trained surgeons and advanced oncologic-trained surgeons.

METHODS

All patients undergoing PD without vein resection at a single institution were retrospectively analyzed. LPD was introduced by initially focusing on laparoscopic resection followed by open reconstruction (hybrid) for 18 months prior to attempting a totally LPD (TLPD) approach. Cases were compared with Chi square, Fisher's exact test, and Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance (ANOVA).

RESULTS

Between March 2010 and June 2013, 140 PDs were completed at our institution, of which 56 (40 %) were attempted laparoscopically. In 31/56 procedures we planned to perform only the resection laparoscopically (hybrid), of which 7 (23 %) required premature conversion before completion of resection. Following the first 23 of these hybrid cases, a total of 25 TLPDs have been performed, of which there were no conversions to open. For all LPD, a significant reduction in operative times was identified following the first 10 patients (median 478.5 vs. 430.5 min; p = 0.01), approaching open PD levels. After approximately 50 cases, operative times and estimated blood loss were consistently lower than those for open PD.

CONCLUSIONS

In our experience of building an LPD program, the initial ten cases represent the biggest hurdle with respect to operative times. For an experienced teaching center using a staged and team-based approach, LPD appears to offer meaningful reductions in operative time and blood loss within the first 50 cases.

The state of the art of robotic pancreatectomy

During the last decades an increasing number of minimally invasive pancreatic resections have been reported in the literature. With the development of robotic surgery a new enthusiasm has not only increased the number of centers approaching minimally invasive pancreatic surgery in general but also enabled the use of this technique for major pancreatic procedures, in particular in minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy. The aim of this review was to define the state of the art of pancreatic robotic surgery. No prospective randomized trials have been performed comparing robotic, laparoscopic, and open pancreatic procedures. From the literature one may conclude that robotic pancreatectomies seem to be as feasible and safe as open procedures. The general idea that the overall perioperative costs of robotic surgery would be higher than traditional procedures is not supported. With the current lack of evidence of any oncologic advantages, the cosmetic benefits offered by robotic surgery are not enough to justify extensive use in cancer patients. In contrast, the safety of these procedure can justify the use of the robotic technique in patient with benign/low grade malignant tumors of the pancreas.

Robotics in general surgery: an evidence-based review

Since its introduction, robotic surgery has been rapidly adopted to the extent that it has already assumed an important position in the field of general surgery. This rapid progress is quantitative as well as qualitative. In this review, we focus on the relatively common procedures to which robotic surgery has been applied in several fields of general surgery, including gastric, colorectal, hepato-biliary-pancreatic, and endocrine surgery, and we discuss the results to date and future possibilities. In addition, the advantages and limitations of the current robotic system are reviewed, and the advanced technologies and instruments to be applied in the near future are introduced. Such progress is expected to facilitate the widespread introduction of robotic surgery in additional fields and to solve existing problems.

Retrospective comparison of robot-assisted minimally invasive versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary neoplasms

BACKGROUND

As with other open procedures now routinely performed using laparoscopy, minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) may result in decreased pain, fewer wound complications, and accelerated recovery. However, when used for periampullary cancers, it is also important to assess if MIPD offers comparable oncologic outcomes.

METHODS

Technical and perioperative outcomes were compared between patients with a preoperative diagnosis of periampullary neoplasm offered MIPD or open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) from November 2009 to July 2011.

RESULTS

Fifty-six consecutive MIPD and OPD (28 each) procedures were analyzed. Comparing MIPD to OPD, significant differences included longer median procedure time (431 vs 410 min, p = .04) and fewer median lymph nodes harvested (15 vs. 20, p = .04). R0 resection rate tended to be lower (63 vs. 88%, p = .07) as well as surgical site infections (18 vs. 43 %, p = .08). Clinically significant pancreatic fistula rate was the same between groups (21%). Other outcomes such as narcotic pain medication use, length of stay, and 30-day readmission rates were also similar.

CONCLUSIONS

MIPD is feasible with comparable technical success and outcomes to OPD. However, there is a learning curve to the procedure and further experience and prospective study will be required to better establish the oncologic efficacy of MIPD to open resection.

Robot-assisted pancreatic surgery

Advantages for robotic-assistance in complex resectional surgery