Robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreatic surgery: single-surgeon experience

Laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy: How far have we come and where are we headed?

Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy is currently a feasible option in selected patients at high volume centers with available expertise. Although the procedure has been described two decades ago, laparoscopic surgeons have been reluctant to perform it since it is technically demanding. Currently there is no standardized training process for minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy and this is required to ensure the safety of the procedure. Even the open pancreatoduodenectomy can be a challenging procedure where the outcome depends much upon the patient volume and surgeon’s experience. In the minimally invasive setting, all the current evidence comes from retrospective data with inherent selection bias. Although the proposed benefits have been reported in many series, a randomized trial comparing with the open approach is highly unlikely to happen, given the complexity of pancreatic cancer and patient selection for complex surgery. Rather, in a disease for which cure is an utopian statement, perhaps the ultimate aim of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy can be the improvement in the quality of life. Also further studies are needed to assess the immunologic role affecting the oncologic outcomes in patients undergoing minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy. The robotic platforms have got easily accepted since they can overcome some of the limitations of the laparoscopic platforms such as limited range of motion, two dimensional visualization and poor ergonomics. The main limitations of robotic procedures are related to the high costs associated with the system and disposable equipment. Currently evidence is lacking regarding the cost effectiveness of the procedure and also the push from the industry is on rise. All these minimally invasive techniques have a long learning curve and prior extensive experience in hepatopancreatobiliary surgery is mandatory for surgeons embarking on these endeavours.

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for adenocarcinoma: safe and reasonable?

As a result of technological advances during the past two decades, surgeons now use minimally invasive surgery (MIS) approaches to pancreatic resection more frequently, yet the role of these approaches for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma resections remains uncertain, given the aggressive nature of this malignancy. Although there are no controlled trials comparing MIS technique to open surgical technique, laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma is performed with increasing frequency. Data from retrospective studies suggest that perioperative complication profiles between open and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy are similar, with perhaps lower blood loss and fewer wound infections in the MIS group. Concerning oncologic outcomes, there appear to be no differences in the rate of achieving negative margins or in the number of lymph nodes (LNs) resected when compared to open surgery. There are limited recurrence and survival data on laparoscopic compared to open distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma, but in the few studies that assess long term outcomes, recurrence rates and survival outcomes appear similar. Recent studies show that though laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy entails a greater operative cost, the associated shorter length of hospital stay leads to decreased overall cost compared to open procedures. Multiple new technologies are emerging to improve resection of pancreatic cancer. Robotic pancreatectomy is feasible, but there are limited data on robotic resection of pancreatic adenocarcinoma, and outcomes appear similar to laparoscopic approaches. Additionally fluorescence-guided surgery represents a new technology on the horizon that could improve oncologic outcomes after resection of pancreatic adenocarcinoma, though published data thus far are limited to animal models. Overall, MIS distal pancreatectomy appears to be a safe and reasonable approach to treating selected patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, though additional studies of long-term oncologic outcomes are merited. We review existing data on MIS distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

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.

Hand-assisted hybrid laparoscopic-robotic total proctocolectomy with ileal pouch--anal anastomosis

PURPOSE

Few studies have reported minimally invasive total proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) for ulcerative colitis (UC) and familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP). We herein report a novel hand-assisted hybrid laparoscopic-robotic technique for patients with FAP and UC.

METHODS

Between February 2010 and March 2014, six patients underwent hand-assisted hybrid laparoscopic-robotic total proctocolectomy with IPAA. The abdominal colectomy was performed laparoscopically with hand assistance through a transverse suprapubic incision, also used to fashion the ileal pouch. The proctectomy was carried out with the da Vinci Surgical System. The IPAA was hand-sewn through a trans-anal approach. The procedure was complemented by a temporary diverting loop ileostomy.

RESULTS

The mean hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) time was 154.6 (±12.8) min whereas the mean robotic time was 93.6 (±8.1) min. In all cases, a nerve-sparing proctectomy was performed, and no conversion to traditional laparotomy was required. The mean postoperative hospital stay was 13.2 (±7.4) days. No anastomotic leakage was observed. To date, no autonomic neurological disorders have been observed with a mean of 5.8 (±1.3) bowel movements per day.

CONCLUSIONS

The hand-assisted hybrid laparoscopic-robotic approach to total proctocolectomy with IPAA has not been previously described. Our report shows the feasibility of this hybrid approach, which surpasses most of the limitations of pure laparoscopic and robotic techniques. Further experience is necessary to refine the technique and fully assess its potential advantages.

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.

The learning curve for robotic distal pancreatectomy: an analysis of outcomes of the first 100 consecutive cases at a high-volume pancreatic centre

BACKGROUND

Robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) is performed increasingly, but knowledge of the number of cases required to attain procedural proficiency is lacking. The aim of this study was to identify the learning curve associated with RDP at a high-volume pancreatic centre.

METHODS

Metrics of perioperative safety and efficiency for all consecutive RDPs were evaluated. Outcomes were followed to 90 days. Cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis was used to identify inflexion points corresponding to the learning curve.

RESULTS

Between 2008 and 2013, 100 patients underwent RDP. There was no 90-day mortality. In two patients (2.0%), surgery was converted to laparotomy. Thirty procedures were performed for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Precipitous operative time reductions from an initial operative time of 331 min were observed after the first 20 and 40 cases to 266 min and 210 min, respectively (P < 0.0001). The likelihood of readmission was significantly lower after the first 40 cases (P = 0.04), and non-significant reductions were observed in incidences of major (Clavien-Dindo Grade II or higher) morbidity and Grade B and C leaks, and length of stay.

CONCLUSIONS

In this experience, RDP outcomes were optimized after 40 cases. Familiarity with the platform and dedicated training are likely to contribute to significantly shorter learning curves in future adopters.

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.

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy in the presence of aberrant or anomalous hepatic arterial anatomy: safety and oncologic outcomes

BACKGROUND

Hepatic arterial anomalies (HAAs) are not infrequently encountered during pancreatic resections. In view of the current emergence of the robotic platform as a safe alternative to open surgery in experienced centres, this study sought to determine the implications of HAAs on the safety and oncologic outcomes of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD).

METHODS

A prospectively maintained database of patients with HAAs who underwent RPD (RPD + HAA) at a single institution between 2008 and 2013 was retrospectively reviewed. Demographic information and perioperative outcomes of RPD were compared for patients with and without HAAs.

RESULTS

A total of 142 patients underwent RPD; 112 (78.9%) did not have and 30 (21.1%) did have HAAs. The majority (90.0%) of RPDs in patients with HAAs were performed for malignant indications and all aberrant vessels were preserved without conversion to laparotomy. There were no statistically significant differences between RPD patients with and without HAAs with respect to preoperative demographics, tumour characteristics, operative metrics (operative time, estimated blood loss, conversion) and postoperative outcomes, including complications, length of stay and readmissions. Negative margin (R0) rates were similar in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy is safe and feasible in patients with HAAs and has outcomes similar to those in patients with normal arterial anatomy.

Robotic oncologic complexity score - a new tool for predicting complications in computer-enhanced oncologic surgery

BACKGROUND

While there is little doubt that robotic interventions have already opened new horizons in surgery due to its inherent complexity, there is still an unmet need for tools allowing center-to-center performance comparisons. A complexity score could be a valuable instrument for further research.

METHODS

The items of the robotic oncologic complexity score (ROCS) were based on risk factors identified in previous studies. We attempt to build the score and validate it on 400 consecutive cases of robotic oncologic surgery. The primary endpoint is to assess the value of ROCS in predicting major complications.

RESULTS

The mean ROCS in the group was 3.3(+/-1.4). Different correlations were calculated: the score and the complications (r=0.38), the major complications (r=0.42), Clavien grade (r=0.5), the operating time (r=0.35), and the length of stay (r=0.47). On the ROC-curve a score >4 has the best specificity and sensibility for predicting major complications (P<0.05).

CONCLUSION

ROCS has potential in predicting complications and hospital length of stay, as well as a role in classifying oncologic robotic surgical interventions. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

[Comparative results of open robot-assisted and laparoscopic distal pancreatic resection]

It was performed a retrospective analysis of the results of distal pancreatic resections (DPR) in 89 patients with different tumors. Conventional open operations were performed in 60 patients, robot-assisted - in 19 patients, laparoscopic - in 10 cases. Absolute indication for open surgery was pancreatic cancer T3-4 stages. Mini-invasive distal resections (robot-assisted and laparoscopic) were performed in cases of pancreatic cancer T1-2 stages, benign tumors and tumors with low potential of malignancy and diameter up to 4-5 cm. Results of robot-assisted and laparoscopic interventions are similar but robot-assisted technique provides more precise surgery. It improves quality of lymphadenectomy, decreases probability of intraoperative bleeding. Duration of robot-assisted and open operation did not differ significantly. Blood loss was significantly lower in group of robot-assisted method (mean 470 ml) while in cases of open and laparoscopic techniques this parameter was 1013.8 and 833.3 ml respectively. Postoperative complications in open, laparoscopic and robot-assisted groups developed in 45.1, 52.6 and 50% of observations respectively. Pancreatic fistulas were revealed in 58.8, 80 and 58.3% of cases respectively. There were not deaths after laparoscopic and robot-assisted pancreatic resections. 2 patients died after open surgery.

State of the art of robotic pancreatic surgery

More than a decade has passed since robotic technology was adopted for abdominal surgery, and virtually every gastrointestinal operation has since been shown to be feasible, safe, and reproducible using the robotic approach. Robotic pancreatic surgery had been left behind at the beginning, because they were technically challenging, requiring not only being very familiar with the robotic technology but also having a perfect knowledge of the anatomical variations, very frequent in this area. Nonetheless in the last few years many authors have approached the robot for pancreatic surgery with very promising results in terms of surgical and oncological outcomes. The aim of this article is to review the literature on robotic pancreatic surgery and to define the state of the art use of the robotic approach for pancreatic disease.

Robotic approach improves spleen-preserving rate and shortens postoperative hospital stay of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a matched cohort study

BACKGROUND

Spleen preservation (SP) is beneficial for patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy of benign and borderline tumors; however, the conventional laparoscopy approach (C-LDP) is less effective in controlling splenic vessel bleeding. The benefits of the robotic-assisted approach (RA-LDP) in SP have not been clearly described. This study aimed to evaluate whether a robotic approach could improve SP rate and effectiveness/safety profile of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP).

METHODS

Matched for scheduled SP, age, sex, ASA classification, tumor size, tumor location, and pathological type, 69 patients undergoing RA-LDP and 50 undergoing C-LDP between January 2005 and May 2014 were included. Main outcome measures included SP rate, operative time (OT), blood loss, transfusion frequency, morbidity, postoperative hospital stay (PHS), and oncologic safety.

RESULTS

Among matched patients scheduled for SP, RA-LDP was associated with significantly higher overall (95.7 vs. 39.4%) and Kimura SP rates (72.3 vs. 21.2%), shorter OT (median 120 vs. 200 min), less blood loss (median 100 vs. 300 mL), lower transfusion frequency (2.1 vs. 18.2%), and shorter mean PHS (10.2 vs. 14.5 days). Among matched patients scheduled for splenectomy, RA-LDP was associated with similar OT, blood loss, transfusion frequency, and PHS. The two approaches were similar in overall morbidity, frequency of pancreatic fistula, and oncologic outcome among patients undergoing splenectomy for malignant tumors.

CONCLUSIONS

RA-LDP was associated with a significantly better SP rate and reduced OT, blood loss, transfusion requirement, and PHS for patients undergoing SP compared to C-LDP, but offered less benefits for patients undergoing splenectomy.

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.

[Cost price of robot-assisted and laparoscopic operations]

High cost of robotized complex and expendables is significant difficulty for its acquisition and introduction of robot-assisted operations. Critical estimation of economic aspect is necessary for further development of robot-assisted surgery in our country. Because of robotic variant is alternative to laparoscopic technique we assessed the prime cost of robot-assisted and laparoscopic operations. The results may be used to assess recovery of expenses by state for high-technology care in clinic and to increase volumes of high-technology care using robotic techniques.

Robotic surgery

BACKGROUND

Proficiency in minimally invasive surgery requires intensive and continuous training, as it is technically challenging for unnatural visual and haptic perceptions. Robotic and computer sciences are producing innovations to augment the surgeon's skills to achieve accuracy and high precision during complex surgery. This article reviews the current use of robotically assisted surgery, focusing on technology as well as main applications in digestive surgery, and future perspectives.

METHODS

The PubMed database was interrogated to retrieve evidence-based data on surgical applications. Internal and external consulting with key opinion leaders, renowned robotics laboratories and robotic platform manufacturers was used to produce state-of-the art business intelligence around robotically assisted surgery.

RESULTS

Selected digestive procedures (oesophagectomy, gastric bypass, pancreatic and liver resections, rectal resection for cancer) might benefit from robotic assistance, although the current level of evidence is insufficient to support widespread adoption. The surgical robotic market is growing, and a variety of projects have recently been launched at both academic and corporate levels to develop lightweight, miniaturized surgical robotic prototypes.

CONCLUSION

The magnified view, and improved ergonomics and dexterity offered by robotic platforms, might facilitate the uptake of minimally invasive procedures. Image guidance to complement robotically assisted procedures, through the concepts of augmented reality, could well represent a major revolution to increase safety and deal with difficulties associated with the new minimally invasive approaches.

[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 pancreaticoduodenectomy in a case of duodenal gastrointestinal stromal tumor

Background

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy is rarely performed, and it has not been particularly successful due to its technical complexity. The objective of this study is to highlight how robotic surgery could improve a minimally invasive approach and to expose the usefulness of robotic surgery even in complex surgical procedures.

Case presentation

The surgical technique employed in our center to perform a pancreaticoduodenectomy, which was by means of the da Vinci™ robotic system in order to remove a duodenal gastrointestinal stromal tumor, is reported.

Conclusions

Robotic technology has improved significantly over the traditional laparoscopic approach, representing an evolution of minimally invasive techniques, allowing procedures to be safely performed that are still considered to be scarcely feasible or reproducible.

Central pancreatectomy: the Dagradi Serio Iacono operation. Evolution of a surgical technique from the pioneers to the robotic approach

Central pancreatectomy (CP) is a parenchyma-sparing surgical procedure. The aims are to clarify the history and the development of CP and to give credits to those from whom it came. Ehrhardt, in 1908, described segmental neck resection (SNR) followed, in 1910, by Finney without reconstructive part. In 1950 Honjyo described two cases of SNR combined with gastrectomy for gastric cancer infiltrating the neck of the pancreas. Guillemin and Bessot (1957) and Letton and Wilson (1959) dealt only with the reconstructive aspect of CP. Dagradi and Serio, in 1982, performed the first CP including the resective and reconstructive aspects. Subsequently Iacono has validated it with functional endocrine and exocrine tests and popularized it worldwide. In 2003, Baca and Bokan performed laparoscopic CP and, In 2004, Giulianotti et al performed a robotic assisted CP. CP is performed worldwide either by open surgery or by using minimally-invasive or robotic approaches. This confirms that the operation does not belong to whom introduced it but to everyone who carries out it; however credit must be given to those from whom it came.

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.

Laparoscopic pancreatectomy: Indications and outcomes

The application of minimally invasive approaches to pancreatic resection for benign and malignant diseases has been growing in the last two decades. Studies have demonstrated that laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is feasible and safe, and many of them show that compared to open distal pancreatectomy, LDP has decreased blood loss and length of hospital stay, and equivalent post-operative complication rates and short-term oncologic outcomes. LDP is becoming the procedure of choice for benign or small low-grade malignant lesions in the distal pancreas. Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) has not yet been widely adopted. There is no clear evidence in favor of MIPD over open pancreaticoduodenectomy in operative time, blood loss, length of stay or rate of complications. Robotic surgery has recently been applied to pancreatectomy, and many of the advantages of laparoscopy over open surgery have been observed in robotic surgery. Laparoscopic enucleation is considered safe for patients with small, benign or low-grade malignant lesions of the pancreas that is amenable to parenchyma-preserving procedure. As surgeons’ experience with advanced laparoscopic and robotic skills has been growing around the world, new innovations and breakthrough in minimally invasive pancreatic procedures will evolve.

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for adenocarcinoma of the pancreas

Since the first report on laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) appeared in the 1990s, the procedure has been performed increasingly frequently to treat both benign and malignant lesions of the pancreas. Many earlier publications have shown LDP to be a good alternative to open distal pancreatectomy for benign lesions, although this has never been studied in a prospective, randomized manner. The evidence for the use of LDP to treat adenocarcinoma of the pancreas is not as well established. The purpose of this review is to evaluate the current evidence for LDP in cases of pancreatic adenocarcinoma. We conducted a review of English language publications reporting LDP results between 1990 and 2013. All studies reporting results in patients with histologically proven pancreatic adenocarcinoma were included. Thirty-nine publications were found and included in the results for a total of 309 cases of pancreatic adenocarcinoma (potential double publications were not eliminated). Most LDP procedures are performed in selected cases and generally involve smaller tumors than open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) procedures. Some of the papers report unselected cases and include procedures on larger tumors. The number of lymph nodes harvested using LDP is comparable to the number obtained with ODP, as is the frequency of R0 resections. Current data suggest that similar short term oncological results can be obtained using LDP as those obtained using ODP.

Robotic distal pancreatectomy with or without preservation of spleen: a technical note

Background

Distal pancreatectomy (DP) is a surgical procedure performed to remove the pancreatic tail jointly with a variable part of the pancreatic body and including a spleen resection in the case of conventional distal pancreatectomy or not in the spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy.

Methods

In this article, we describe a standardized operative technique for fully robotic distal pancreatectomy.

Results

In the last decade, the use of robotic systems has become increasingly common as an approach for benign and malignant pancreatic disease treatment. Robotic Distal Pancreatectomy (RDP) is an emerging technology for which sufficient data to draw definitive conclusions in surgical oncology are still not available because the follow-up period after surgery is too short (less than 2 years).

Conclusions

RDP is an emerging technology for which sufficient data to draw definitive conclusions of value in surgical oncology are still not available, however this techniques is safe and reproducible by surgeons that possess adequate skills.

Robotic distal pancreatectomy

The authors found that robotic distal pancreatectomy, with or without splenic preservation, can be performed safely for patients with lesions of the distal pancreas.

Background:

A robotic-assisted minimal invasive approach has the potential to overcome the limitations of conventional laparoscopic pancreatectomies. We analyzed the outcomes of robotic-assisted distal pancreatectomies (RDPs) to demonstrate the safety and feasibility of robotic distal pancreas resection, including spleen preservation.

Methods:

We performed a descriptive retrospective analysis of 40 RDPs. Statistical comparisons were performed between two groups of patients undergoing robotic-assisted spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (SPDP) and distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy (SDP). Survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method.

Results:

Of 49 attempted RDPs, 40 were completed with robotic assistance, with a conversion rate of 18.4%. Compared with the published reports of laparoscopic distal pancreatotomy (DP) and robotic DP, the spleen preservation rate (30%), operating time (203 minutes), major complications rate (5%), fistula rate (20%), and length of hospital stay (5 days) were similar in our RDP patients. Also, the perioperative outcomes of the SPDP and SDP groups did not differ significantly. The median survival was 12.5 months for the patients undergoing RDP for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

Conclusions:

Robotic-assisted distal pancreatectomy, with or without splenic preservation, can be safely performed for lesions of the distal pancreas, with appropriate indications.

Laparoscopic robot-assisted versus open total pancreatectomy: a case-matched study

BACKGROUND

The enhanced dexterity offered by robotic assistance could be excessive for distal pancreatectomy but not enough to improve the outcome of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy. Total pancreatectomy retains the challenges of uncinate process dissection and digestive reconstruction, but avoids the risk of pancreatic fistula, and could be a suitable operation to highlight the advantages of robotic assistance in pancreatic resections.

METHODS

Eleven laparoscopic robot-assisted total pancreatectomies (LRATP) were compared to 11 case-matched open total pancreatectomies. All operations were performed by one surgeon during the same period of time. Robotic assistance was employed in half of the patients, based on robot availability at the time of surgery. Variables examined included age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, body mass index, estimated blood loss, need for blood transfusions, operative time, tumor type, tumor size, number of examined lymph nodes, margin status, post-operative complications, 90-day or in-hospital mortality, length of hospital stay, and readmission rate.

RESULTS

No LRATP was converted to conventional laparoscopy, hand-assisted laparoscopy or open surgery despite two patients (18.1 %) required vein resection and reconstruction. LRATP was associated with longer mean operative time (600 vs. 469 min; p = 0.014) but decreased mean blood loss (220 vs. 705; p = 0.004) than open surgery. Post-operative complications occurred in similar percentages after LRATP and open surgery. Complications occurring in most patients (5/7) after LRATP were of mild severity (Clavien-Dindo grade I and II). One patient required repeat laparoscopic surgery after LRATP, to drain a fluid collection not amenable to percutaneous catheter drainage. One further patient from the open group required repeat surgery because of bleeding. No patient had margin positive resection, and the mean number of examined lymph nodes was 45 after LRATP and 36 after open surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

LRATP is feasible in selected patients, but further experience is needed to draw final conclusions.

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.

[Minimally invasive pancreatic tumor surgery : oncological safety and surgical feasibility]

INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE

Despite being technically challenging, minimally-invasive pancreatic surgery is increasingly being used to treat pancreatic diseases. Therefore, the evaluation of its oncological safety and its advantages arebecoming increasingly more important. This review focuses on these questions based on the currently available literature.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The technically less demanding laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy has been evaluated in numerous meta-analyses. Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy has only been reported from a few centers worldwide.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive pancreatic surgery, in particular laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy, is increasingly being used to treat pancreatic tumors. The advantages of laparoscopy, such as less intraoperative blood loss, reduced postoperative pain and a shorter length of stay have all been demonstrated in large trials. However, a sufficient oncological treatment was only assessed via indirect surrogate parameters, such as the number of lymph nodes obtained and R0 resection rates; therefore, larger prospective trials are needed to prove adequate oncological treatment. To date, minimally invasive techniques should only be employed in trials on treatment of pancreatic malignancies.

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.

Robot-assisted pancreatic surgery

Advantages for robotic-assistance in complex resectional surgery

Is arterial infiltration still a criterion for unresectability in pancreatic adenocarcinoma?

As surgical resection remains the only hope for cure in pancreatic cancer (PC), more aggressive surgical approaches have been advocated to increase resection rates. Venous resection demonstrated to be a feasible technique in experienced centers, increasing survival. In contrast, arterial resection is still an issue of debate, continuing to be considered a general contraindication to resection. In the last years there have been significant advances in surgical techniques and postoperative management which have dramatically reduced mortality and morbidity of major pancreatic resections. Furthermore, advances in multimodal neo-adjuvant and adjuvant treatments, as well as the better understanding of tumor biology and new diagnostic options have increased overall survival. In this article we highlight some of the important points that a modern pancreatic surgeon should take into account in the management of PC with arterial involvement in light of the recent advances.

Laparoscopic approach to gastrointestinal malignancies: toward the future with caution

After the rapid acceptance of laparoscopy to manage multiple benign diseases arising from gastrointestinal districts, some surgeons started to treat malignancies by the same way. However, if the limits of laparoscopy for benign diseases are mainly represented by technical issues, oncologic outcomes remain the foundation of any procedures to cure malignancies. Cancerous patients represent an important group with peculiar aspects including reduced survival expectancy, worsened quality of life due to surgery itself and adjuvant therapies, and challenging psychological impact. All these issues could, potentially, receive a better management with a laparoscopic surgical approach. In order to confirm such aspects, similarly to testing the newest weapons (surgical or pharmacologic) against cancer, long-term follow-up is always recommendable to assess the real benefits in terms of overall survival, cancer-free survival and quality of life. Furthermore, it seems of crucial importance that surgeons will be correctly trained in specific oncologic principles of surgical oncology as well as in modern miniinvasive technologies. Therefore, laparoscopic treatment of gastrointestinal malignancies requires more caution and deep analysis of published evidences, as compared to those achieved for inflammatory bowel diseases, gastroesophageal reflux disease or diverticular disease. This review tries to examine the evidence available to date for the use of laparoscopy and robotics in malignancies arising from the gastrointestinal district.

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy assisted by mini-laparotomy

PURPOSE

Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is the treatment of choice for periampullary disease. Even with the increasing number of successful reports from around the globe, laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) is still not fully accepted. We report the results of our experience of LPD assisted by mini-laparotomy.

METHOD

This retrospective review study included 42 patients who received LPD assisted by mini-laparotomy between March 2009 and April 2012. Clinical outcomes, such as patient age, pathologic diagnosis, pancreas nature, operation time, conversion rate, hospital stay, postoperative complication, and mortality rates, were reviewed.

RESULTS

A total of 42 patients (age range, 42 to 70 y ) received LPD assisted by mini-laparotomy. The mean incision length for the laparotomy was 5.2 cm. Mean operative time was 404 minutes, and 3 cases required conversion to open surgery. Mean postoperative hospital stay was 17 days. There were 3 cases of pancreaticogastrostomy leakage, 2 cases of postoperative bleeding, 4 cases of delayed gastric emptying, 1 case of bile leakage, and 5 cases of pulmonary complications. Of the 5 patients with pulmonary complications, 1 died.

CONCLUSIONS

When performed by a surgeon with ample experience in laparoscopic surgery, LPD assisted by mini-laparotomy is a safe, feasible alternative to conventional PD for select cases. The method described in this study can be used to perform pancreaticoenteric anastomosis in the same manner as an open PD, while taking advantage of the merits of minimally invasive surgery.

Laparoscopic pancreatic surgery: An overview of the literature and experiences of a single center

Pancreatic surgery was reported as early as 1898. Since then significant developments have been made in the field of pancreatic resections. In addition, advances in laparoscopic surgery in general have seen the description of this approach in pancreatic surgery with increasing frequency. Although there are no randomized controlled trials, several large series and comparative studies have reported on the short and long term outcome of laparoscopic pancreatic surgery. Furthermore, in the last decade published systematic reviews and meta-analyses have reported on cost effectiveness and outcomes of these procedures.

Which method of pancreatic surgery do medical consumers prefer among open, laparoscopic, or robotic surgery? A survey

PURPOSE

The consumers' preferences are not considered in developing or implementing new medical technologies. Furthermore, little efforts are made to investigate their demands. Therefore, their preferred surgical method and the factors affecting that preference were investigated in pancreatic surgery.

METHODS

Six-hundred subjects including 100 medical personnel (MP) and 500 lay persons (LP) were surveyed. Questionnaire included basic information on different methods of distal pancreatectomy; open surgery (OS), laparoscopic surgery (LS), and robotic surgery (RS). Assuming they required the operation, participants were told to indicate their preferred method along with a reason and an acceptable cost for both benign and malignant conditions.

RESULTS

For benign disease, the most preferred method was LS. Limiting the choice to LS and RS, LS was preferred for cost and well-established safety and efficacy. OS was favored in malignant disease for the concern for radicality. Limiting the choice to LS and RS, LS was favored for its better-established safety and efficacy. The majority thought that LS and RS were both overpriced. Comparing MP and LP responses, both groups preferred LS in benign and OS in malignant conditions. However, LP more than MP tended to prefer RS under both benign and malignant conditions. LP thought that LS was expensive whereas MP thought the cost reasonable. Both groups felt that RS was too expensive.

CONCLUSION

Though efforts for development of novel techniques and broadening indication should be encouraged, still more investments and research should focus on LS and OS to provide optimal management and satisfaction to the patients.

New technologies for single-site robotic surgery in hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery

Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) aims to reduce incision-related complications by using a single surgical access through which multiple instruments are inserted simultaneously. First descriptions of LESS procedures date back to the early 90 s, but the approach initially failed to gain popularity because of technical challenges that markedly impair the principles of laparoscopic ergonomics. In recent years LESS has been increasingly applied to hepatobiliary procedures including cholecystectomies and liver resections. However, the uptake of LESS in hepatobiliary is limited. The surgical robotic platform might play a fundamental role in facilitating the uptake of LESS by the surgical community since robotic science made it possible to develop adequate technology to deal with some of the LESS issues such as restoring surgical triangulation. In this paper the current state-of-the-art for robotic LESS applied to the hepatobiliary system and emerging technologies enabling safer LESS procedures have been reviewed and future perspectives commented on the light of our experience.

Single-incision versus conventional laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a single-institution case-control study

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is becoming increasingly established at specialized surgical institutions worldwide. The purpose of this study was to compare single-incision laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (panLESS) with conventional laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (panLAP) to assess feasibility and 30-day morbidity.

METHODS

Eight consecutive patients who underwent panLESS were matched with patients who underwent panLAP in the same time period. Matching criteria were age, body mass index, and American Society of Anesthesiologists score. Feasibility was based on tumor size, operative time, intraoperative bleeding, resection status, and hospital stay. Thirty-day morbidity was defined by the revised Accordion Classification system and the International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistula definition.

RESULTS

Over a 19-month period, 8 and 16 patients were identified for panLESS and panLAP, respectively. There were no significant differences in tumor size, operative time, intraoperative bleeding, resection status, and hospital stay between the two groups. Surgical complications developed in four panLESS patients and five panLAP patients, and out of which, two patients from each group developed a postoperative pancreatic fistula (grade B).

CONCLUSIONS

This study indicates that panLESS is comparable to panLAP in terms of feasibility. More experience is needed to define what role single-incision distal pancreatectomy should have in minimal invasive pancreatic surgery.

200 consecutive laparoscopic pancreatic resections performed with a robotically controlled laparoscope holder

INTRODUCTION

Because of the potential benefit of robotics in pancreatic surgery, we review our experience at two minimally invasive pancreatic surgery centers that utilize a robotically controlled laparoscope holder to see if smaller robots that enable the operating surgeon to maintain contact with the patient may have a role in the treatment of pancreatic disease.

METHODS

From March 1994 to June 2011, a total of 200 laparoscopic pancreatic procedures utilizing a robotically controlled laparoscope holder were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 72 duodenopancreatectomies, 67 distal pancreatectomies, 23 enucleations, 20 pancreatic cyst drainage procedures, 5 necrosectomies, 5 atypical pancreatic resections, 4 total pancreatectomies, and 4 central pancreatectomies were performed. Fourteen patients required conversion to an open approach and eight a hand-assisted one. A total of 24 patients suffered a major complication. Sixteen patients developed a pancreatic leak and 19 patients required reoperation. Major complications occurred in 14 patients and pancreatic leaks occurred in 13 patients. Ten patients required conversion to a lap-assisted or open approach and six patients required reoperation.

CONCLUSIONS

Currently, a robotically assisted approach using a camera holder seems the only way to incorporate some of the benefits of robotics in pancreatic surgery while maintaining haptics and contact with the patient.