Short-term and long-term outcomes after robot-assisted versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNETs): a multicenter comparative study

Comparison of outcomes of laparoscopic vs. robotic surgical resection of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNETs) are rare neoplasms. Minimal access surgery has been the favoured approach for these tumors over the past decade. There is a lack of robust data comparing laparoscopic and robotic pancreatic surgery for PNETs and this has led to the lack of a global conclusion regarding which approach is superior. Thus, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the available data to compare outcomes following laparoscopic versus robotic pancreatic surgery for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors.

METHODS

Studies reporting outcomes of laparoscopic or robotic surgery for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors were included. Inverse variance and Mantel-Haenszel statistical analysis methods were used for continuous and dichotomous data, respectively. All outcomes were quantitatively analyzed using the random effects model. The risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-1 tool.

RESULTS

A total of 14 studies with 767 patients were included. The mean difference in the operating time was 21.08 min (95% CI: -4.38, 46.54, I2 = 43%), favouring the laparoscopic group. The pooled odds ratio for the rate of formation of the pancreatic fistula was 0.88 (95% CI: 0.54, 1.45, I2 = 0%), favouring the robotic group. Blood loss was higher in the laparoscopic group (MD = -89.72 ml, 95% CI:-143.37 to -36.06, I2 = 93%). Other parameters, including re-exploration rate, length of hospital stay, R0 resection, rate of conversion, and spleen preservation, were similar in both groups.

CONCLUSION

The robotic approach might be preferable to the laparoscopic approach because of the lower rate of POPF and blood loss. Larger randomised controlled trials are required to ascertain these findings.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Versus Open Surgery for Non-Metastatic Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors (pNETs): A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Background: This systematic review, using pairwise and network meta-analyses, aimed to compare the intraoperative, short-term, and long-term postoperative outcomes of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and open surgery (OS) for the management of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNETs). Methods: Studies reporting on the effects of robotic, laparoscopic, and open surgery on pNETs published before November 2023 on PubMed, Scopus, and CENTRAL were analyzed. Results: Thirty-two studies with 5379 patients were included in this review, encompassing 2251 patients undergoing MIS (1334 laparoscopic, 508 robotic, and 409 unspecified MIS) and 3128 patients undergoing OS for pNETs management. Pairwise meta-analysis revealed that the MIS group had a significantly shorter length of hospital stay ((a low certainty of evidence), MD of -4.87 (-6.19 to -3.56)); less intraoperative blood loss ((a low certainty of evidence), MD of -108.47 (-177.47 to -39.47)); and decreased tumor recurrence ((a high certainty of evidence), RR of 0.46, 95% CI (0.33 to 0.63)). Subgroup analysis indicated a higher R0 resection rate and prolonged operative time for laparoscopic surgery than for OS. The network meta-analysis ranked the robotic approach as superior in terms of the length of hospital stay, followed by the laparoscopic and OS arms. Furthermore, it favored both MIS approaches over OS in terms of the R0 resection rate. No significant differences were found in severe postoperative complications, postoperative fistula formation, mortality, readmission, reoperation, or conversion rates. Conclusions: This review supports the safety of MIS for the treatment of pNETs. However, the varying certainty of evidence emphasizes the need for higher-quality studies.

Emergency robotic surgery: the experience of a single center and review of the literature

BACKGROUNDS

Laparoscopic surgery is widely used in abdominal emergency surgery (AES), and the possibility of extending this approach to the more recent robotic surgery (RS) arouses great interest. The slow diffusion of robotic technology mainly due to high costs and the longer RS operative time when compared to laparoscopy may represent disincentives, especially in AES. This study aims to report our experience in the use of RS in AES assessing its safety and feasibility, with particular focus on intra- and post-operative complications, conversion rate, and surgical learning curve. Our data were also compared to other experiences though an extensive literature review.

METHODS

We retrospectively analysed a single surgeon series of the last 10 years. From January 2014 to December 2023, 36 patients underwent urgent or emergency RS. The robotic devices used were Da Vinci Si (15 cases) and Xi (21 cases).

RESULTS

36 (4.3%) out of 834 robotic procedures were included in our analysis: 20 (56.56%) females. The mean age was 63 years and 30% of patients were ≥ 70 years. 2 (5.55%) procedures were performed at night. No conversions to open were reported in this series. According to the Clavien-Dindo classification, 2 (5.5%) major complications were collected. Intraoperative and 30-day mortality were 0%.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study demonstrates that RS may be a useful and reliable approach also to AES and intraoperative laparoscopic complications when performed in selected hemodynamically stable patients in very well-trained robotic centers. The technology may increase the minimally invasive use and conversion rate in emergent settings in a completely robotic or hybrid approach.

Surgical Management and Long-Term Evaluation of Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors

Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNETs) arise from neuroendocrine cells and are a rare class of heterogenous tumors with increasing incidence. The diagnosis, staging, treatment, and prognosis of PNETs depend heavily on identifying the histologic features and biological mechanisms. Here, the authors provide an overview of the diagnostic workup (biomarkers and imaging), grade, and staging of PNETs. The authors also explore associated genetic mutations and molecular pathways and describe updated guidelines on surgical and systemic treatment modalities.

Evaluating the economic efficiency of open, laparoscopic, and robotic distal pancreatectomy: an updated systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This study compared the cost-effectiveness of open (ODP), laparoscopic (LDP), and robotic (RDP) distal pancreatectomy (DP).

METHODS

Studies reporting the costs of DP were included in a literature search until August 2023. Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted, and surface under cumulative ranking area (SUCRA) values, mean difference (MD), odds ratio (OR), and 95% credible intervals (CrIs) were calculated for outcomes of interest. Cluster analysis was performed to examine the similarity and classification of DP approaches into homogeneous clusters. A decision model-based cost-utility analysis was conducted for the cost-effectiveness analysis of DP strategies.

RESULTS

Twenty-six studies with 29,164 patients were included in the analysis. Among the three groups, LDP had the lowest overall costs, while ODP had the highest overall costs (LDP vs. ODP: MD - 3521.36, 95% CrI - 6172.91 to - 1228.59). RDP had the highest procedural costs (ODP vs. RDP: MD - 4311.15, 95% CrI - 6005.40 to - 2599.16; LDP vs. RDP: MD - 3772.25, 95% CrI - 4989.50 to - 2535.16), but incurred the lowest hospitalization costs. Both LDP (MD - 3663.82, 95% CrI - 6906.52 to - 747.69) and RDP (MD - 6678.42, 95% CrI - 11,434.30 to - 2972.89) had significantly reduced hospitalization costs compared to ODP. LDP and RDP demonstrated a superior profile regarding costs-morbidity, costs-mortality, costs-efficacy, and costs-utility compared to ODP. Compared to ODP, LDP and RDP cost $3110 and $817 less per patient, resulting in 0.03 and 0.05 additional quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), respectively, with positive incremental net monetary benefit (NMB). RDP costs $2293 more than LDP with a negative incremental NMB but generates 0.02 additional QALYs with improved postoperative morbidity and spleen preservation. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggests that LDP and RDP are more cost-effective options compared to ODP at various willingness-to-pay thresholds.

CONCLUSION

LDP and RDP are more cost-effective than ODP, with LDP exhibiting better cost savings and RDP demonstrating superior surgical outcomes and improved QALYs.

Postoperative outcomes and costs of laparoscopic versus robotic distal pancreatectomy: a propensity-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) has established advantages over the open approach. The costs associated with robotic DP (RDP) versus laparoscopic DP (LDP) make the robotic approach controversial. We sought to compare outcomes and cost of LDP and RDP using propensity matching analysis at our institution.

METHODS

Patients undergoing LDP or RDP between 2000 and 2021 were retrospectively identified. Patients were optimally matched using age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists status, body mass index, and tumor size. Between-group differences were analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test for continuous data, and the McNemar's test for categorical data. Outcomes included operative duration, conversion to open surgery, postoperative length of stay, pancreatic fistula rate, pseudocyst requiring intervention, and costs.

RESULTS

298 patients underwent MIDP, 180 (60%) were laparoscopic and 118 (40%) were robotic. All RDPs were matched 1:1 to a laparoscopic case with absolute standardized mean differences for all matching covariates below 0.10, except for tumor type (0.16). RDP had longer operative times (268 vs 178 min, p < 0.01), shorter length of stay (2 vs 4 days, p < 0.01), fewer biochemical pancreatic leaks (11.9% vs 34.7%, p < 0.01), and fewer interventional radiological drainage (0% vs 5.9%, p = 0.01). The number of pancreatic fistulas (11.9% vs 5.1%, p = 0.12), collections requiring antibiotics or intervention (11.9% vs 5.1%, p = 0.12), and conversion rates (3.4% vs 5.1%, p = 0.72) were comparable between the two groups. The total direct index admission costs for RDP were 1.01 times higher than for LDP for FY16-19 (p = 0.372), and 1.33 times higher for FY20-22 (p = 0.031).

CONCLUSIONS

Although RDP required longer operative times than LDP, postoperative stays were shorter. The procedure cost of RDP was modestly more expensive than LDP, though this was partially offset by reduced hospital stay and reintervention rate.

Robotic-assisted organ-preserving or parenchymal-sparing pancreatectomy in pancreatic benign or low-grade malignant tumors: a single institute's experience

AIM

Robotic-assisted pancreatectomy has been widely used. Organ-preserving pancreatectomy (OPP) and parenchymal-sparing pancreatectomy (PSP) has been gradually adopted for pancreatic benign or low-grade malignant tumors. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted OPP/PSP in our institute.

METHODS

Patients undergoing robotic-assisted OPS/PSP at First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University between July 2015 and October 2021 were included in this study. The short-term and long-term outcomes of patients were retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

Seventy-two patients were enrolled, including spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy, central pancreatectomy, duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resection, and enucleation. Patients included were more likely to be young female (female: 46/72, median age: 47 years old). The median intraoperative blood loss and operation time was 50 ml and 255 min, respectively. Clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula was 20.8% (grade B: 15/72, 20.8%; no grade C). The overall complication rate was 22.2% with the median postoperative length-of-stay of 8 days. At a median follow-up time of 28.5 months, the 5-year overall survival and recurrence-free survival rate were 100.0% and 100.0%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The short-term and long-term outcomes of patients receiving robotic-assisted OPP/PSP were acceptable. Robotic-assisted OPP/PSP was a feasible and safe technique for pancreatic benign or low-grade malignant lesions.

A Comparison of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy for Benign or Malignant Lesions: A Meta-Analysis

Background: The momentum of robotic surgery is increasing, and it has great prospects in pancreatic surgery. It has been widely accepted and expanding to more and more centers. Robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) is the most recent advanced minimally invasive approach for pancreatic lesions and malignancies. However, laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) also showed good efficacy. We compared the effect of RDP with LDP using a meta-analysis. Methods: From January 2010 to June 2023, clinical trials of RDP versus LDP were determined by searching PubMed, Medline, and EMBASE. A meta-analysis was conducted to compare the effect of RDP with LDP. This meta-analysis evaluated the R0 resection rate, lymph node metastasis rate, conversion to open surgery rate, spleen preservation rate, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative pancreatic fistula, postoperative hospital stay, 90-day mortality rate, surgical cost, and total cost. Results: This meta-analysis included 38 studies. Conversion to open surgery, blood loss, and 90-day mortality in the RDP group were all significantly less than that in the LDP group (P < .05). There was no difference in lymph node resection rate, R0 resection rate, or postoperative pancreatic fistula between the two groups (P > .05). Spleen preservation rate in the LDP group was higher than that in the RDP group (P < .05). Operation cost and total cost in the RDP group were both more than that in the LDP group (P < .05). It is uncertain which group has an advantage in postoperative hospital stay. Conclusions: To some degree, RDP and LDP were indeed worth comparing in clinical practice. However, it may be difficult to determine which is absolute advantage according to current data. Large sample randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm which is better treatment. PROSPERO ID: CRD4202345576.

Distal pancreatectomy with or without radical approach, vascular resections and splenectomy: Easier does not always mean easy

Because distal pancreatectomy (DP) has no reconstructive steps and less frequent vascular involvement, it is thought to be the easier counterpart of pancreaticoduodenectomy. This procedure has a high surgical risk and the overall incidences of perioperative morbidity (mainly pancreatic fistula), and mortality are still high, in addition to the challenges that accompany delayed access to adjuvant therapies (if any) and prolonged impairment of daily activities. Moreover, surgery to remove malignancy of the body or tail of the pancreas is associated with poor long-term oncological outcomes. From this perspective, new surgical approaches, and aggressive techniques, such as radical antegrade modular pancreato-splenectomy and DP with celiac axis resection, could lead to improved survival in those affected by more locally advanced tumors. Conversely, minimally invasive approaches such as laparoscopic and robotic surgeries and the avoidance of routine concomitant splenectomy have been developed to reduce the burden of surgical stress. The purpose of ongoing surgical research has been to achieve significant reductions in perioperative complications, length of hospital stays and the time between surgery and the beginning of adjuvant chemotherapy. Because a dedicated multidisciplinary team is crucial to pancreatic surgery, hospital and surgeon volumes have been confirmed to be associated with better outcomes in patients affected by benign, borderline, and malignant diseases of the pancreas. The purpose of this review is to examine the state of the art in distal pancreatectomies, with a special focus on minimally invasive approaches and oncological-directed techniques. The widespread reproducibility, cost-effectiveness and long-term results of each oncological procedure are also taken into deep consideration.

Minimally Invasive Pancreatectomy: Robotic and Laparoscopic Developments

Minimally invasive pancreatectomy is increasingly used. Although offering potential advantages over open approaches, minimally invasive pancreatectomy has many challenges to maintain high-quality of oncologic resection. Multiple patient and surgical factors should be considered in planning laparoscopic or robotic resection, including the learning curve required to produce proficiency. For pancreaticoduodenectomy, distal pancreatectomy, and other pancreatic resections, a safe, margin-negative resection remains the goal. National and societal guidelines for the adoption of minimally invasive pancreatectomy are ongoing and will continue to be important as these techniques are further adopted.

Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis including patient subgroups

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RDP) has been suggested to hold some benefits over laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) but consensus and data on specific subgroups are lacking. This systematic review and meta-analysis reports the surgical and oncological outcome and costs between RDP and LDP including subgroups with intended spleen preservation and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).

METHODS

Studies comparing RDP and LDP were included from PubMed, Cochrane Central Register, and Embase (inception-July 2022). Primary outcomes were conversion and unplanned splenectomy. Secondary outcomes were R0 resection, lymph node yield, major morbidity, operative time, intraoperative blood loss, in-hospital mortality, operative costs, total costs and hospital stay.

RESULTS

Overall, 43 studies with 6757 patients were included, 2514 after RDP and 4243 after LDP. RDP was associated with a longer operative time (MD = 18.21, 95% CI 2.18-34.24), less blood loss (MD = 54.50, 95% CI - 84.49-24.50), and a lower conversion rate (OR = 0.44, 95% CI 0.36-0.55) compared to LDP. In spleen-preserving procedures, RDP was associated with more Kimura procedures (OR = 2.23, 95% CI 1.37-3.64) and a lower rate of unplanned splenectomies (OR = 0.32, 95% CI 0.24-0.42). In patients with PDAC, RDP was associated with a higher lymph node yield (MD = 3.95, 95% CI 1.67-6.23), but showed no difference in the rate of R0 resection (OR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.67-1.37). RDP was associated with higher total (MD = 3009.31, 95% CI 1776.37-4242.24) and operative costs (MD = 3390.40, 95% CI 1981.79-4799.00).

CONCLUSIONS

RDP was associated with a lower conversion rate, a higher spleen preservation rate and, in patients with PDAC, a higher lymph node yield and similar R0 resection rate, as compared to LDP. The potential benefits of RDP need to be weighed against the higher total and operative costs in future randomized trials.

Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy on perioperative outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Robotic surgery has become a promising surgical method in minimally invasive pancreatic surgery due to its three-dimensional visualization, tremor filtration, motion scaling, and better ergonomics. Numerous studies have explored the benefits of RDP over LDP in terms of perioperative safety and feasibility, but no consensus has been achieved yet. This article aimed to evaluate the benefits and drawbacks of RDP and LDP for perioperative outcomes. By June 2022, all studies comparing RDP to LDP in the PubMed, the Embase, and the Cochrane Library database were systematically reviewed. According to the heterogeneity, fix or random-effects models were used for the meta-analysis of perioperative outcomes. Odds ratio (OR), weighted mean differences (WMD), and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. A sensitivity analysis was performed to explore potential sources of high heterogeneity and a trim and fill analysis was used to evaluate the impact of publication bias on the pooled results. Thirty-four studies met the inclusion criteria. RDP provides greater benefit than LDP for higher spleen preservation (OR 3.52 95% CI 2.62-4.73, p < 0.0001) and Kimura method (OR 1.93, 95% CI 1.42-2.62, p < 0.0001) in benign and low-grade malignant tumors. RDP is associated with lower conversion to laparotomy (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.33-0.52, p < 0.00001), and shorter postoperative hospital stay (WMD - 0.57, 95% CI - 0.92 to - 0.21, p = 0.002), but it is more costly. In terms of postoperative complications, there was no difference between RDP and LDP except for 30-day mortality (RDP versus LDP, 0.1% versus 1.0%, p = 0.03). With the exception of its high cost, RDP appears to outperform LDP on perioperative outcomes and is technologically feasible and safe. High-quality prospective randomized controlled trials are advised for further confirmation as the quality of the evidence now is not high.

The learning curve for robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy: a single-center experience of 301 cases

Robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) has become a routine procedure in many pancreatic centers. This study aimed to describe a single-center experience with RDP since the first case, identify the learning curves of operation time and complication rate, and discuss the safety and feasibility of RDP.

Methods

We collected and retrospectively analyzed the single-center surgical experience of 301 patients undergoing RDP at Peking Union Medical College Hospital (PUMCH) between 2012 and 2022 and described the change in operation proficiency and occurrence of perioperative complications in this observational study. The learning curve was assessed using the cumulative sum method.

Results

We observed a three-phase pattern of RDP learning with operation time, complications, and postoperative pancreatic fistula as indicators and a two-phase pattern for spleening-preserving success. The mean operation time was 3.9 hours. The incidence rate of clinically significant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CRPOPF) was 17.9% and overall Clavien-Dindo complication rate (≥3) was 16.6%. The change of postoperative complicate rate was correlated with percentage of malignant cases.

Conclusion

In the last decade, an evident decrease was seen in operation time, complication rate, and an increase in the spleen-preserving rate of distal pancreatectomy. With proper training, RDP is a safe and feasible procedure.

Minimally Invasive vs Open Pancreatectomy for Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors: Multi-Institutional 10-Year Experience of 1,023 Patients

BACKGROUND

Resection of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNETs) may be associated with adverse perioperative outcomes compared with pancreatic adenocarcinoma given the high-risk nature of soft glands with small pancreatic ducts. The effect of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) pancreatectomy on outcomes of PNETs remains to be examined, which is the aim of this study.

STUDY DESIGN

Between 2009 and 2019, 1,023 patients underwent pancreatectomy for PNETs at 4 institutions. Clinicopathologic data and perioperative outcomes of patients who underwent MIS (n = 447) and open resections (n = 576) were compared.

RESULTS

Of the 1,023 patients, 51% were male, the mean age was 58, the median tumor size was 2.1 cm, and 73% were grade 1 PNETs. There were 318 (31%) pancreatoduodenectomies (PDs), 541 (53%) distal pancreatectomies (DPs), 80 (7.8%) enucleation (ENs), 72 (7%) central pancreatectomies (CPs), and 12 (1.2%) total pancreatectomies. Almost half of the patients (N = 447, 44%) had MIS operations, of which 230 (51%) were robotic and 217 (49%) were laparoscopic. Compared with open operations, MIS PDs had significantly lower operative blood loss (150 vs 400 mL, p < 0.001) and rate of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistulas (CR-POPFs; 13% vs 27%, p = 0.030), and MIS DPs had a shorter length of stay (5 vs 6 days, p < 0.001). Although MIS DPs and ENs had CR-POPFs comparable with open operations, MIS CPs had a higher CR-POPF rate (45% vs 15%, p = 0.013). After adjusting for pathological differences, MIS pancreatectomy was associated with recurrence-free survival and overall survival comparable with open pancreatectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

MIS pancreatectomy for PNETs is associated with improved outcomes or outcomes comparable with open resection.

Comparative Efficacy of Robot-Assisted and Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy: A Single-Center Comparative Study

Background

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) has become a routine procedure in pancreatic surgery. Although robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) has not been popularized yet, it has shown new advantages in some aspects, and exploring its learning curve is of great significance for guiding clinical practice.

Methods

149 patients who received RDP and LDP in our surgical team were enrolled in this retrospective study. Patients were divided into two groups including LDP group and RDP group. The perioperative outcomes, histopathologic results, long-term postoperative complications, and economic cost were collected and compared between the two groups. The cumulative summation (CUSUM) analysis was used to explore the learning curve of RDP.

Results

The hospital stay, postoperative first exhaust time, and first feeding time in the RDP group were better than those in the LDP group (P < 0.05). The rate of spleen preservation in patients with benign and low-grade tumors in the RDP group was significantly higher than that of the LDP group (P=0.002), though the cost of operation and hospitalization was significantly higher (P < 0.001). The learning curve of RDP in our center declined significantly with completing 32 cases. The average operation time, the hospital stay, and the time of gastrointestinal recovery were shorter after the learning curve node than before.

Conclusion

RDP provides better postoperative recovery and is not difficult to replicate, but the high cost was still a major disadvantage of RDP.

The Role of Robotic Visceral Surgery in Patients with Adhesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Abdominal adhesions are a risk factor for conversion to open surgery. An advantage of robotic surgery is the lower rate of unplanned conversions. A systematic review was conducted using the terms "laparoscopic" and "robotic". Inclusion criteria were: comparative studies evaluating patients undergoing laparoscopic and robotic surgery; reporting data on conversion to open surgery for each group due to adhesions and studies including at least five patients in each group. The main outcomes were the conversion rates due to adhesions and surgeons' expertise (novice vs. expert). The meta-analysis included 70 studies from different surgical specialities with 14,329 procedures (6472 robotic and 7857 laparoscopic). The robotic approach was associated with a reduced risk of conversion (OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.12-2.10, p = 0.007). The analysis of the procedures performed by "expert surgeons" showed a statistically significant difference in favour of robotic surgery (OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.03-2.12, p = 0.03). A reduced conversion rate due to adhesions with the robotic approach was observed in patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery (OR 2.62, 95% CI 1.20-5.72, p = 0.02). The robotic approach could be a valid option in patients with abdominal adhesions, especially in the subgroup of those undergoing colorectal cancer resection performed by expert surgeons.

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy: a case-matched cost-analysis between robot-assisted surgery and direct manual laparoscopy

BACKGROUND

Few studies have reported a structured cost analysis of robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP), and none have compared the relative costs between the robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) and the direct manual laparoscopy (DML) in this setting. The aim of the present study is to address this issue by comparing surgical outcomes and costs of RDP and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies (LDP).

METHODS

Eighty-eight RDP and 47 LDP performed between January 2008 and January 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. Three comparable groups of 35 patients each (Si-RDP-group, Xi-RDP group, LDP-group) were obtained matching 1:1 the RDP-groups with the LDP-group. Overall costs, including overall variable costs (OVC) and fixed costs were compared using generalized linear regression model adjusting for covariates.

RESULTS

The conversion rate was significantly lower in the Si-RDP-group and Xi-RDP-group: 2.9% and 0%, respectively, versus 14.3% in the LDP-group (p = 0.045). Although not statistically significant, the mean operative time was lower in Xi-RDP-group: 226 min versus 262 min for Si-RDP-group and 247 min for LDP-group. The overall post-operative complications rate and the length of hospital stay (LOS) were not significantly different between the three groups. In LDP-group, the LOS of converted cases was significantly longer: 15.6 versus 9.8 days (p = 0.039). Overall costs of LDP-group were significantly lower than RDP-groups, (p < 0.001). At multivariate analysis OVC resulted no longer statistically significantly different between LDP-group and Xi-RDP-group (p = 0.099), and between LDP-group and the RDP-groups when the spleen preservation was indicated (p = 0.115 and p = 0.261 for Si-RDP-group and Xi-RDP-group, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

RAS is more expensive than DML for DP because of higher acquisition and maintenance costs. The flattening of these differences considering only the variable costs, in a high-volume multidisciplinary center for RAS, suggests a possible optimization of the costs in this setting. RAS might be particularly indicated for minimally invasive DP when the spleen preservation is scheduled.

A comparison of robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: Propensity score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to assess the perioperative and pathologic outcomes of robotic distal pancreatectomy compared with a laparoscopic approach.

METHODS

A total of 121 robotic distal pancreatectomies and 992 laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies were retrospectively evaluated, comparing the demographic, perioperative and pathologic outcomes. After 1:2 propensity score matching (PSM) with 11 demographic variables, the factors were analysed again.

RESULTS

Following PSM, 104 robotic distal pancreatectomy patients were compared with 208 laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy patients. The operation time and proportion of spleen preservation were not different between the groups. The rates of open conversion were lower, whereas the hospital costs were higher in the robotic group. Other perioperative outcomes and pathologic factors did not differ between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Although robotic distal pancreatectomy is more expensive, this operation is feasible, with a higher probability of proceeding with the planned operation and with low open conversion rate.

Robotic pancreas surgery: an overview of history and update on technique, outcomes, and financials

The use robotics in surgery is gaining momentum. This approach holds substantial promise in pancreas surgery. Robotic surgery for pancreatic lesions and malignancies has become well accepted and is expanding to more and more center annually. The number of centers using robotics in pancreatic surgery is rapidly increasing. The most studied robotic pancreas surgeries are pancreaticoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy. Most studies are in their early phases, but they report that robotic pancreas surgery is safe feasible. Robotic pancreas surgery offers several advantages over open and laparoscopic techniques. Data regarding costs of robotics versus conventional techniques is still lacking. Robotic pancreas surgery is still in its early stages. It holds promise to become the new surgical standard for pancreatic resections in the future, however, more research is still needed to establish its safety, cost effectiveness and efficacy in providing the best outcomes.

Short-term and long term morbidity in robotic pancreatic surgery: a systematic review

Background

Pancreatic cancer is one of the most aggressive and lethal tumours in Western society. Pancreatic surgery can be considered a challenge for open and laparoscopic surgeons, even if the accuracy of gland dissection, due to the close relationship between pancreas, the portal vein, and mesenteric vessels, besides the reconstructive phase (in pancreaticoduodenectomy), lead to significant difficulties for laparoscopic technique. Minimally invasive pancreatic surgery changed utterly with the development of robotic surgery. However, this review aims to make more clarity on the influence of robotic surgery on long-term morbidity.

Methods

A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Scopus to identify and analyze studies published from November 2011 to September 2020 concerning robotic pancreatic surgery. The following terms were used to perform the search: "long term morbidity robotic pancreatic surgery".

Results

Eighteen articles included in the study were published between November 2011 and September 2020. The review included 2041 patients who underwent robotic pancreatic surgery, mainly for a malignant tumour. The two most common robotic surgical procedures adopted were the robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) and the robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD). In two studies, patients were divided into groups; on the one hand, those who underwent a robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD), on the other hand, those who underwent robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP). The remaining items included surgical approach such as robotic middle pancreatectomy (RMP), robotic distal pancreatectomy and splenectomy, robotic-assisted laparoscopic pancreatic dissection (RALPD), robotic enucleation of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours.

Conclusions

Comparison between robotic surgery and open surgery lead to evidence of different advantages of the robotic approach. A multidisciplinary team and a surgical centre at high volume are essential for better postoperative morbidity and mortality.

Evaluation of cost-effectiveness among open, laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) is still a matter of debate. This study compares the cost-effectiveness of open (ODP), laparoscopic (LDP) and robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP).

METHODS

Pubmed, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases were searched. Studies comparing cost-effectiveness of ODP and MIDP were included.

RESULTS

A total of 1052 titles were screened and 16 articles were included in the study, 2431 patients in total. LDP resulted the most cost-efficient procedure, with a mean total cost of 14,682 ± 5665 € and the lowest readmission rates. ODP had lower surgical procedure costs, 3867 ± 768 €. RDP was the safest approach regarding hospital stay costs (5239 ± 1741 €), length of hospital stay, morbidity, clinically relevant pancreatic fistula and reoperations.

CONCLUSION

In this meta-analysis MIDP resulted as the most cost-effective approach. LDP seems to be protective against high costs, but RDP seems to be safer.

Multiple Endocrine Neoplasia Type 1: Latest Insights

Multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 (MEN1), a rare tumor syndrome that is inherited in an autosomal dominant pattern, is continuing to raise great interest for endocrinology, gastroenterology, surgery, radiology, genetics, and molecular biology specialists. There have been 2 major clinical practice guidance papers published in the past 2 decades, with the most recent published 8 years ago. Since then, several new insights on the basic biology and clinical features of MEN1 have appeared in the literature, and those data are discussed in this review. The genetic and molecular interactions of the MEN1-encoded protein menin with transcription factors and chromatin-modifying proteins in cell signaling pathways mediated by transforming growth factor β/bone morphogenetic protein, a few nuclear receptors, Wnt/β-catenin, and Hedgehog, and preclinical studies in mouse models have facilitated the understanding of the pathogenesis of MEN1-associated tumors and potential pharmacological interventions. The advancements in genetic diagnosis have offered a chance to recognize MEN1-related conditions in germline MEN1 mutation-negative patients. There is rapidly accumulating knowledge about clinical presentation in children, adolescents, and pregnancy that is translatable into the management of these very fragile patients. The discoveries about the genetic and molecular signatures of sporadic neuroendocrine tumors support the development of clinical trials with novel targeted therapies, along with advancements in diagnostic tools and surgical approaches. Finally, quality of life studies in patients affected by MEN1 and related conditions represent an effort necessary to develop a pharmacoeconomic interpretation of the problem. Because advances are being made both broadly and in focused areas, this timely review presents and discusses those studies collectively.

Improvement in distal pancreatectomy for tumors in the body and tail of the pancreas

Background

Pancreatic resections are complex and technically challenging surgical procedures. They often come with potential limitations to high-volume centers. Distal pancreatectomy is a relatively simple procedure in most cases. It facilitates the development of up-to-date minimally invasive surgical procedures in pancreatic surgery including laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy and robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy.

Main body

To obtain a desirable long-term prognosis, R0 resection and adequate lymphadenectomy are crucial to the surgical management of pancreatic cancer, and they demand standard procedure and multi-visceral resection if necessary. With respect to combined organ resection, progress has been made in evaluating and determining when and how to preserve the spleen. The postoperative pancreatic fistula, however, remains the most significant complication of distal pancreatectomy, with a rather high incidence. In addition, a safe closure of the pancreatic remnant persists as an area of concern. Therefore, much efforts that focus on the management of the pancreatic stump have been made to mitigate morbidity.

Conclusion

This review summarized the historical development of the techniques for pancreatic resections in recent years and describes the progress. The review eventually looked into the controversies regarding distal pancreatectomy for tumors in the body and tail of the pancreas.

Update on gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors

The incidence gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (GEP-NENs) has dramatically risen over the last three decades, probably due to the increased detection of asymptomatic lesions. The diagnostic work-up for patients with suspected GEP-NENs is based on conventional imaging, endoscopy, pathology, and functional imaging, including 68Gallium-DOTATATE PET and 18F-FDG PET. The choice of the best treatment strategy should be based on the evaluation of tumor-related features and patient's characteristics. A conservative management, consisting of active surveillance or endoscopic resection, has been advocated for patients with small, incidentally discovered, nonfunctioning tumors without features of aggressiveness. On the other hand, surgery with lymphadenectomy, also with a minimally invasive approach, represents the gold standard for the curative treatment of localized disease. Moreover, surgical resection plays an important role also in the context of a multimodal treatment strategy for patients with advanced GEP-NENs. Finally, a wide range of medical therapies, comprising somatostatin analogues, peptide receptor radionuclide therapy, target therapies and several chemotherapy regimens, can be offered to patients with advanced GEP-NENs not amenable of surgical resection, according to the biological and molecular features of their disease.

Comparison between robot-assisted middle pancreatectomy and robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy for benign or low-grade malignant tumours located in the neck of the pancreas: A propensity score matched study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the short-term and long-term outcomes between robot-assisted middle pancreatectomy (RMP) and robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RDP).

METHODS

From August 2010 to May 2018, more than 800 patients were diagnosed with benign or low-grade malignant pancreatic tumours. According to the inclusion criteria, a total of 164 patients were included in our study. Among them 123 patients received RMP and 41 patients received RDP with spleen-preserving. These patients were divided into two groups, and propensity score matching (PSM) was used to minimize bias. Short-term and long-term outcomes were recorded and analysed.

RESULTS

After 1:1 matching, 38 cases of RMP and RDP were recorded and the baseline data was balanced. In the RMP group, 14 patients (36.8%) were female. In the RDP group, 13 patients (34.2%) were female. RDP had advantages in short-term outcomes including overall morbidity (28.9% vs. 60.5%, p = 0.011), Severe morbidity (0 vs. 10.5%, p = 0.017), clinical-relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) rate (10.5% vs. 36.8%, p = 0.007) and postoperative length of hospital stay (16.5 ± 8.6 days vs. 23.6 ± 12.9 days, p = 0.006). The operative time was similar; however, there were less estimated blood loss (EBL) in RMP group (31.3 ± 33.0 ml vs. 62.3 ± 38.2 ml, p<0.001). Patients in these two groups had a similar result in preservation of the pancreatic function. There was no statistic difference in incidence rate of exocrine and endocrine insufficiency between two groups (2.6% vs. 7.9%, p = 0.608; 5.3% vs. 10.5%, p = 0.671).

CONCLUSION

For benign or low-grade malignant tumours located at the neck of the pancreas, RMP and RDP could both be considered. The morbidity especially CR-POPF rate after RDP would be lower, but RMP would be more helpful in reducing EBL. RMP should be chosen with caution as it did not show a huge advantage in preserving normal pancreatic function. Further prospective randomised studies should be designed to compare these two types of surgery.

"Kimura-first" strategy for robotic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy: experiences from 61 consecutive cases in a single institution

BACKGROUND

Robotic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (RSPDP) is an ideal procedure for benign and low-grade malignant tumors in the distal pancreas, and two splenic preservation techniques (the Kimura and Warshaw techniques) can be used for RSPDP. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of the "Kimura-first" strategy for RSPDP and to investigate the risk factors affecting the preservation of the spleen and splenic vessels.

METHODS

The electronic medical records of patients who underwent robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) between October 2016 and December 2019 at our institution were retrospectively reviewed. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to identify the risk factors influencing preservation of the spleen and splenic vessels during RDP.

RESULTS

Sixty-one patients scheduled for RSPDP who received RDP were included in this study [Kimura technique, 41 patients; Warshaw technique, 11 patients; and robotic distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy (RDPS), 9 patients]. The overall splenic preservation rate with RDP was 85.2% (52/61). The preservation rate of splenic vessels with the Kimura technique with RSPDP was 78.8% (41/52). The RSPDP group had remarkably less estimated blood loss (EBL; median 50 vs. 300 mL, P=0.000) and a lower morbidity rate (13.5% vs. 44.4%, P=0.047) than the RDPS group. The logistic regression models showed that obvious splenic vessel compression by the tumor was an independent risk factor for splenic vessel preservation with RSPDP (OR 0.021, 95% CI: 0.002-0.271, P=0.003) and RDP (OR 0.019, 95% CI: 0.002-0.176, P=0.000).

CONCLUSIONS

The "Kimura-first" strategy is feasible and safe for RSPDP, with high rates of splenic and splenic vessel preservation. Obvious splenic vessel compression by the tumor can be used as a predictor of splenic vessel preservation with planned RDP.

Minimally invasive vs open pancreatectomy for nonfunctioning pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors

BACKGROUND

The mainstay of treating nonfunctioning-pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors(NF-PNETs) is surgical resection. However, minimally invasive approaches to pancreatic resection for treating NF-PNETs are not widely accepted, and the long-term oncological outcomes of such approaches remain unknown.

AIM

To determine the short- and long-term outcomes of minimally invasive pancreatic resection conducted in patients with NF-PNETs.

METHODS

Prospective databases from Severance Hospital were searched for 110 patients who underwent curative resection for NF-PNETs between January 2003 and August 2018.

RESULTS

The proportion of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) procedures performed for NF-PNET increased to more than 75% after 2013. There was no significant difference in post-operative complications (P = 0.654), including pancreatic fistula (P = 0.890) and delayed gastric emptying (P = 0.652), between MIS and open approaches. No statistically significant difference was found in disease-free survival between the open approach group and the MIS group (median follow-up period, 28.1 mo; P = 0.428). In addition, the surgical approach (MIS vs open) was not found to be an independent prognostic factor in treating NF-PNET patients [Exp(β) = 1.062; P = 0.929].

CONCLUSION

Regardless of the type of surgery, a minimally invasive approach can be safe and feasible for select NF-PNET patients.

Comparison of 3 Minimally Invasive Methods Versus Open Distal Pancreatectomy: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

The efficacy and safety of open distal pancreatectomy (DP), laparoscopic DP, robot-assisted laparoscopic DP, and robotic DP have not been established. The authors aimed to comprehensively compare these 4 surgical methods using a network meta-analysis.

Minimally Invasive Versus Open Pancreatectomies for Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Neoplasms: A Propensity-Score-Matched Study

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (PNENs) are increasingly prevalent with modern imaging, and surgical excision remains mainstay of treatment. This study aims to perform a propensity-score-matched (PSM) comparison of perioperative and oncologic outcomes following minimally invasive pancreatectomy (MIP) versus open pancreatectomy (OP) for PNEN.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed on patients who underwent curative-intent surgery for PNEN at Singapore General Hospital from 1997 to 2018. A 1:1 PSM was performed between MIP and OP, after which both groups were balanced for baseline variables.

RESULTS

We studied 134 patients who underwent surgery (36 MIP and 98 OP) for PNEN. Propensity-score-matched comparison between 35 MIP and 35 OP patients revealed that the MIP group had a longer operating time (MD = 75.0, 95% CI 15.2 to 134.8, P = 0.015), lower intraoperative blood loss (MD = - 400.0, 95% CI - 630.5 to - 169.5, P = 0.001), shorter median postoperative stay (MD = - 1.0, 95% CI - 1.9 to - 0.1, P = 0.029) and shorter median time to diet (MD = - 1.0, 95% CI - 1.9 to - 0.1, P = 0.039). There were no differences between both groups for short-term adverse outcomes and oncologic clearance. Overall survival (HR = 0.84, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.51, P = 0.761) and disease-free survival (HR = 0.57, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.64, P = 0.296) were comparable.

CONCLUSION

MIP is a safe and feasible approach for PNEN and is associated with a lower intraoperative blood loss, decreased postoperative stay and time to oral intake, at the expense of a longer operative time compared to OP.

100 Robotic Distal Pancreatectomies: The Future at Hand

INTRODUCTION

This study was undertaken to examine 100 consecutive robotic distal pancreatectomies with splenectomies, and to compare our outcomes to predicted outcomes as calculated using the American college of surgeons national surgical quality improvement program (ACS NSQIP) Surgical Risk Calculator and to the outcomes contained within NSQIP.

METHODS

Outcomes were compared with predicted outcomes, calculated using the ACS NSQIP Surgical Risk Calculator, and with outcomes documented in NSQIP for distal pancreatectomy. For illustrative purposes, data are presented as median (mean ± SD).

RESULTS

Patients who underwent robotic distal pancreatectomy were of age 67 (63 ± 13.4) years with a BMI of 29 (29 ± 6.3) kg/m², with 49% being women. Operative duration was 242 (265 ± 112.2) minutes and estimated blood loss was 110 (211 ± 233.9) mL. Predicted outcomes were similar to those reported in NSQIP. Our actual outcomes were significantly superior to the predicted outcomes for serious complication, any complication, surgical site infection, sepsis, and length of stay. Compared to NSQIP outcomes, our actual outcomes for serious complication, any complication, surgical site infection, sepsis, and delayed gastric emptying were significantly superior. Twelve percent of operations were converted to "open." There were 3 deaths within 30 days, similar to predicted outcomes. Deaths were due to sepsis (2) and respiratory failure (1).

CONCLUSION

Our patients' predicted outcomes were the same as national outcomes; our patients were not a select group. However, their actual outcomes were like or significantly superior than those predicted by NSQIP or reported in NSQIP. We believe that the robot has the future of distal pancreatectomy with or without splenectomy.

Application of artificial intelligence for the diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis of pancreatic cancer

Pancreatic cancer is a complex cancer of the digestive tract. Diagnosis and treatment can be very difficult because of unclear early symptoms, the deep anatomical location of cancer tissues, and the high degree of cancer cell invasion. The prognosis is extremely poor; the 5-year survival rate of patients with pancreatic cancer is less than 1%. Artificial intelligence (AI) has great potential for application in the medical field. In addition to AI-based applications, such as disease data processing, imaging, and pathological image recognition, robotic surgery has revolutionized surgical procedures. To better understand the current role of AI in pancreatic cancer and predict future development trends, this article comprehensively reports the application of AI to the diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis of pancreatic cancer.

Surgical Principles in the Management of Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Neoplasms

OPINION STATEMENT

Pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (PanNENs) are increasingly recognized entities, whose incidence has dramatically grown during the last two decades. Surgery plays a pivotal role in their management as it represents the only chance of cure. Since PanNENs display a wide range of aggressiveness, their surgical management needs to be tailored on tumor's and patient's characteristics. Currently, there are several open questions and burning issues in the field of PanNEN, such as the management of asymptomatic nonfunctioning pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (NF-PanNET) ≤ 2 cm. An active surveillance of these small lesions has been demonstrated to be safe although the available evidences are only based on retrospective studies. On the other hand, formal pancreatic resection associated with lymphadenectomy represents the gold standard for patients with localized NF-PanNEN > 2 cm or NF-PanNEN ≤ 2 cm in the presence of symptoms, dilation of the main pancreatic duct or suspicion of nodal metastases. Surgery plays also an important role in the setting of metastatic disease. In particular, surgery is generally recommended in the presence of low-grade, resectable, metastatic disease, but several series have reported also a survival benefit of palliative primary tumor resection in patients with unresectable liver metastases. The role of surgery in PanNEN G3 is still controversial. Indeed, surgery is associated with an improved survival in patients with well-differentiated PanNET G3, whereas there is almost no survival benefit in case of poorly differentiated lesions.

Complications of surgery for gastro-entero-pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasias

Purpose

Surgery is recommended for most patients with gastro-entero-pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasias (GEP-NENs). Rates of complications and perioperative mortality have been reported in few mostly retrospective single-center series, but there has been no detailed analysis on risk factors for perioperative complications and mortality to date.

Methods

Data of patients with GEP-NENs operated between January 2015 and September 2018 were retrieved from EUROCRINE©, a European online endocrine surgical quality registry, and analyzed regarding rate and risk factors of surgical complications. Risk factors were assessed by logistic regression.

Results

Some 376 patients (211 female, 167 male; age median 63, range 15–89 years) were included. Most NENs were located in the small intestine (SI) (n = 132) or pancreas (n = 111), the rest in the stomach (n = 34), duodenum (n = 30), appendix (n = 30), colon, and rectum (n = 22), or with unknown primary (n = 15). Of the tumors, 320 (85.1%) were well or moderately differentiated, and 147 (39.1%) of the patients had distant metastases at the time of operation. Severe complications (Dindo-Clavien ≥ 3) occurred in 56 (14.9%) patients, and 4 (1.1%) patients died perioperatively. Severe complications were more frequent in surgery for duodenopancreatic NENs (n = 31; 22.0%) compared with SI-NENs (n = 15; 11.4%) (p = 0.014), in patients with lymph node metastases operated with curative aim of surgery (n = 24; 21.4%) versus non-metastasized tumors or palliative surgery (n = 32; 12.1%) (p = 0.020), and in functioning tumors (n = 20; 23.0%) versus non-functioning tumors (n = 30; 13.5%) (p = 0.042). Complication rates were not significantly associated with tumor stage or grade.

Conclusions

Severe complications are frequent in GEP-NEN surgery. Besides duodenopancreatic tumor location, curative resection of nodal metastases and functioning tumors are risk factors for complications.

From Da Vinci Si to Da Vinci Xi: realistic times in draping and docking the robot

Robot-assisted surgery is assumed to be time consuming partially due to extra time needed in preparing the robot. The objective of this study was to give realistic times in Da Vinci Xi draping and docking and to analyse the learning curve in the transition from the Si to the Xi in an experienced team. This prospective study was held in a hospital with a high volume of robot-assisted surgery in general surgery, urology and gynaecology. Times from the moment patients entered the operating room until the surgeon took place behind console were precisely recorded during the first 6 weeks after the implementation of the Xi. In total, 65 procedures were performed and documented. The learning curve for the process of draping and docking the robot was reached after 21 and 18 cases, respectively. Mean times after completion of the learning curve were 5 min for draping and 7 min for docking and were statistically different from mean times before completion of the learning curve (p values < 0.01). In dedicated teams netto extra time needed for preparing the Xi can even be reduced to just the time needed for docking. Thus, setting up the robot should have limited impact on overall time spent in the operation room.

Full Robotic Distal Pancreatectomy: Safety and Feasibility Analysis of a Multicenter Cohort of 236 Patients

Introduction. Despite the widespread use of the robotic technology, only a few studies with small sample sizes report its application to pancreatic diseases treatment. Our aim is to present the results of a multicenter study on the safety and feasibility of robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RDP). Materials and Methods. All RDPs for benign, borderline, and malignant diseases performed in 5 referral centers from 2008 to 2016 were included. Perioperative outcomes were evaluated. Results. Two hundred thirty-six patients were included. Spleen preservation was performed in 114 cases (48.3%). Operative time was 277.8 ± 93.6 minutes. Progressive improvement in operative time was observed over the study period. Conversion rate was 6.3%. Morbidity occurred in 102 cases (43.2%), mainly due to grade A fistulas. Reoperation was required in 10 patients. Postoperatively, 2 patients died of sepsis due to a grade C fistula. Hospital readmission was necessary in 11 cases. A R0 resection was always achieved, with a mean number of 16.2 ± 15 harvested lymph nodes. Conclusion. To our knowledge, this is one of the largest RDP series. Safety and feasibility including the low conversion rate, the high spleen preservation rate, the adequate operative time, and the acceptable morbidity and mortality rates confirm the validity of this technique. Appropriate oncological outcomes have been also obtained.