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

Short-term and pathologic outcomes of robotic versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for periampullary and pancreatic head malignancy: an early experience

Open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) is associated with high perioperative morbidity. Adoption of robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy (RAPD) has been slow despite ergonomic advantages, improved visualization and dexterity. We aim to report our experience comparing operative and short-term outcomes following RAPD and OPD. We did retrospective analysis of prospectively maintained database, including all consecutive patients who underwent RAPD or OPD between January 2016 and August 2019. 48 patients were included, 21 in RAPD group and 27 in OPD group. RAPD was associated with longer mean operative time (440 vs. 414.1 min) but had significantly less mean intra-operative blood loss (256.9 vs. 404.5 ml), median length of ICU stay (1 vs. 3 days), overall length of stay (11 vs. 13 days) and lower rates of SSI (23.8% vs. 63%). Both groups showed equal incidence of POPF, comparable R0 resection rates (100% vs. 96.3%) and median number of lymph nodes harvested (14 vs. 18). Rate of open conversion was 28.6% (n = 6), most commonly for bleeding (66.6%) and mesenteric vessel involvement (33.3%). When compared to first ten RAPD cases, mean operative time (483.5 vs. 400.5 min) and rate of conversion (36.36% vs. 20%) was less in last eleven cases. RAPD is significantly better than OPD in terms of intra-operative blood loss, length of ICU stay, length of total stay and SSI. The longer operative time and conversion rate associated with RAPD progressively decreased as experience accumulated and the learning curve was crossed. Further randomized controlled trials are needed to investigate cost-effectiveness and long-term oncologic survival in RAPD patients.

Effectiveness and stability of robot-assisted anastomosis in minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy

Purpose

Reconstruction using robotic assistance in pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) was expected to be an effective means to overcome the limitations of laparoscopic surgery. To our knowledge, few comparative reports exist on the outcomes of totally laparoscopic PD (TLPD) and robot-assisted laparoscopic PD (RLPD). This retrospective study aimed to analyze the surgical results of TLPD and RLPD in a high-volume pancreatic center.

Methods

We analyzed the surgical results of consecutive patients who underwent a minimally invasive PD for malignant or benign periampullary lesions between January 2016 and May 2020. Forty-three TLPD patients and 49 RLPD patients were enrolled.

Results

There were no significant differences in the demographic characteristics between the 2 groups except for tumor size, which was significantly larger in the RLPD group than in the TLPD group (mean, 3.1 cm vs. 2.5 cm; P = 0.035). The RLPD group had shorter whole operative times (mean, 400.4 minutes vs. 352.2 minutes; P = 0.003) and shorter anastomosis times than the TLPD group (mean, 94.5 minutes vs. 54.9 minutes; P < 0.001). There was no significant difference between the 2 groups in the rate of pancreatic fistulas, morbidity, and mortality. However, a significantly lower wound infection rate was found in the RLPD group relative to the TLPD group (0% vs. 9.3%, P = 0.038).

Conclusion

RLPD showed the advantage of reducing the operation time compared to TLPD as well as technical feasibility and safety.

Transition from open and laparoscopic to robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy in a UK tertiary referral hepatobiliary and pancreatic centre - Early experience of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

Pancreaticoduodenectomy is performed using an open technique (OPD) as the gold standard. An increase in those performed laparoscopically (LPD) and robotically (RPD) are now reported. We compared the short-term outcomes of RPD cases with LPD and OPD.

METHODS

A retrospective review of a prospectively collected database was undertaken of our first consecutive RPD, our first LPD and consecutive OPD cases. Those requiring venous and/or arterial resection were excluded.

RESULTS

RPD (n = 25) had longer median operating times (461 (IQR 358-564) mins) than LPD (n = 41) (330 (IQR 262.5-397.5) mins) and OPD (n = 37) (330 (IQR 257-403) mins, p < 0.0001). Estimated blood loss and transfusion requirement was less after RPD and LPD compared to OPD (p = 0.012 and p < 0.0001 respectively). No RPD cases required conversion to open operation compared to 24.4% of LPD. Morbidity was comparable with a Clavien Dindo score ≥3 in 20.00%, 24.39% and 18.92% for RPD, LPD and OPD respectively (p = 0.83). Post-operative pancreatic fistula rates were seen in 16.00%, 29.27% and 21.62% of our RPD, LPD and OPD cohorts respectively (p = 0.81). 90-day mortality was seen in 0.97% of the total cohort. Length of hospital stay (LOS) was shorter for RPD compared to both LPD (p = 0.030) and OPD (p = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

RPD is safe to perform with comparable outcomes to LPD and OPD. Further evidence is provided that a randomised controlled trial for PD techniques is required.

Oncological outcomes of robotic-assisted versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a propensity score-matched analysis

Background

Robotic-assisted minimally invasive surgery is associated with worse oncologic outcomes for some but not other types of cancers. We conducted a propensity score-matched analysis to compare oncologic outcomes of robotic-assisted laparoscopic (RPD) vs. open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).

Methods

Treatment-naïve PDAC patients undergoing either RPD or OPD at our hospital between January 2013 and December 2017 were included. Propensity score matching was conducted at a ratio of 1:2. The primary outcome was disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS).

Results

A total of 672 cases were identified. The propensity score-matched cohort included 105 patients receiving RPD and 210 patients receiving OPD. The 2 groups did not differ in the number of retrieved lymph nodes [11 (7–16) vs. 11 (6–17), P = 0.622] and R0 resection rate (88.6% vs. 89.0%, P = 0.899). There was no statistically significant difference in median DFS (14 [95% CI 11–22] vs. 12 [95% CI 10–14] months (HR 0.94; 95% CI 0.87–1.50; log-rank P = 0.345) and median OS (27 [95% CI 22–35] vs. 20 [95% CI 18–24] months (HR 0.77; 95% CI 0.57–1.04; log-rank P = 0.087) between the two groups. Multivariate COX analysis showed that RPD was not an independent predictor of DFS (HR 0.90; 95% CI 0.68–1.19, P = 0.456) or OS (HR 0.77; 95% CI 0.57–1.05, P = 0.094).

Conclusion

Comparable DFS and OS were observed between patients receiving RPD and OPD. This preliminary finding requires further confirmation with prospective randomized controlled trials.

Hybrid pancreatoduodenectomy in laparoscopic and robotic surgery: a single-center experience in China

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery is beneficial for pancreatic surgery, and the indication has been expanded to pancreatoduodenectomy (PD). The aim of this study was to share our experiences with hybrid PD in laparoscopic and robotic surgery.

METHODS

Sixty-four patients underwent hybrid PD in which specimen resection and gastrojejunostomy were performed through the laparoscopic route and pancreatojejunostomy and hepaticojejunostomy were performed via a robotic approach by the same surgeon at a single institution between July 2016 and June 2019. The primary endpoint was complications; secondary endpoints were operative time (OT), the length of hospital stay, and blood loss. The data for the patients were retrospectively obtained from electrical medical records.

RESULTS

All patients underwent surgery with the hybrid procedure. The mean OTs and estimated blood loss (EBL) were 309.7 ± 77.6 min (range 17-620 min), 160 ± 31.7 mL (range 50-800 mL). The mean number of lymph nodes retrieved was 7.3 ± 6.7 (range 0-37), and that among 45 malignant cases was 8.42 ± 6.7 (range 1-37). The average length of postoperative stay in the hospital was 11.14 ± 7.03 days (range 6-47 days). Clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistulas (POPFs) occurred in 39 (60.9%) cases, and most were biochemical leak POPF (29 cases, 45.3%); only 10 (15.6%) cases were grade B/C (8 cases were Grade B and 2 cases were Grade C treated with digital subtraction angiography). Bile leakage occurred in 2 (3.1%) patients. One (1.5%) patient had a gastric fistula, and 3 (4.7%) developed postoperative delayed gastric emptying categorized as International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) Grade A. Three (4.7%) patients were readmitted for postoperative bleeding, and 2 (3.1%) died within 30 days.

CONCLUSION

Hybrid PD with laparoscopic and robot surgery is safe and feasible. OT can be reduced by switching from the laparoscopic approach to the robotic procedure at the appropriate timepoint.

Feasibility of robotic resection of gastrointestinal stromal tumors along the entire gastrointestinal tract

Robotic surgery has been proposed over the last decade as a valid option to treat gastrointestinal malignancies in a minimally invasive method, yielding encouraging results. The authors examine the outcomes of a consecutive series of patients with stromal gastrointestinal neoplasms who were operated on using a totally robotic technique. There were 36 patients in the study, with median age 70 years. Resected tumors were located in the esophagus, stomach, duodenum, small intestine and rectum. Perioperative morbidity was 8% and no mortality occurred. R0 resection was achieved in all cases. At a median follow-up of 25 months, 35 patients were disease free while there was one case of death related to metastatic disease. Robotic surgery is a valid option to resect gastrointestinal stromal tumors anywhere along the gastrointestinal tract in a minimally invasive manner.

Robotic enucleations of pancreatic benign or low-grade malignant tumors: preliminary results and comparison with robotic demolitive resections

BACKGROUND

The incidental detection of benign to low-grade malignant small pancreatic neoplasms increased in the last decades. The surgical management of these patients is still under debate. The aim of this paper is to evaluate the safety and feasibility of robotic enucleations and to compare the outcomes with non-parenchymal sparing robotic resections.

METHODS

The study included a total of 25 patients. Nine of them underwent a robotic enucleation (EN Group) and 16 patients received a robotic demolitive resection (DR Group). Perioperative and medium-term outcomes were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

Patients' baseline characteristics were similar in the two groups except for presence of symptoms and tumor size, due to the inclusion criteria. Operative time was significantly shorter and postoperative results were better for EN group, including a significant shorter hospitalization (5 vs. 8 days, p = 0.027), reduced pancreatic leaks (22% vs. 50%, p = 0.287) and a better preservation of glandular function (100% vs. 62.5%, p = 0.066). Mortality rate was zero in both groups, with all patients free from disease at a median follow-up of 18 months.

CONCLUSIONS

The risks of under/overtreatment remain still unavoidable for benign to low-grade malignant small pancreatic neoplasms. Simple enucleation should be performed whenever oncological appropriate, to achieve the best postoperative outcomes. The adoption of robotic technique might widen the indications for parenchymal sparing, minimally invasive surgery.

Robotic-assisted versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: the results of a case-matched comparison

Robotic-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) is progressively gaining momentum. It seems to provide some potential advantages over open approach. Unfortunately, only few studies investigated the impact of RPD on the oncologic outcomes. We performed a 1:1 case-matched comparison between two groups of 35 patients affected by a malignant tumor who underwent RPD and open (OPD) pancreaticoduodenectomy from August 2014 to April 2016. Operative time was longer in the RPD group compared to OPD (355 vs 262 min, p = 0.023), whereas median blood loss (235 vs 575 ml, p = 0.016) and length of hospitalization (6.5 vs 8.9 days, p = 0.041) were lower for RPD. A significant reduction of overall postoperative morbidity rate was found in the RPD group compared to the OPD group (31.4% vs 48.6% p = 0.034). No statistically significant difference was found between the two groups in terms of overall pancreatic fistula rate, R0 resection rate, and number of harvested lymph nodes. The overall and disease-free survival at 1 and 3 years were similar. RPD is a safe and effective technique. It reduces the estimated blood loss, the length hospital of stay and the rate of complications after pancreaticoduodenectomy, while preserving a good oncologic adequacy.

International consensus statement on robotic pancreatic surgery

The robotic surgical system has been applied to various types of pancreatic surgery. However, controversies exist regarding a variety of factors including the safety, feasibility, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of robotic surgery. This study aimed to evaluate the current status of robotic pancreatic surgery and put forth experts' consensus and recommendations to promote its development. Based on the WHO Handbook for Guideline Development, a Consensus Steering Group* and a Consensus Development Group were established to determine the topics, prepare evidence-based documents, and generate recommendations. The GRADE Grid method and Delphi vote were used to formulate the recommendations. A total of 19 topics were analyzed. The first 16 recommendations were generated by GRADE using an evidence-based method (EBM) and focused on the safety, feasibility, indication, techniques, certification of the robotic surgeon, and cost-effectiveness of robotic pancreatic surgery. The remaining three recommendations were based on literature review and expert panel opinion due to insufficient EBM results. Since the current amount of evidence was low/meager as evaluated by the GRADE method, further randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are needed in the future to validate these recommendations.

Surgical and oncological outcomes of our first 59 cases of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy

PURPOSE

Robotics has shown encouraging results for a number of technically demanding abdominal surgeries including pancreaticoduodenectomy, which has originally represented a relative contraindication to the application of the minimally-invasive technique. We aimed to investigate the perioperative, clinicopathologic, and oncological outcomes of robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy by assessing a consecutive series of totally robotic procedures.

METHODS

All consecutive patients who underwent robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy were included in the present analysis. Perioperative, clinicopathologic and oncological outcomes were examined. In order to investigate the role of the learning curve, surgical outcomes were also used to compare the early and the late phase of our experience.

RESULTS

A total of 59 patients underwent surgery. Median hospital stay was 9 days (5 - 110), with an overall morbidity and mortality of 37% and 3%, respectively. Of note, the rate of clinically relevant pancreatic fistula was 11.8%. R0 resections were achieved in 96% of patients and the 3-year disease-free and overall survivals were 37.2 and 61.9%, respectively. Overall, surgical outcomes did not vary significantly between the first and the late phase of the series.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy can be performed competently. It satisfies all features of oncological adequacy and may offer a number of advantages over standard procedures in terms of surgical results.

Robotic pancreatic surgery: old concerns, new perspectives

BACKGROUND

Described for the first time in 2003, the robotic pancreatic surgery shows interesting results. The evaluation of post-operative outcomes is necessary once we describe an innovative surgical approach.

METHODS

We have performed a retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database on robotic pancreatic surgery including malignant and benign indications for surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 50 consecutive patients underwent robotic pancreatic surgery (26 pancreatico duodenectomy and 24 distal pancreatectomy) between January 2012 and July 2015 in a single centre. The overall operative time was 425 (390-620) min. In a subgroup of highly selected malignant tumours, we were able to achieve 88% of R0 resection with robotic approach. A number of lymphnodes rose significantly with growing experience (p = .025). The overall major complication rate (15%), as well as pancreatic fistula rate (16%) were acceptable. The two-year overall survival for the whole group was 65%.

CONCLUSION

The robotic pancreatic surgery in a highly selected group of patients seems safe and feasible. The cost-effectiveness and long-term oncologic outcomes need further investigations.

Safety and efficacy for robot-assisted versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This meta-analysis was conducted to compare the clinical safety and efficacy of robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (RAPD) or robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RADP) with open surgery.

METHODS

Multiple databases (PubMed, Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane Library) were searched to identify studies comparing the outcomes of RAPD and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) or RADP and open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) (up to December 31, 2017). Fixed and random effects models were applied according to different conditions.

RESULTS

Fifteen non-randomized controlled trials (11 RAPD vs. OPD and 4 RADP vs. ODP) involving 3690 patients were included. Robot-assisted surgery had longer operative time (RAPD vs. OPD: P = 0.0005; RADP vs. ODP: P < 0.00001) but lesser blood loss than open surgery (RAPD vs. OPD: P = 0.0009; RADP vs. ODP: P = 0.0007). RAPD was associated with less wound infection, a lower positive margin rate, lower overall complications, and faster postoperative off-bed activity. There was no significant difference in the lymph node yield, the rate of pancreatic fistula, delayed gastric emptying, reoperation, length of hospital stay and mortality between the two groups. Compared with ODP, RADP was associated with less blood transfusion, fewer lymph nodes harvested, lower complications and shorter hospital stay. There was no significant difference between the two groups in the rate of spleen preservation, positive margin, pancreatic fistula, and mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Robot-assisted surgery is a safe and feasible alternative to OPD and ODP with regard to perioperative outcomes. However, due to the lack of high-quality randomized controlled trials, the evidence is still limited.

Initial experience with robotic pancreatic surgery in Singapore: single institution experience with 30 consecutive cases

BACKGROUND

Presently, the worldwide experience with robotic pancreatic surgery (RPS) is increasing although widespread adoption remains limited. In this study, we report our initial experience with RPS.

METHODS

This is a retrospective review of a single institution prospective database of 72 consecutive robotic hepatopancreatobiliary surgeries performed between 2013 and 2017. Of these, 30 patients who underwent RPS were included in this study of which 25 were performed by a single surgeon.

RESULTS

The most common procedure was robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) which was performed in 20 patients. This included eight subtotal pancreatectomies, two extended pancreatecto-splenectomies (en bloc gastric resection) and 10 spleen-saving-RDP. Splenic preservation was successful in 10/11 attempted spleen-saving-RDP. Eight patients underwent pancreaticoduodenectomies (five hybrid with open reconstruction), one patient underwent a modified Puestow procedure and one enucleation of uncinate tumour. Four patients had extended resections including two RDP with gastric resection and two pancreaticoduodenectomies with vascular resection. There was one (3.3%) open conversion and seven (23.3%) major (>Grade II) morbidities. Overall, there were four (13.3%) clinically significant (Grade B) pancreatic fistulas of which three required percutaneous drainage. These occurred after three RDP and one robotic enucleation. There was one reoperation for port-site hernia and no 30-day/in-hospital mortalities. The median post-operative stay was 6.5 (range: 3-36) days and there were six (20%) 30-day readmissions.

CONCLUSION

Our initial experience showed that RPS can be adopted safely with a low open conversion rate for a wide variety of procedures including pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary disease: a comprehensive review of literature and meta-analysis of outcomes compared with open surgery

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) has been gradually attempted. However, whether MIPD is superior, equal or inferior to its conventional open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) is not clear.

METHODS

Studies published up to May 2017 were searched in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Main outcomes were comprehensively reviewed and measured including conversion to open approach, operation time (OP), estimated blood loss (EBL), transfusion, length of hospital stay (LOS), overall complications, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), delayed gastric emptying (DGE), post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), readmission, reoperation and reasons of preoperative death, number of retrieved lymph nodes (RLN), surgical margins, recurrence, and survival. The software of Review Manage version 5.1 was used for meta-analysis.

RESULTS

One hundred studies were included for systematic review and 26 out of them (totally 3402 cases, 1064 for MIPD, 2338 for OPD) were included for meta-analysis. In the early years, most articles were case reports or non-control case series studies, while in the last 6 years high-volume and comparative researches were increasing gradually. Systematic review revealed conversion rates of MIPD to OPD ranged from 0% to 40%. The mean or median OP of MIPD ranged from 276 to 657 min. The total POPF rates vary between 3.8% and 50% observed in all systematic reviewed studies. Meta-analysis demonstrated MIPD had longer OP (WMD = 99.4 min; 95%CI: 46.0 ~ 152.8, P < 0.01), lower blood loss (WMD = -0.54 ml; 95% CI, -0.88 ~ -0.20 ml; P < 0.01), lower transfusion rate (RR = 0.73, 95%CI: 0.57 ~ 0.94, P = 0.02), shorter LOS (WMD = -3.49 days; 95%CI: -4.83 ~ -2.15, P < 0.01). There was no significant difference in time to oral intake, postoperative complications, POPF, reoperation, readmission, perioperative mortality and number of retrieved lymph nodes.

CONCLUSION

Our study demonstrates MIPD is technically feasible and safety on the basis of historical studies. MIPD is associated with less blood loss, faster postoperative recovery, shorter length of hospitalization and longer operation time. These findings are waiting for being confirmed with robust prospective comparative studies and randomized clinical trials.

Technical considerations for the fully robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy

Minimally invasive surgery, including robotic surgery, has become the standard of care for many abdominal procedures. However, the technical complexity associated with pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) due to the anatomic location and oncologic characteristics of pancreatic tumors has hindered the widespread application of minimally invasive techniques to this procedure. Recent studies have reported that for experienced surgeons, the application of robotic techniques to PD is associated with equivalent oncologic outcomes and rates of complication when compared to an open operation, and may be associated with accelerated surgical recovery. Despite these encouraging results, robotic PD (RPD) is a procedure attempted by a small group of pancreatic surgeons, leading to the great heterogeneity in the techniques used to perform this operation. Herein we describe our technique for fully RPD and demonstrate its execution with a video supplement.

Robotic Pancreaticoduodenectomy: Technical Considerations

Robotic surgery can help to overcome some technical limitations of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy thanks to EndoWrist instrumentations and the 3D view. Despite the potential benefits, its employment is still low and controversial. We focused on some important technical details crucial for a safe robotic pancreatectomy. After performing 52 robotic pancreatic resections that included 10 pancreatoduodenectomies, the authors describe their technique. The review of literature on robotic and laparoscopic duodenopancreatectomy is also performed in order to evaluate possible benefits of the robotic platform. We describe the step-by-step surgical procedure, analyzing all possible troubleshooting occurring in an initial center experience. The estimated blood loss as well as the length of stay was reduced by the robotic approach. We did not observe any significant increase of pancreatic fistula rate and all other postoperative complications despite our initial learning curve. Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy is a technically advanced procedure that requires important laparoscopic and robotic skills but it shows to be safe, feasible with some clear advantages in the bleeding control and in the reconstructive phase of the procedure.

Robot-assisted surgery in elderly and very elderly population: our experience in oncologic and general surgery with literature review

BACKGROUND

Although there is no agreement on a definition of elderly, commonly an age cutoff of ≥65 or 75 years is used. Nowadays most of malignancies requiring surgical treatment are diagnosed in old population. Comorbidities and frailty represent well-known problems during and after surgery in elderly patients. Minimally invasive surgery offers earlier postoperative mobilization, less blood loss, lower morbidity as well as reduction in hospital stay and as such represents an interesting and validated option for elderly population. Robot-assisted surgery is a recent improvement of conventional minimally invasive surgery.

AIMS

We provided a complete review of old and very old patients undergoing robot-assisted surgery for oncologic and general surgery interventions.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective review of all patients undergoing robot-assisted surgery in our General Surgery Unit from September 2012 to June 2016 was conducted. Analysis was performed for the entire cohort and in particular for three of the most performed surgeries (gastric resections, right colectomy, and liver resections) classifying patients into three age groups: ≤64, 65-79, and ≥80. Data from these three different age groups were compared and examined in respect of different outcomes: ASA score, comorbidities, oncologic outcomes, conversion rate, estimated blood loss, hospital stay, geriatric events, mortality, etc.

RESULTS

Using our in-patient robotic surgery database, we retrospectively examined 363 patients, who underwent robot-assisted surgery for different diseases (402 different robotic procedures): colorectal surgery, upper GI, HPB, etc.; the oncologic procedures were 81%. Male were 56%. The mean age was 65.63 years (18-89). Patients aged ≥65 years represented 61% and ≥80 years 13%. Overall conversion rate was of 6%, most in the group 65-79 years (59% of all conversions). The more frequent diseases treated were colorectal surgery 43%, followed by hepatobilopancreatic surgery 23.4%, upper gastro-intestinal 23.2%, and others 10.4%.

DISCUSSION

Robot-assisted surgery is a safe and effective technique in aging patient population too. There was no increased risk of death or morbidity compared to younger patients in the three groups examined. A higher conversion rate was observed in our experience for patients aged 65-79. Prolonged operative time and in any cases steep positions (Trendelenburg) have not represented a problem for the majority of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

In any case, considering the high direct costs, minimally invasive robot-assisted surgery should be performed on a case-by-case basis, tailored to each patient with their specific histories and comorbidities.