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

Clinical efficacy and learning curve analysis of 101 robotic-assisted Warshaw procedures: a retrospective study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the clinical efficacy of robotic-assisted Warshaw procedure and analyze its learning curve.

METHODS

This retrospective case series analyzed 101 consecutive patients who underwent robotic-assisted Warshaw procedure at the Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, between November 2020 and January 2023. Patient demographics, perioperative outcomes, pathological findings, and follow-up data were collected. For continuous variables such as operative time and blood loss, the cumulative sum (CUSUM) method and best-fit curve analysis were employed to assess the learning curve. For categorical variables including major complications and textbook outcome, a 2-piece linear model was used. Patients were stratified into early learning phase and proficiency phase groups based on the identified inflection points, and perioperative outcomes were compared between groups.

RESULTS

(1) Patient demographics and perioperative outcomes: Among 101 patients (21 males [20.79%] and 80 females [79.21%], mean age 48.90 ± 11.97 years), the mean operative time was 187.09 ± 52.36 min and median blood loss was 50 ml (IQR: 20-100 ml). The Warshaw procedure was successfully completed in 91 patients (90.10%), while 7 patients (6.93%) required conversion to distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy, and 3 patients (2.97%) were converted to open surgery. Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) occurred in 18 patients (17.82%), including 13 biochemical leaks (12.87%) and 5 grade B fistulas (4.95%), with no grade C fistulas. No chylous fistula or delayed gastric emptying was observed. Postoperative hemorrhage occurred in 5 patients (4.95%) and intra-abdominal infection in 3 patients (2.97%), with 2 patients (1.98%) experiencing both complications requiring reoperation. One patient (0.99%) developed bowel obstruction. The mean time to first oral intake was 2.35 ± 0.69 days. Fifty-six patients (55.44%) were discharged with drains. Median postoperative hospital stay was 6.00 days (IQR: 5.00-7.50), and mean drainage duration was 9.88 ± 2.92 days. All patients were discharged without perioperative mortality or 90 day readmission. During follow-up, 10 patients (16.13%, 10/62) developed varying degrees of splenic infarction, and 13 patients (20.96%, 13/62) developed gastric varices, but no severe complications such as splenic abscess or gastrointestinal bleeding occurred. (2) Learning curve analysis: For operative time and blood loss, CUSUM learning curves were best fitted by the equations: CUSUM(operative time) = 0.003156X3 - 1.141X2 + 83.71X - 1.092 and CUSUM(blood loss) = 0.01250X3 - 2.889X2 + 167.4X - 33.65 (where X represents case number), with R2 values of 0.936 and 0.927, respectively (P < 0.05). The CUSUM value for operative time peaked at case 45, while that for blood loss peaked at case 39. For postoperative complications, the learning curve inflection point was case 60, while for textbook outcome, it was case 85. (3) Comparison between learning phases: Using operative time (case 45) as the cutoff point, there were no significant differences in ASA scores or POPF rates between the two phases (P > 0.05). However, significant improvements were observed in operative time, blood loss, and drainage duration in the proficiency phase (P < 0.05). Using textbook outcome (case 85) as the cutoff point, significant improvements were seen in operative time, blood loss, and textbook outcome achievement (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

(1) The robotic-assisted Warshaw procedure is safe and feasible. (2) Learning curve analysis revealed that proficiency in operative time and blood loss was achieved earlier, followed by postoperative complications (60 cases), while mastery of textbook outcomes required the most experience (85 cases).

A comprehensive analysis of robotic assisted vs. laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy using propensity score matching

Using the propensity-matched methodology, this meta-analysis and comprehensive review aimed to compare robotic distal pancreatectomy with laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy in terms of perioperative and short-term oncologic outcomes. Within the scope of this investigation, complete and total adherence to the PRISMA guidelines for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses was established. The search we conducted in PubMed, Google Scholar, and EMBASE was automated to find relevant papers that matched the tendency up to July 1, 2024. The length of time spent while operating, the rate of conversion, and the collection of lymph nodes were the primary factors that were considered. Other metrics that were taken into consideration were the approximate amount of blood loss, the length of time spent in the hospital, the need for transfusions, and the occurrence of major adverse events. In the end, there were 8 studies that involved 1649 patients. Of those patients, 758 had robotic assisted distal pancreatectomy, whereas 891 underwent laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. In comparison to laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy, the robotic assisted technique did result in higher anticipated blood loss and conversion rates; however, it also required longer durations of operation due to its lengthier duration. In terms of lymph node retrieval, the duration of hospital stay, the need for blood transfusions, and the incidence of postoperative pancreatic fistula, there were no distinctions that could be considered statistically significant between the two techniques. A realistic and risk-free surgical alternative is a distal pancreatectomy that is performed with the aid of robotic technology. When compared to laparoscopic surgery, the outcomes of robot-assisted surgery were superior in terms of conversion rates to laparotomy and less anticipated intraoperative blood loss. However, the operation took longer to complete than laparoscopic surgery.

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.

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.

Short- and long-term outcomes after minimally invasive versus open spleen-saving distal pancreatectomies

Introduction:

This study aimed to compare the perioperative outcomes of patients who underwent minimally invasive spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (MI-SPDP) versus open surgery SPDP (O-SPDP). It also aimed to determine the long-term vascular patency after spleen-saving vessel-preserving distal pancreatectomies (SSVDPs).

Methods:

A retrospective review of 74 patients who underwent successful SPDP and met the study criteria was performed. Of these, 67 (90.5%) patients underwent SSVDP, of which 38 patients (21 open, 17 MIS) had adequate long-term post-operative follow-up imaging to determine vascular patency.

Results:

Fifty-one patients underwent open SPDP, whereas 23 patients underwent minimally invasive SPDP, out of which 10 (43.5%) were laparoscopic and 13 (56.5%) were robotic. Patients who underwent MI-SPDP had significantly longer operative time (307.5 vs. 162.5 min, P = 0.001) but shorter hospital stay (5 vs. 7 days, P = 0.021) and lower median blood loss (100 vs. 200 cc, P = 0.046) compared to that of O-SPDP. Minimally-invasive spleen-saving vessel-preserving distal pancreatectomy (MI-SSVDP) was associated with poorer long-term splenic vein patency rates compared to O-SSVDP (P = 0.048). This was particularly with respect to partial occlusion of the splenic vein, and there was no significant difference between the complete splenic vein occlusion rates between the MIS group and open group (29.4% vs. 28.6%, P = 0.954). The operative time was statistically significantly longer in patients who underwent robotic surgery versus laparoscopic surgery (330 vs. 173 min, P = 0.008).

Conclusion:

Adoption of MI-spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (SPDP) is safe and feasible. MI-SPDP is associated with a shorter hospital stay, lower blood loss but longer operation time compared to O-SPDP. In the present study, MI-SSVDP was associated with poorer long-term splenic vein patency rates compared to O-SSVDP.

First experience with robotic pancreatoduodenectomy in Singapore

INTRODUCTION

Recent studies reported that laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) is associated with superior perioperative outcomes compared to the open approach. However, concerns have been raised about the safety of LPD, especially during the learning phase. Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) has been reported to be associated with a shorter learning curve compared to LPD. We herein present our initial experience with RPD.

METHODS

A retrospective review of a single-institution prospective robotic hepatopancreaticobiliary (HPB) surgery database of 70 patients identified seven consecutive RPDs performed by a single surgeon in 2016-2017. These were matched at a 1:2 ratio with 14 open pancreatoduodenectomies (OPDs) selected from 77 consecutive pancreatoduodenectomies performed by the same surgeon between 2011 and 2017.

RESULTS

Seven patients underwent RPD, of which five were hybrid procedures with open reconstruction. There were no open conversions. Median operative time was 710.0 (range 560.0-930.0) minutes. Two major morbidities (> Grade 2) occurred: one gastrojejunostomy bleed requiring endoscopic haemostasis and one delayed gastric emptying requiring feeding tube placement. There were no pancreatic fistulas, reoperations or 90-day/in-hospital mortalities in the RPD group. Comparison between RPD and OPD demonstrated that RPD was associated with a significantly longer operative time. Compared to open surgery, there was no significant difference in estimated blood loss, blood transfusion, postoperative stay, pancreatic fistula rates, morbidity and mortality rates, R0 resection rates, and lymph node harvest rates.

CONCLUSION

Our initial experience demonstrates that RPD is feasible and safe in selected patients. It can be safely adopted without any compromise in patient outcomes compared to the open approach.

Current Status of Laparoscopic and Robotic Pancreatic Surgery and Its Adoption in Singapore

Despite the potential clinical advantages offered by laparoscopic pancreatic surgery (LPS), the main obstacle to its widespread adoption is the technically demanding nature of the procedure and its steep learning curve. LPS and robotic pancreatic surgery (RPS) have been proven to result in superior short-term perioperative outcomes and equivalent long-term oncological outcomes compared to the conventional open approach, with the caveat that they are performed by expert surgeons who have been trained to perform such procedures. The primary challenge faced by most pancreatic surgeons is the steep learning curve associated with these complex procedures and the need to undergo surgical training, especially with regards to laparoscopic and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. Current evidence suggests that RPS may help to shorten the lengthy learning curve required for LPS. More robust evidence—in the form of large randomised controlled trials—is needed to determine whether LPS and RPS can be safely adopted universally. Ann Acad Med Singapore 2020;49:377–83 Key words: Laparoscopic pancreatectomy, Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy, Minimally invasive pancreatic surgery, Robotic pancreatectomy, Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy

Meta-analysis of short-term outcomes comparing robot-assisted and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy

Aim: To evaluate and compare the short-term outcomes of robotic surgery and laparoscopic approach in distal pancreatectomy (DP). Materials & methods: EMBASE, PubMed, the Cochrane Library, CNKI and Wan Fang database were retrieved from the inception of electronic databases to June 2019. All analyses were performed using Stata/SE 15.1 version (StataCorp). Results: Twenty-two papers were included, four of which were prospective studies and the rest were retrospective studies. There was significant difference in spleen preservation rate (odds ratio: 2.020; 95% CI: 1.085-3.758; p = 0.027), operation time (mean difference [MD]: 27.372; 95% CI: 8.236-47.210; p = 0.000), the length of hospital stay (MD: -0.911; 95% CI: -1.287 to -0.535; p = 0.000), conversion rate (rate difference: -0.090; 95% CI: -1.287 to -0.535; p = 0.000), operation cost (MD: 2816.564; 95% CI: 1782.028-3851.064; p = 0.000). However, no significant difference was detected in estimated blood loss, total complication, severe complication, lymph nodules harvest, blood transfusion rate, total pancreatic fistula, severe pancreatic fistula, R0 resection rate and mortality. Conclusion: Both robotic and laparoscopic DP are safe and feasible. Although robotic DP increases the operation cost, the spleen-preserving rate is much higher. Robotic surgery may be an alternative approach to DP.

Minimally-invasive versus open enucleation for pancreatic tumours: A propensity-score adjusted analysis

BACKGROUNDS/AIMS

This study aims to evaluate the perioperative outcomes of minimally-invasive enucleation (MIEn) of the pancreas versus open enucleation (OEn).

METHODS

This is a retrospective review of 20 consecutive patients who underwent pancreatic enucleation at a single institution.

RESULTS

Seven patients underwent MIEn, of which 3 were robotic and 4 were laparoscopic. After propensity-adjusted analysis, the only significant difference was a reduced rate of readmissions within 30 days in the MIEn group versus the OEn group [0 vs 4 (30.8%), p=0.0464]. There were no conversions to open in the MIEn group, and median operation time was similar in both groups. There was no difference in median EBL in both groups, and none of the patients in our series required blood transfusions. The overall morbidity rate was 45.0% and the major complication (Clavien-Dindo>2) rate was 15%; which was similar between both groups. Seven (35%) patients had a Grade B/C POPF, and there was no significant difference between the two groups for this. The MIEn group had a shorter median length of stay compared to OEn [5 days (range, 3-24) vs 8.5 days (range, 5-42)] this was not significant on propensity-adjusted analysis (p=0.3195). There was no post-operative 90-day/in-hospital mortality in all 20 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Our experience demonstrates that MIEn was associated with similar perioperative outcomes and fewer readmissions compared to OEn.

Initial experience with minimally invasive extended pancreatectomies for locally advanced pancreatic malignancies: Report of six cases

BACKGROUND

Recently, there have been several reports on minimally-invasive surgery for extended pancreatectomy (MIEP) in the literature. However, to date, only a limited number of studies reporting on the outcomes of MIEP have been published. In the present study, we report our initial experience with MIEP defined according to the latest the International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery (ISPGS) guidelines.

METHODS

Over a 14-month period, a total of 6 consecutive MIEP performed by a single surgeon at a tertiary institution were identified from a prospectively maintained surgical database. EP was defined as per the 2014 ISPGS consensus. Hybrid pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) was defined as when the entire resection was completed through minimally-invasive surgery, and the reconstruction was performed open through a mini-laparotomy incision.

RESULTS

Six cases were performed including 2 robotic extended subtotal pancreatosplenectomies with gastric resection, 1 laparoscopic-assisted (hybrid) extended PD with superior mesenteric vein wedge resection, 2 robotic-assisted (hybrid) PD with portal vein resection (1 interposition Polytetrafluoroethylene graft reconstruction and 1 wedge resection) and 1 totally robotic PD with wedge resection of portal vein. Median estimated blood loss was 400 (250-1500) ml and median operative time was 713 (400-930) min. Median post-operative stay was 9 (6-36) days. There was 1 major morbidity (Grade 3b) in a patient who developed early post-operative intestinal obstruction secondary to port site herniation necessitating repeat laparoscopic surgery. There were no open conversions and no in-hospital mortalities.

CONCLUSION

Based on our initial experience, MIEP although technically challenging and associated with long operative times, is feasible and safe in highly selected cases.

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Minimally Invasive Pancreatectomies for Solid Pseudopapillary Neoplasms of the Pancreas

OBJECTIVES

We report the first systematic review and meta-analysis on minimally invasive pancreatectomy (MIP) for solid pseudopapillary neoplasms (SPPN) of the pancreas.

METHODS

A systematic review of all studies reporting patient characteristics and outcomes of MIP for SPPN was conducted.

RESULTS

We reviewed 27 studies comprising 149 patients with SPPN managed via MIP. Five were comparative retrospective cohort studies, comprising 46 and 60 patients in the minimally-invasive and open groups, respectively. Tumor size was smaller in the minimally-invasive group (mean difference, -2.20; 95% confidence interval (CI), -3.09 to -1.32; P < 0.001). The MI group had lower intraoperative blood loss (mean difference, -180.19; 95% CI, -344.28 to -16.09; P = 0.03) and transfusion requirement (relative risk, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.06-0.94; P = 0.04), and a shorter time to diet (mean difference, -2.99; 95% CI, -3.96 to -2.03; P < 0.001) and length of stay (mean difference, -3.61; 95% CI, -6.98 to -0.24; P = 0.04). There was no significant difference in operating time, margin positivity, postoperative morbidity, and postoperative pancreatic fistula rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Minimally invasive pancreatectomy for SPPN is associated with decreased intraoperative blood loss and transfusion requirements and a shorter postoperative time to diet and hospital stay.

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

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

Robotic-assisted, spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy for a solid pseudopapillary tumour in a pediatric patient: a case report and review of the literature

Solid pseudopapillary tumour is a rare carcinoma of the pancreas with low-grade malignant potential that typically presents in females in their third decade. The tumour most commonly occurs in the tail of the pancreas, although any site can be affected. Surgical resection is the standard treatment and offers an excellent prognosis. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery is an emerging technique for the treatment of pancreatic neoplasms. We report a case of a 17-year-old female with acute onset abdominal pain who was found to have a mass in the distal pancreas. A robotic-assisted laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy with spleen preservation was successfully performed, its first reported use in a pediatric patient. The patient had an uncomplicated recovery. The robotic approach can be considered for younger patients presenting with a solid pseudopapillary tumour in the distal pancreas.

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.

Evolution of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomies at a single institution

INTRODUCTION

This study aims to study the changing trends and outcomes associated with the adoption of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) at a single centre.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospective review of sixty consecutive patients who underwent MIDP from September 2006 to November 2016 at a single institution. To study the evolution of MIDP, the study population was divided into three groups consisting of twenty patients (Group I, Group II and Group III).

RESULTS

Sixty patients underwent MIDP with 11 (18.3%) requiring open conversions. The median operation time was 305 (range: 85-775) min and the median post-operative stay was 6 (range: 3-73) days. Fifteen procedures were spleen-saving pancreatectomies. Major post-operative morbidity (>Grade 2) occurred in 12 (20.0%) patients and there was no mortality or reoperations. There were 33 (55.0%) pancreatic fistulas, of which 15 (25.0%) were Grade B fistulas of which 12 (20.0%) required percutaneous drainage. Comparison between the three groups demonstrated a statistically significant increase in the frequency of procedures performed, increase in robotic-assisted procedures and proportion of asymptomatic tumours resected. There also tended to be non-significant decrease in open conversion rates from 25% to 5% between the three groups and increase in tumour size resected from 24 to 40 mm.

CONCLUSION

Comparison between the three groups demonstrated that MIDP was performed with increased frequency. There was a statistically significant increase in the frequency of resections performed for asymptomatic tumours and resections performed through robotic assistance. There was also a non-significant trend towards a decrease in open conversions and increase in the size of tumours resected.

Early experience with robot-assisted laparoscopic hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery in Singapore: single-institution experience with 20 consecutive patients

INTRODUCTION

Experience with robot-assisted laparoscopic (RAL) hepatobiliary and pancreatic (HPB) surgery remains limited worldwide. In this study, we report our early experience with RAL HPB surgery in Singapore.

METHODS

A retrospective review of the first 20 consecutive patients who underwent RAL HPB surgery at a single institution over a 34-month period from February 2013 to November 2015 was conducted. The 20 cases were performed by three principal surgeons, of which 17 (85.0%) were performed by a single surgeon.

RESULTS

The median age of patients was 56 (range 22-75) years and median tumour size was 4.0 (range 1.2-7.5) cm. The surgeries performed included left-sided pancreatectomies (n = 10), hepatectomies (n = 7), triple bypass with bile duct exploration for obstructing pancreatic head cancer with choledocholithiasis (n = 1), cholecystectomy for Mirizzi's syndrome (n = 1) and gastric resection for gastrointestinal stromal tumour (n = 1). The median operation time was 445 (range 80-825) minutes and median blood loss was 350 (range 0-1,200) mL. There was only 1 (5%) open conversion. There were 2 (10.0%) major morbidities (> Grade II on the Clavien-Dindo classification) and no 30-day/in-hospital mortalities. There was no reoperation for postoperative complications. The median postoperative stay was 5.5 (range 3-22) days.

CONCLUSION

Our initial experience confirms the feasibility and safety of RAL HPB surgery.

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

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