BACKGROUND: Use of robotic surgery has gained increasing acceptance over the last few years. There are few reports, however, on advanced pancreatic robotic surgery. In fact, the indication for robotic surgery in pancreatic disease has been controversial. This paper retrospectively reviews one surgeon's experience with robotic surgery to treat pancreatic disease, and analyzes its indications and outcomes, as well as the controversy that exists. METHODS: A retrospective review of the charts of all patients who underwent robotic surgery for pancreatic disease by a single surgeon at two different institutions was carried out. RESULTS: From October 2000 to January 2009, 134 patients underwent robotic-assisted surgery for different pancreatic pathologies. All procedures were performed using the da Vinci robotic system. Of the 134 patients, 83 were female. The average age of all patients was 57 years (range 24-86 years). Mean operating room (OR) time was 331 min (75-660 min). There were 14 conversions to open surgery. Mean length of stay was 9.3 days (3-85 days). Length of stay for patients with no complications was 7.9 days (3-15 days). The postoperative morbidity rate was 26% and the mortality rate was 2.23% (three patients). Among the procedures performed were 60 pancreaticoduodenectomies, 23 spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomies, 23 splenopancreatectomies, 3 middle pancreatectomies, 1 total pancreatectomy, and 3 enucleations. Another 21 patients underwent different surgical procedures for treatment of acute and chronic pancreatitis. Two cases of pancreaticoduodenectomy were performed in outside institutions and are not included in this series. CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest series of robotic pancreatic surgery presented to date. Robotic surgery enables difficult technical maneuvers to be performed that facilitate the success of pancreatic minimally invasive surgery. The results in this series demonstrate that it is feasible and safe. Complication and mortality rates are comparable to those of open surgery but with the advantages of minimally invasive surgery.
BACKGROUND: Use of robotic surgery has gained increasing acceptance over the last few years. There are few reports, however, on advanced pancreatic robotic surgery. In fact, the indication for robotic surgery in pancreatic disease has been controversial. This paper retrospectively reviews one surgeon's experience with robotic surgery to treat pancreatic disease, and analyzes its indications and outcomes, as well as the controversy that exists. METHODS: A retrospective review of the charts of all patients who underwent robotic surgery for pancreatic disease by a single surgeon at two different institutions was carried out. RESULTS: From October 2000 to January 2009, 134 patients underwent robotic-assisted surgery for different pancreatic pathologies. All procedures were performed using the da Vinci robotic system. Of the 134 patients, 83 were female. The average age of all patients was 57 years (range 24-86 years). Mean operating room (OR) time was 331 min (75-660 min). There were 14 conversions to open surgery. Mean length of stay was 9.3 days (3-85 days). Length of stay for patients with no complications was 7.9 days (3-15 days). The postoperative morbidity rate was 26% and the mortality rate was 2.23% (three patients). Among the procedures performed were 60 pancreaticoduodenectomies, 23 spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomies, 23 splenopancreatectomies, 3 middle pancreatectomies, 1 total pancreatectomy, and 3 enucleations. Another 21 patients underwent different surgical procedures for treatment of acute and chronic pancreatitis. Two cases of pancreaticoduodenectomy were performed in outside institutions and are not included in this series. CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest series of robotic pancreatic surgery presented to date. Robotic surgery enables difficult technical maneuvers to be performed that facilitate the success of pancreatic minimally invasive surgery. The results in this series demonstrate that it is feasible and safe. Complication and mortality rates are comparable to those of open surgery but with the advantages of minimally invasive surgery.
Authors: Jordan M Winter; John L Cameron; Kurtis A Campbell; Meghan A Arnold; David C Chang; Joann Coleman; Mary B Hodgin; Patricia K Sauter; Ralph H Hruban; Taylor S Riall; Richard D Schulick; Michael A Choti; Keith D Lillemoe; Charles J Yeo Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Jean-Yves Mabrut; Laureano Fernandez-Cruz; Juan Santiago Azagra; Claudio Bassi; Georges Delvaux; Joseph Weerts; Jean-Michel Fabre; Jean Boulez; Jacques Baulieux; Jean-Louis Peix; Jean-François Gigot Journal: Surgery Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Christopher D Briggs; Christopher D Mann; Glen R B Irving; Christopher P Neal; Mark Peterson; Iain C Cameron; David P Berry Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2009-01-07 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: David A Kooby; Theresa Gillespie; David Bentrem; Attila Nakeeb; Max C Schmidt; Nipun B Merchant; Alex A Parikh; Robert C G Martin; Charles R Scoggins; Syed Ahmad; Hong Jin Kim; Jaemin Park; Fabian Johnston; Matthew J Strouch; Alex Menze; Jennifer Rymer; Rebecca McClaine; Steven M Strasberg; Mark S Talamonti; Charles A Staley; Kelly M McMasters; Andrew M Lowy; Johnita Byrd-Sellers; William C Wood; William G Hawkins Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2008-09 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Heidi Nelson; Daniel J Sargent; H Sam Wieand; James Fleshman; Mehran Anvari; Steven J Stryker; Robert W Beart; Michael Hellinger; Richard Flanagan; Walter Peters; David Ota Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-05-13 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Charles J Yeo; John L Cameron; Keith D Lillemoe; Taylor A Sohn; Kurtis A Campbell; Patricia K Sauter; JoAnn Coleman; Ross A Abrams; Ralph H Hruban Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Erin H Baker; Samuel W Ross; Ramanathan Seshadri; Ryan Z Swan; David A Iannitti; Dionisios Vrochides; John B Martinie Journal: J Gastrointest Oncol Date: 2015-08
Authors: Thijs de Rooij; Sjors Klompmaker; Mohammad Abu Hilal; Michael L Kendrick; Olivier R Busch; Marc G Besselink Journal: Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2016-02-17 Impact factor: 46.802