BACKGROUND: Robotic assistance enhances surgical dexterity and could facilitate wider adoption of laparoscopy for pancreatic resections (PR). METHODS: Data were prospectively entered into a database and analyzed retrospectively to assess feasibility and safety of robotic-assisted PR (RAPR). Additionally, robotic-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (RAPD) was compared to a contemporary group of open pancreaticoduodenectomies (OPD). RESULTS: Between October 2008 and October 2014, 200 consecutive patients underwent RAPR. Three procedures were converted to open surgery (1.5 %), despite 14 patients required associated vascular procedures. RAPD was performed in 83 patients (41.5 %), distal pancreatectomy in 83 (41.5 %), total pancreatectomy in 17 (8.5 %), tumor enucleation in 12 (6 %), and central pancreatectomy in 5 (2.5 %). Thirty-day and 90-day mortality rates were 0.5 and 1 %, respectively. Both deaths occurred after RAPD with vein resection. Complications occurred in 63.0 % of the patients (≥Clavien-Dindo grade IIIb in 4 %). Median comprehensive complication index was 20.9 (0-26.2). Incidence of grade B/C pancreatic fistula was 28.0 %. Reoperation was required in 14 patients (7.0 %). The risk of reoperation decreased after post-operative day 20 (OR 0.072) (p = 0.0015). When compared to OPD, RAPD was associated with longer mean operative time (527.2 ± 166.1 vs. 425.3 ± 92.7; <0.0001) but had an equivalent safety profile. The median number of examined lymph nodes (37; 28.8-45.3 vs. 36; 28-52.8) and the rate of margin positivity in patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer were also similar (12.5 vs. 45.5 %). CONCLUSIONS: RAPR, including RAPD, are safely feasible in selected patients. The results of RAPD in pancreatic cancer are encouraging but deserve further investigation.
BACKGROUND: Robotic assistance enhances surgical dexterity and could facilitate wider adoption of laparoscopy for pancreatic resections (PR). METHODS: Data were prospectively entered into a database and analyzed retrospectively to assess feasibility and safety of robotic-assisted PR (RAPR). Additionally, robotic-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (RAPD) was compared to a contemporary group of open pancreaticoduodenectomies (OPD). RESULTS: Between October 2008 and October 2014, 200 consecutive patients underwent RAPR. Three procedures were converted to open surgery (1.5 %), despite 14 patients required associated vascular procedures. RAPD was performed in 83 patients (41.5 %), distal pancreatectomy in 83 (41.5 %), total pancreatectomy in 17 (8.5 %), tumor enucleation in 12 (6 %), and central pancreatectomy in 5 (2.5 %). Thirty-day and 90-day mortality rates were 0.5 and 1 %, respectively. Both deaths occurred after RAPD with vein resection. Complications occurred in 63.0 % of the patients (≥Clavien-Dindo grade IIIb in 4 %). Median comprehensive complication index was 20.9 (0-26.2). Incidence of grade B/C pancreatic fistula was 28.0 %. Reoperation was required in 14 patients (7.0 %). The risk of reoperation decreased after post-operative day 20 (OR 0.072) (p = 0.0015). When compared to OPD, RAPD was associated with longer mean operative time (527.2 ± 166.1 vs. 425.3 ± 92.7; <0.0001) but had an equivalent safety profile. The median number of examined lymph nodes (37; 28.8-45.3 vs. 36; 28-52.8) and the rate of margin positivity in patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer were also similar (12.5 vs. 45.5 %). CONCLUSIONS: RAPR, including RAPD, are safely feasible in selected patients. The results of RAPD in pancreatic cancer are encouraging but deserve further investigation.
Authors: Thijs de Rooij; Anneke P Jilesen; Djamila Boerma; Bert A Bonsing; Koop Bosscha; Ronald M van Dam; Susan van Dieren; Marcel G Dijkgraaf; Casper H van Eijck; Michael F Gerhards; Harry van Goor; Erwin van der Harst; Ignace H de Hingh; Geert Kazemier; Joost M Klaase; I Quintus Molenaar; Els J Nieveen van Dijkum; Gijs A Patijn; Hjalmar C van Santvoort; Joris J Scheepers; George P van der Schelling; Egbert Sieders; Jantien A Vogel; Olivier R Busch; Marc G Besselink Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2014-11-20 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Pier Cristoforo Giulianotti; Fabio Sbrana; Francesco Maria Bianco; Enrique Fernando Elli; Galaxy Shah; Pietro Addeo; Giuseppe Caravaglios; Andrea Coratti Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2010-01-09 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Kristopher P Croome; Michael B Farnell; Florencia G Que; K Marie Reid-Lombardo; Mark J Truty; David M Nagorney; Michael L Kendrick Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: U Boggi; S Signori; N De Lio; V G Perrone; F Vistoli; M Belluomini; C Cappelli; G Amorese; F Mosca Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2013-06 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: Claudio Ricci; Riccardo Casadei; Giovanni Taffurelli; Carlo Alberto Pacilio; Marco Ricciardiello; Francesco Minni Journal: World J Surg Date: 2018-03 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: William B Lyman; Michael Passeri; Amit Sastry; Allyson Cochran; David A Iannitti; Dionisios Vrochides; Erin H Baker; John B Martinie Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2018-11-12 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Ioannis T Konstantinidis; Zeljka Jutric; Oliver S Eng; Susanne G Warner; Laleh G Melstrom; Yuman Fong; Byrne Lee; Gagandeep Singh Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2017-12-22 Impact factor: 4.584