BACKGROUND: Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is a complex operation with high perioperative morbidity and mortality, even in the highest volume centers. Since the development of the robotic platform, the number of reports on robotic-assisted pancreatic surgery has been on the rise. This article reviews the current state of completely robotic PD. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed including studies published between January 2000 and July 2016 reporting PDs in which all procedural steps (dissection, resection and reconstruction) were performed robotically. RESULTS: Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria, including a total of 738 patients. Data regarding perioperative outcomes such as operative time, blood loss, mortality, morbidity, conversion and oncologic outcomes were analyzed. No major differences were observed in mortality, morbidity and oncologic parameters, between robotic and non-robotic approaches. However, operative time was longer in robotic PD, whereas the estimated blood loss was lower. The conversion rate to laparotomy was 6.5-7.8%. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic PD is feasible and safe in high-volume institutions, where surgeons are experienced and medical staff are appropriately trained. Randomized controlled trials are required to further investigate outcomes of robotic PD. Additionally, cost analysis and data on long-term oncologic outcomes are needed to evaluate cost-effectiveness of the robotic approach in comparison with the open technique.
BACKGROUND: Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is a complex operation with high perioperative morbidity and mortality, even in the highest volume centers. Since the development of the robotic platform, the number of reports on robotic-assisted pancreatic surgery has been on the rise. This article reviews the current state of completely robotic PD. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed including studies published between January 2000 and July 2016 reporting PDs in which all procedural steps (dissection, resection and reconstruction) were performed robotically. RESULTS: Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria, including a total of 738 patients. Data regarding perioperative outcomes such as operative time, blood loss, mortality, morbidity, conversion and oncologic outcomes were analyzed. No major differences were observed in mortality, morbidity and oncologic parameters, between robotic and non-robotic approaches. However, operative time was longer in robotic PD, whereas the estimated blood loss was lower. The conversion rate to laparotomy was 6.5-7.8%. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic PD is feasible and safe in high-volume institutions, where surgeons are experienced and medical staff are appropriately trained. Randomized controlled trials are required to further investigate outcomes of robotic PD. Additionally, cost analysis and data on long-term oncologic outcomes are needed to evaluate cost-effectiveness of the robotic approach in comparison with the open technique.
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: Camilo Correa-Gallego; Helen E Dinkelspiel; Isabel Sulimanoff; Sarah Fisher; Eduardo F Viñuela; T Peter Kingham; Yuman Fong; Ronald P DeMatteo; Michael I D'Angelica; William R Jarnagin; Peter J Allen Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2013-11-23 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: 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: Beiqun Zhao; Hannah M Hollandsworth; Arielle M Lee; Jenny Lam; Nicole E Lopez; Benjamin Abbadessa; Samuel Eisenstein; Bard C Cosman; Sonia L Ramamoorthy; Lisa A Parry Journal: J Surg Educ Date: 2019-09-23 Impact factor: 2.891
Authors: Marinos C Makris; Panos G Athanasopoulos; Michael Kornaropoulos; Periclis Chrysocheris; Fotios Antonakopoulos; Antonia Mathioulaki; Diamantis I Tsilimigras; Argyrios Ioannidis; Michael K Konstantinidis; Demetrios Moris; Konstantinos M Konstantinidis Journal: Mol Clin Oncol Date: 2019-10-03
Authors: Rong Liu; Guo-Dong Zhao; Wen-Bo Tang; Ke-di Zhang; Zhi-Ming Zhao; Yuan-Xing Gao; Ming-Gen Hu; Cheng-Gang Li; Xiang-Long Tan; Xuan Zhang Journal: Nan Fang Yi Ke Da Xue Xue Bao Date: 2018-02-20
Authors: Pier Cristoforo Giulianotti; Alberto Mangano; Roberto E Bustos; Eduardo Fernandes; Mario A Masrur; Valentina Valle; Antonio Gangemi; Francesco M Bianco Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2020-01-17 Impact factor: 4.584