Ahmad Hamad1, Mazen S Zenati1,2, Trang K Nguyen2, Melissa E Hogg1, Herbert J Zeh1, Amer H Zureikat3. 1. Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, UPMC Pancreatic Cancer Center, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, 5150 Center Ave., Suite 421, Pittsburgh, PA, 15232, USA. 2. Department of Epidemiology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 3. Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, UPMC Pancreatic Cancer Center, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, 5150 Center Ave., Suite 421, Pittsburgh, PA, 15232, USA. zureikatah@upmc.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIM: The application of minimally invasive surgery to chronic pancreatitis (CP) procedures is uncommon. Our objective was to report the safety and feasibility of the robotic approach in the treatment of surgical sequelae of CP, and provide insights into the technique, tricks, and pitfalls associated with the application of robotics to this challenging disease entity. METHODS: A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database of patients undergoing robotic-assisted resections and/or drainage procedures for CP at the University of Pittsburgh between May 2009 and January 2017 was performed. A video of a robotic Frey procedure is also shown. RESULTS: Of 812 robotic pancreatic resections and reconstructions 39 were for CP indications. These included 11 total pancreatectomies [with and without auto islet transplantation], 8 Puestow procedures, 4 Frey procedures, 6 pancreaticoduodenectomies, and 10 distal pancreatectomies. Median age was 49, and 41% of the patients were female. The most common etiology for CP was idiopathic pancreatitis (n = 16, 46%). Median operative time was 324 min with a median estimated blood loss of 250 ml. None of the patients required conversion to laparotomy. A Clavien III-IV complication rate was experienced by 5 (13%) patients, including one reoperation. Excluding the eleven patients who underwent TP, rate of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula was 7% (Grade B = 2, Grade C = 0). No 30 or 90 day mortalities were recorded. The median length of hospital stay was 7 days. CONCLUSIONS: Use of the robotic platform is safe and feasible when tackling complex pancreatic resections for sequelae of chronic pancreatitis.
BACKGROUND/AIM: The application of minimally invasive surgery to chronic pancreatitis (CP) procedures is uncommon. Our objective was to report the safety and feasibility of the robotic approach in the treatment of surgical sequelae of CP, and provide insights into the technique, tricks, and pitfalls associated with the application of robotics to this challenging disease entity. METHODS: A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database of patients undergoing robotic-assisted resections and/or drainage procedures for CP at the University of Pittsburgh between May 2009 and January 2017 was performed. A video of a robotic Frey procedure is also shown. RESULTS: Of 812 robotic pancreatic resections and reconstructions 39 were for CP indications. These included 11 total pancreatectomies [with and without auto islet transplantation], 8 Puestow procedures, 4 Frey procedures, 6 pancreaticoduodenectomies, and 10 distal pancreatectomies. Median age was 49, and 41% of the patients were female. The most common etiology for CP was idiopathic pancreatitis (n = 16, 46%). Median operative time was 324 min with a median estimated blood loss of 250 ml. None of the patients required conversion to laparotomy. A Clavien III-IV complication rate was experienced by 5 (13%) patients, including one reoperation. Excluding the eleven patients who underwent TP, rate of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula was 7% (Grade B = 2, Grade C = 0). No 30 or 90 day mortalities were recorded. The median length of hospital stay was 7 days. CONCLUSIONS: Use of the robotic platform is safe and feasible when tackling complex pancreatic resections for sequelae of chronic pancreatitis.
Entities:
Keywords:
Chronic pancreatitis; Frey; Pancreatectomy; Puestow; Robotic surgery; Total pancreatectomy
Authors: Neil H Bhayani; Laura M Enomoto; Jennifer L Miller; Gail Ortenzi; Jussuf T Kaifi; Eric T Kimchi; Kevin F Staveley-O'Carroll; Niraj J Gusani Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2013-08-29 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: Claudio Bassi; Giovanni Marchegiani; Christos Dervenis; Micheal Sarr; Mohammad Abu Hilal; Mustapha Adham; Peter Allen; Roland Andersson; Horacio J Asbun; Marc G Besselink; Kevin Conlon; Marco Del Chiaro; Massimo Falconi; Laureano Fernandez-Cruz; Carlos Fernandez-Del Castillo; Abe Fingerhut; Helmut Friess; Dirk J Gouma; Thilo Hackert; Jakob Izbicki; Keith D Lillemoe; John P Neoptolemos; Attila Olah; Richard Schulick; Shailesh V Shrikhande; Tadahiro Takada; Kyoichi Takaori; William Traverso; Charles R Vollmer; Christopher L Wolfgang; Charles J Yeo; Roberto Salvia; Marcus Buchler Journal: Surgery Date: 2016-12-28 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Murtaza Shakir; Brian A Boone; Patricio M Polanco; Mazen S Zenati; Melissa E Hogg; Allan Tsung; Haroon A Choudry; A James Moser; David L Bartlett; Herbert J Zeh; Amer H Zureikat Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2015-04-23 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: David C Whitcomb; Luca Frulloni; Pramod Garg; Julia B Greer; Alexander Schneider; Dhiraj Yadav; Tooru Shimosegawa Journal: Pancreatology Date: 2016-02-16 Impact factor: 3.996
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: Chang-Il Kwon; Jae Hee Cho; Sung Hoon Choi; Kwang Hyun Ko; Temel Tirkes; Mark A Gromski; Glen A Lehman Journal: Korean J Intern Med Date: 2019-02-25 Impact factor: 2.884