OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety and advantages of robotic pancreatic surgery (RPS) based on the single-team experience with 1010 cases. METHODS: The clinical data of 1010 cases of RPS performed by a single team from November, 2011 to September, 2017 in our hospital were collected prospectively and analyzed. In most of cases the surgeries were performed using the third-generation da Vinci robotic surgical system. RESULTS: The 1010 cases receiving RPS included 417 cases of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD), 428 cases of robotic distal pancreatectomy, 60 cases of robotic central pancreatectomy, 53 cases of robotic pancreatic tumor enucleation, 3 cases of Appleby procedure, and 49 cases of other operations (including 4 cases of innovative robotic retroperitoneal laparoscopic surgery, 4 cases of robotic pancreatic tumor enucleation combined with main pancreatic duct bridging repair, 1 case of single incision robotic pancreatic tumor enucleation, and 2 cases of robotic central pancreatectomy combined with end-to-end anastomosis reconstruction). The median operative time was 210 min (30-720 min) with a median intraoperative blood loss of 80 mL (10-2000 mL), a conversion rate of 4.06% (41/1010), a blood transfusion rate of 6.7% (68/1010), a mean post-operative stay of 10.87∓6.70 days, a complication rate (beyond grade III according to Clavien-Dindo scoring system) of 8.0% (81/1010), and a pancreatic fistula rate (beyond) grade B of 9.21% (93/1010). The mortality rate of the patients was 0.69% (7/1010) in 30 days and 1.31% (12//934) in 90 days. The application of RPS in total pancreatectomy increased steadily from the rate of 10.44% in 2012 to 72.06% in 2017. CONCLUSION: This represents to our knowledge the world largest series of robotic pancreatic resections. RPS is expected to gradually replace open procedure and laparoscopic procedure to become the primary choice of approach for pancreatectomy. After the learning curve, RPS procedure including distal pancreatectomy, robotic Appleby procedure and other operations can be safely performed, and the experiences from other centers can be beneficial to reduce severe complications in the early stage of learning.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety and advantages of robotic pancreatic surgery (RPS) based on the single-team experience with 1010 cases. METHODS: The clinical data of 1010 cases of RPS performed by a single team from November, 2011 to September, 2017 in our hospital were collected prospectively and analyzed. In most of cases the surgeries were performed using the third-generation da Vinci robotic surgical system. RESULTS: The 1010 cases receiving RPS included 417 cases of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD), 428 cases of robotic distal pancreatectomy, 60 cases of robotic central pancreatectomy, 53 cases of robotic pancreatic tumor enucleation, 3 cases of Appleby procedure, and 49 cases of other operations (including 4 cases of innovative robotic retroperitoneal laparoscopic surgery, 4 cases of robotic pancreatic tumor enucleation combined with main pancreatic duct bridging repair, 1 case of single incision robotic pancreatic tumor enucleation, and 2 cases of robotic central pancreatectomy combined with end-to-end anastomosis reconstruction). The median operative time was 210 min (30-720 min) with a median intraoperative blood loss of 80 mL (10-2000 mL), a conversion rate of 4.06% (41/1010), a blood transfusion rate of 6.7% (68/1010), a mean post-operative stay of 10.87∓6.70 days, a complication rate (beyond grade III according to Clavien-Dindo scoring system) of 8.0% (81/1010), and a pancreatic fistula rate (beyond) grade B of 9.21% (93/1010). The mortality rate of the patients was 0.69% (7/1010) in 30 days and 1.31% (12//934) in 90 days. The application of RPS in total pancreatectomy increased steadily from the rate of 10.44% in 2012 to 72.06% in 2017. CONCLUSION: This represents to our knowledge the world largest series of robotic pancreatic resections. RPS is expected to gradually replace open procedure and laparoscopic procedure to become the primary choice of approach for pancreatectomy. After the learning curve, RPS procedure including distal pancreatectomy, robotic Appleby procedure and other operations can be safely performed, and the experiences from other centers can be beneficial to reduce severe complications in the early stage of learning.
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: John A Stauffer; Armando Rosales-Velderrain; Ross F Goldberg; Steven P Bowers; Horacio J Asbun Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2012-11-05 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: Jason D Wright; Cande V Ananth; Sharyn N Lewin; William M Burke; Yu-Shiang Lu; Alfred I Neugut; Thomas J Herzog; Dawn L Hershman Journal: JAMA Date: 2013-02-20 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Mustapha Daouadi; Amer H Zureikat; Mazen S Zenati; Haroon Choudry; Alan Tsung; David L Bartlett; Steven J Hughes; Ken K Lee; A James Moser; Herbert J Zeh Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Pietro Addeo; Jean Robert Delpero; Francois Paye; Elie Oussoultzoglou; Pascal R Fuchshuber; Alain Sauvanet; Antonio Sa Cunha; Yves Patrice Le Treut; Mustapha Adham; Jean-Yves Mabrut; Laurence Chiche; Philippe Bachellier Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2013-03-06 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: Brian K Goh; Tze Yi Low; Ye Xin Koh; Ser Yee Lee; Jin-Yao Teo; Juinn Huar Kam; Prema Raj Jeyaraj; Peng-Chung Cheow; Pierce K Chow; London L Ooi; Alexander Y Chung; Chung Yip Chan Journal: J Minim Access Surg Date: 2020 Oct-Dec Impact factor: 1.407