Literature DB >> 29799169

Initial experience with robotic pancreatic surgery in Singapore: single institution experience with 30 consecutive cases.

Brian K P Goh1,2, Tze-Yi Low1,2, Ser-Yee Lee1,2, Chung-Yip Chan1,2, Alexander Y F Chung1,2, London L P J Ooi1,2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Presently, the worldwide experience with robotic pancreatic surgery (RPS) is increasing although widespread adoption remains limited. In this study, we report our initial experience with RPS.
METHODS: This is a retrospective review of a single institution prospective database of 72 consecutive robotic hepatopancreatobiliary surgeries performed between 2013 and 2017. Of these, 30 patients who underwent RPS were included in this study of which 25 were performed by a single surgeon.
RESULTS: The most common procedure was robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) which was performed in 20 patients. This included eight subtotal pancreatectomies, two extended pancreatecto-splenectomies (en bloc gastric resection) and 10 spleen-saving-RDP. Splenic preservation was successful in 10/11 attempted spleen-saving-RDP. Eight patients underwent pancreaticoduodenectomies (five hybrid with open reconstruction), one patient underwent a modified Puestow procedure and one enucleation of uncinate tumour. Four patients had extended resections including two RDP with gastric resection and two pancreaticoduodenectomies with vascular resection. There was one (3.3%) open conversion and seven (23.3%) major (>Grade II) morbidities. Overall, there were four (13.3%) clinically significant (Grade B) pancreatic fistulas of which three required percutaneous drainage. These occurred after three RDP and one robotic enucleation. There was one reoperation for port-site hernia and no 30-day/in-hospital mortalities. The median post-operative stay was 6.5 (range: 3-36) days and there were six (20%) 30-day readmissions.
CONCLUSION: Our initial experience showed that RPS can be adopted safely with a low open conversion rate for a wide variety of procedures including pancreaticoduodenectomy.
© 2018 Royal Australasian College of Surgeons.

Entities:  

Keywords:  robotic distal pancreatectomy; robotic pancreatectomy; robotic pancreatic resection; robotic pancreatic surgery; robotic pancreatoduodenectomy

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29799169     DOI: 10.1111/ans.14673

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  ANZ J Surg        ISSN: 1445-1433            Impact factor:   1.872


  8 in total

Review 1.  International consensus statement on robotic pancreatic surgery.

Authors:  Rong Liu; Go Wakabayashi; Chinnusamy Palanivelu; Allan Tsung; Kehu Yang; Brian K P Goh; Charing Ching-Ning Chong; Chang Moo Kang; Chenghong Peng; Eli Kakiashvili; Ho-Seong Han; Hong-Jin Kim; Jin He; Jae Hoon Lee; Kyoichi Takaori; Marco Vito Marino; Shen-Nien Wang; Tiankang Guo; Thilo Hackert; Ting-Shuo Huang; Yiengpruksawan Anusak; Yuman Fong; Yuichi Nagakawa; Yi-Ming Shyr; Yao-Ming Wu; Yupei Zhao
Journal:  Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr       Date:  2019-08       Impact factor: 7.293

2.  A single institution experience with robotic and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies.

Authors:  Shi Qing Lee; Tousif Kabir; Ye-Xin Koh; Jin-Yao Teo; Ser-Yee Lee; Juinn-Huar Kam; Peng-Chung Cheow; Prema Raj Jeyaraj; Pierce K H Chow; London L Ooi; Alexander Y F Chung; Chung-Yip Chan; Brian K P Goh
Journal:  Ann Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg       Date:  2020-08-31

3.  Safety and effectiveness of the da Vinci robot with the "3+2" mode for distal pancreatectomy.

Authors:  Weipeng Zhan; Ming Hu; Caiwen Han; Hongwei Tian; Wutang Jing; Xiaofei Li; Hao Shi; Xiaojun Yang; Tiankang Guo; He Su; Yuntao Ma
Journal:  Cancer Med       Date:  2019-06-18       Impact factor: 4.452

4.  Changing trends and outcomes associated with the adoption of minimally-invasive pancreato-biliary surgery: Contemporary experience of a 'self-taught' early adopter in Southeast Asia.

Authors:  Brian K P Goh; Gerald Zeng; Tze-Yi Low; Darren W Chua; Ye-Xin Koh; Kai-Inn Lim
Journal:  J Minim Access Surg       Date:  2020 Oct-Dec       Impact factor: 1.407

5.  Changing trends and outcomes associated with the adoption of minimally invasive pancreatic surgeries: A single institution experience with 150 consecutive procedures in Southeast Asia.

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

6.  Minimally-invasive versus open pancreatoduodenectomies with vascular resection: A 1:1 propensity-matched comparison study.

Authors:  Edwin Yang; Yvette Chong; Zhongkai Wang; Ye-Xin Koh; Kai-Inn Lim; Brian K P Goh
Journal:  J Minim Access Surg       Date:  2022 Jul-Sep       Impact factor: 1.018

7.  Minimally-invasive versus open enucleation for pancreatic tumours: A propensity-score adjusted analysis.

Authors:  Tousif Kabir; Zoe Z X Tan; Nicholas Syn; Alexander Y F Chung; London L P J Ooi; Brian K P Goh
Journal:  Ann Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg       Date:  2019-08-30

8.  Short- and long-term outcomes after minimally invasive versus open spleen-saving distal pancreatectomies.

Authors:  Madeline Chee; Chuan-Yaw Lee; Ser-Yee Lee; London L P J Ooi; Alexander Y F Chung; Chung-Yip Chan; Brian K P Goh
Journal:  J Minim Access Surg       Date:  2022 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 1.407

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.