BACKGROUND: Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) has been increasingly performed for patients with periampullary tumours and tumours in the pancreatic head. This method offers several technical advantages compared to open and laparoscopic surgeries. However, the surgical results often vary depending on the experience of different pancreatic centres. METHODS: A retrospective study of our first 55 cases of RPD from August 2016 to April 2020 was conducted to evaluate the perioperative outcomes of RPD and to summarize the operative experiences in a single intuition. Benign and malignant tumours in the pancreatic head or periampullary tumours without obvious vascular and adjacent organ invasion were included in this study. Perioperative characteristics and postoperative complications of the enrolled patients were retrospectively collected. RESULTS: The first 17 cases were robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RA-LPD) and the remaining 38 patients underwent total RPD. The RA-LPD group had a remarkably longer operative time than the total RPD group (415.3±89.2 vs. 362.4±75.6 min, P=0.047). The incidences of biliary leakage, chyle leakage, DGE, intra-abdominal infection and intra-abdominal haemorrhage were 3.6%, 0.0%, 5.5%, 9.1% and 5.5%, respectively. Two patients underwent relaparotomy due to severe intra-abdominal haemorrhage. The median length of hospital stay was 14 (11 to 19) days. There were no deaths during the perioperative period. CONCLUSIONS: RPD is a technically feasible procedure for selected patients with periampullary tumours and tumours in the pancreatic head in experienced hands. 2021 Gland Surgery. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND: Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) has been increasingly performed for patients with periampullary tumours and tumours in the pancreatic head. This method offers several technical advantages compared to open and laparoscopic surgeries. However, the surgical results often vary depending on the experience of different pancreatic centres. METHODS: A retrospective study of our first 55 cases of RPD from August 2016 to April 2020 was conducted to evaluate the perioperative outcomes of RPD and to summarize the operative experiences in a single intuition. Benign and malignant tumours in the pancreatic head or periampullary tumours without obvious vascular and adjacent organ invasion were included in this study. Perioperative characteristics and postoperative complications of the enrolled patients were retrospectively collected. RESULTS: The first 17 cases were robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RA-LPD) and the remaining 38 patients underwent total RPD. The RA-LPD group had a remarkably longer operative time than the total RPD group (415.3±89.2 vs. 362.4±75.6 min, P=0.047). The incidences of biliary leakage, chyle leakage, DGE, intra-abdominal infection and intra-abdominal haemorrhage were 3.6%, 0.0%, 5.5%, 9.1% and 5.5%, respectively. Two patients underwent relaparotomy due to severe intra-abdominal haemorrhage. The median length of hospital stay was 14 (11 to 19) days. There were no deaths during the perioperative period. CONCLUSIONS: RPD is a technically feasible procedure for selected patients with periampullary tumours and tumours in the pancreatic head in experienced hands. 2021 Gland Surgery. All rights reserved.
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: Stacy J Kowalsky; Mazen S Zenati; Jennifer Steve; Stephen A Esper; Kenneth K Lee; Melissa E Hogg; Herbert J Zeh; Amer H Zureikat Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2019-06 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Christopher R Shubert; Amy E Wagie; Michael B Farnell; David M Nagorney; Florencia G Que; K Marie Reid Lombardo; Mark J Truty; Rory L Smoot; Michael L Kendrick Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2015-05-21 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Joal D Beane; Mazen Zenati; Ahmad Hamad; Melissa E Hogg; Herbert J Zeh; Amer H Zureikat Journal: Surgery Date: 2019-03-21 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Marc G Besselink; L Bengt van Rijssen; Claudio Bassi; Christos Dervenis; Marco Montorsi; Mustapha Adham; Horacio J Asbun; Maximillian Bockhorn; Oliver Strobel; Markus W Büchler; Olivier R Busch; Richard M Charnley; Kevin C Conlon; Laureano Fernández-Cruz; Abe Fingerhut; Helmut Friess; Jakob R Izbicki; Keith D Lillemoe; John P Neoptolemos; Michael G Sarr; Shailesh V Shrikhande; Robert Sitarz; Charles M Vollmer; Charles J Yeo; Werner Hartwig; Christopher L Wolfgang; Dirk J Gouma Journal: Surgery Date: 2016-09-28 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Pier Cristoforo Giulianotti; Alberto Mangano; Roberto E Bustos; Federico Gheza; Eduardo Fernandes; Mario A Masrur; Antonio Gangemi; Francesco M Bianco Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2018-05-15 Impact factor: 4.584