Skip to main content
Top
Published in: World Journal of Surgery 10/2016

01-10-2016 | Original Scientific Report

Robotic-Assisted Pancreatic Resections

Authors: Ugo Boggi, Niccolò Napoli, Francesca Costa, Emanuele F. Kauffmann, Francesca Menonna, Sara Iacopi, Fabio Vistoli, Gabriella Amorese

Published in: World Journal of Surgery | Issue 10/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Robotic assistance enhances surgical dexterity and could facilitate wider adoption of laparoscopy for pancreatic resections (PR).

Methods

Data were prospectively entered into a database and analyzed retrospectively to assess feasibility and safety of robotic-assisted PR (RAPR). Additionally, robotic-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (RAPD) was compared to a contemporary group of open pancreaticoduodenectomies (OPD).

Results

Between October 2008 and October 2014, 200 consecutive patients underwent RAPR. Three procedures were converted to open surgery (1.5 %), despite 14 patients required associated vascular procedures. RAPD was performed in 83 patients (41.5 %), distal pancreatectomy in 83 (41.5 %), total pancreatectomy in 17 (8.5 %), tumor enucleation in 12 (6 %), and central pancreatectomy in 5 (2.5 %). Thirty-day and 90-day mortality rates were 0.5 and 1 %, respectively. Both deaths occurred after RAPD with vein resection. Complications occurred in 63.0 % of the patients (≥Clavien-Dindo grade IIIb in 4 %). Median comprehensive complication index was 20.9 (0-26.2). Incidence of grade B/C pancreatic fistula was 28.0 %. Reoperation was required in 14 patients (7.0 %). The risk of reoperation decreased after post-operative day 20 (OR 0.072) (p = 0.0015). When compared to OPD, RAPD was associated with longer mean operative time (527.2 ± 166.1 vs. 425.3 ± 92.7; <0.0001) but had an equivalent safety profile. The median number of examined lymph nodes (37; 28.8–45.3 vs. 36; 28–52.8) and the rate of margin positivity in patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer were also similar (12.5 vs. 45.5 %).

Conclusions

RAPR, including RAPD, are safely feasible in selected patients. The results of RAPD in pancreatic cancer are encouraging but deserve further investigation.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Gagner M, Palermo M (2009) Laparoscopic Whipple procedure: review of the literature. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 16:726–730CrossRefPubMed Gagner M, Palermo M (2009) Laparoscopic Whipple procedure: review of the literature. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 16:726–730CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference de Rooij T, Jilesen AP, Boerma D et al (2015) A nationwide comparison of laparoscopic and open distal pancreatectomy for benign and malignant disease. J Am Coll Surg 220:263–270CrossRefPubMed de Rooij T, Jilesen AP, Boerma D et al (2015) A nationwide comparison of laparoscopic and open distal pancreatectomy for benign and malignant disease. J Am Coll Surg 220:263–270CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Gagner M, Pomp A (1997) Laparoscopic pancreatic resection: is it worthwhile? J Gastrointest Surg 1:20–25CrossRefPubMed Gagner M, Pomp A (1997) Laparoscopic pancreatic resection: is it worthwhile? J Gastrointest Surg 1:20–25CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Boggi U, Amorese G, Vistoli F et al (2015) Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a systematic literature review. Surg Endosc 29:9–23CrossRefPubMed Boggi U, Amorese G, Vistoli F et al (2015) Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a systematic literature review. Surg Endosc 29:9–23CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Mehrabi A, Hafezi M, Arvin J et al (2015) A systematic review and meta-analysis of laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy for benign and malignant lesions of the pancreas: it’s time to randomize. Surgery 157:45–55CrossRefPubMed Mehrabi A, Hafezi M, Arvin J et al (2015) A systematic review and meta-analysis of laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy for benign and malignant lesions of the pancreas: it’s time to randomize. Surgery 157:45–55CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Croome KP, Farnell MB, Que FG et al (2014) Total laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: oncologic advantages over open approaches? Ann Surg 260:633–638CrossRefPubMed Croome KP, Farnell MB, Que FG et al (2014) Total laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: oncologic advantages over open approaches? Ann Surg 260:633–638CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Croome KP, Farnell MB, Que FG et al (2015) Pancreaticoduodenectomy with major vascular resection: a comparison of laparoscopic versus open approaches. J Gastrointest Surg 19:189–194CrossRefPubMed Croome KP, Farnell MB, Que FG et al (2015) Pancreaticoduodenectomy with major vascular resection: a comparison of laparoscopic versus open approaches. J Gastrointest Surg 19:189–194CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Mucksavage P, Kerbl DC, Lee JY (2011) The da Vinci® Surgical System overcomes innate hand dominance. J Endourol 25:1385–1388CrossRefPubMed Mucksavage P, Kerbl DC, Lee JY (2011) The da Vinci® Surgical System overcomes innate hand dominance. J Endourol 25:1385–1388CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Brody F, Richards NG (2014) Review of robotic versus conventional laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 28:1413–1424CrossRefPubMed Brody F, Richards NG (2014) Review of robotic versus conventional laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 28:1413–1424CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Chen S, Zhan Q, Chen JZ et al (2015) Robotic approach improves spleen-preserving rate and shortens postoperative hospital stay of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a matched cohort study. Surg Endosc. doi:10.1007/s00464-015-4101-5 PubMedCentral Chen S, Zhan Q, Chen JZ et al (2015) Robotic approach improves spleen-preserving rate and shortens postoperative hospital stay of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a matched cohort study. Surg Endosc. doi:10.​1007/​s00464-015-4101-5 PubMedCentral
11.
go back to reference Daouadi M, Zureikat AH, Zenati MS et al (2013) Robot-assisted minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy is superior to the laparoscopic technique. Ann Surg 257:128–132CrossRefPubMed Daouadi M, Zureikat AH, Zenati MS et al (2013) Robot-assisted minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy is superior to the laparoscopic technique. Ann Surg 257:128–132CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Bassi C, Dervenis C, Butturini G et al (2015) Postoperative pancreatic fistula: an international study group (ISGPF) definition. Surgery 138:8–13CrossRef Bassi C, Dervenis C, Butturini G et al (2015) Postoperative pancreatic fistula: an international study group (ISGPF) definition. Surgery 138:8–13CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Wente MN, Bassi C, Dervenis C et al (2007) Delayed gastric emptying (DGE) after pancreatic surgery: a suggested definition by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS). Surgery 142:761–768CrossRefPubMed Wente MN, Bassi C, Dervenis C et al (2007) Delayed gastric emptying (DGE) after pancreatic surgery: a suggested definition by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS). Surgery 142:761–768CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
go back to reference Petermann D, Demartines N, Schäfer M (2013) Severe postoperative complications adversely affect long-term survival after R1 resection for pancreatic head adenocarcinoma. World J Surg 37:1901–1908CrossRefPubMed Petermann D, Demartines N, Schäfer M (2013) Severe postoperative complications adversely affect long-term survival after R1 resection for pancreatic head adenocarcinoma. World J Surg 37:1901–1908CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Slankamenac K, Graf R, Barkun J et al (2013) The comprehensive complication index: a novel continuous scale to measure surgical morbidity. Ann Surg 258:1–7CrossRefPubMed Slankamenac K, Graf R, Barkun J et al (2013) The comprehensive complication index: a novel continuous scale to measure surgical morbidity. Ann Surg 258:1–7CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Boggi U, Signori S, De Lio N et al (2013) Feasibility of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. Br J Surg 100:917–925CrossRefPubMed Boggi U, Signori S, De Lio N et al (2013) Feasibility of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. Br J Surg 100:917–925CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Boggi U, Palladino S, Massimetti G et al (2015) Laparoscopic robot-assisted versus open total pancreatectomy: a case-matched study. Surg Endosc 29:1425–1432CrossRefPubMed Boggi U, Palladino S, Massimetti G et al (2015) Laparoscopic robot-assisted versus open total pancreatectomy: a case-matched study. Surg Endosc 29:1425–1432CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Boggi U, Del Chiaro M, Croce C et al (2009) Prognostic implications of tumor invasion or adhesion to peripancreatic vessels in resected pancreatic cancer. Surgery 146:869–881CrossRefPubMed Boggi U, Del Chiaro M, Croce C et al (2009) Prognostic implications of tumor invasion or adhesion to peripancreatic vessels in resected pancreatic cancer. Surgery 146:869–881CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Verbeke CS, Leitch D, Menon KV et al (2015) Redefining the R1 resection in pancreatic cancer. Br J Surg 93:1232–1237CrossRef Verbeke CS, Leitch D, Menon KV et al (2015) Redefining the R1 resection in pancreatic cancer. Br J Surg 93:1232–1237CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Venkat R, Puhan MA, Schulick RD et al (2011) Predicting the risk of perioperative mortality in patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy: a novel scoring system. Arch Surg 146:1277–1284CrossRefPubMed Venkat R, Puhan MA, Schulick RD et al (2011) Predicting the risk of perioperative mortality in patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy: a novel scoring system. Arch Surg 146:1277–1284CrossRefPubMed
23.
go back to reference Vollmer CM Jr, Sanchez N, Gondek S et al (2012) A root-cause analysis of mortality following major pancreatectomy. J Gastrointest Surg 16:89–102CrossRefPubMed Vollmer CM Jr, Sanchez N, Gondek S et al (2012) A root-cause analysis of mortality following major pancreatectomy. J Gastrointest Surg 16:89–102CrossRefPubMed
24.
go back to reference Gawlas I, Sethi M, Winner M et al (2013) Readmission after pancreatic resection is not an appropriate measure of quality. Ann Surg Oncol 20:1781–1787CrossRefPubMed Gawlas I, Sethi M, Winner M et al (2013) Readmission after pancreatic resection is not an appropriate measure of quality. Ann Surg Oncol 20:1781–1787CrossRefPubMed
25.
go back to reference Zureikat AH, Moser AJ, Boone BA et al (2013) 250 robotic pancreatic resections: safety and feasibility. Ann Surg 258:554–559PubMedPubMedCentral Zureikat AH, Moser AJ, Boone BA et al (2013) 250 robotic pancreatic resections: safety and feasibility. Ann Surg 258:554–559PubMedPubMedCentral
26.
go back to reference Giulianotti PC, Sbrana F, Bianco FM et al (2010) Robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreatic surgery: single-surgeon experience. Surg Endosc 24:1646–1657CrossRefPubMed Giulianotti PC, Sbrana F, Bianco FM et al (2010) Robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreatic surgery: single-surgeon experience. Surg Endosc 24:1646–1657CrossRefPubMed
27.
go back to reference Gumbs AA, Croner R, Rodriguez A et al (2013) 200 consecutive laparoscopic pancreatic resections performed with a robotically controlled laparoscope holder. Surg Endosc 27:3781–3791CrossRefPubMed Gumbs AA, Croner R, Rodriguez A et al (2013) 200 consecutive laparoscopic pancreatic resections performed with a robotically controlled laparoscope holder. Surg Endosc 27:3781–3791CrossRefPubMed
28.
go back to reference Mesleh MG, Stauffer JA, Bowers SP et al (2013) Cost analysis of open and laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a single institution comparison. Surg Endosc 27:4518–4523CrossRefPubMed Mesleh MG, Stauffer JA, Bowers SP et al (2013) Cost analysis of open and laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a single institution comparison. Surg Endosc 27:4518–4523CrossRefPubMed
29.
go back to reference Stauffer JA, Rosales-Velderrain A, Goldberg RF et al (2013) Comparison of open with laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a single institution’s transition over a 7-year period. HPB (Oxford) 15:149–155CrossRef Stauffer JA, Rosales-Velderrain A, Goldberg RF et al (2013) Comparison of open with laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a single institution’s transition over a 7-year period. HPB (Oxford) 15:149–155CrossRef
30.
go back to reference Ding X, Zhu J, Zhu M, Li C et al (2011) Therapeutic management of hemorrhage from visceral artery pseudoaneurysms after pancreatic surgery. J Gastrointest Surg 15:1417–1425CrossRefPubMed Ding X, Zhu J, Zhu M, Li C et al (2011) Therapeutic management of hemorrhage from visceral artery pseudoaneurysms after pancreatic surgery. J Gastrointest Surg 15:1417–1425CrossRefPubMed
31.
go back to reference Daley BJ, Cecil W, Clarke PC et al (2015) How slow is too slow? Correlation of operative time to complications: an analysis from the Tennessee Surgical Quality Collaborative. J Am Coll Surg 220:550–558CrossRefPubMed Daley BJ, Cecil W, Clarke PC et al (2015) How slow is too slow? Correlation of operative time to complications: an analysis from the Tennessee Surgical Quality Collaborative. J Am Coll Surg 220:550–558CrossRefPubMed
32.
go back to reference Chalikonda S, Aguilar-Saavedra JR, Walsh RM (2012) Laparoscopic robotic-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy: a case-matched comparison with open resection. Surg Endosc 26:2397–2402CrossRefPubMed Chalikonda S, Aguilar-Saavedra JR, Walsh RM (2012) Laparoscopic robotic-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy: a case-matched comparison with open resection. Surg Endosc 26:2397–2402CrossRefPubMed
33.
go back to reference Standop J, Glowka T, Schmitz V et al (2009) Operative re-intervention following pancreatic head resection: indications and outcome. J Gastrointest Surg 13:1503–1509CrossRefPubMed Standop J, Glowka T, Schmitz V et al (2009) Operative re-intervention following pancreatic head resection: indications and outcome. J Gastrointest Surg 13:1503–1509CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Robotic-Assisted Pancreatic Resections
Authors
Ugo Boggi
Niccolò Napoli
Francesca Costa
Emanuele F. Kauffmann
Francesca Menonna
Sara Iacopi
Fabio Vistoli
Gabriella Amorese
Publication date
01-10-2016
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
World Journal of Surgery / Issue 10/2016
Print ISSN: 0364-2313
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2323
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-016-3565-3

Other articles of this Issue 10/2016

World Journal of Surgery 10/2016 Go to the issue