Minimally invasive total pancreatectomy with islet autotransplantation for chronic pancreatitis: the robotic approach.

INTRODUCTION: Total pancreatectomy with islet autotransplantation (TPIAT) treats refractory pain in chronic pancreatitis, prevents episodes of acute exacerbation, and mitigates postoperative brittle diabetes. The minimally invasive (MIS) approach offers a decreased surgical access trauma and enhanced recovery. Having established a laparoscopic TPIAT program, we adopted a robotic approach (R-TPIAT) and studied patient outcomes compared to open TPIAT. METHODS: Between 2013 and 2021, 61 adult patients underwent TPIAT after a comprehensive evaluation (97% chronic pancreatitis). Pancreatic islets were isolated on-site during the procedure. We analyzed and compared intraoperative surgical and islet characteristics, postoperative morbidity and mortality, and 1-year glycemic outcomes. RESULTS: MIS-TPIAT was performed in 41 patients (67%, 15 robotic and 26 laparoscopic), and was associated with a shorter mean length of intensive care unit stay compared to open TPIAT (2.9 vs 4.5 days, p = 0.002). R-TPIAT replaced laparoscopic TPIAT in 2017 as the MIS approach of choice and demonstrated decreased blood loss compared to open TPIAT (324 vs 843 mL, p = 0.004), similar operative time (609 vs 562 min), 30-day readmission rate (7% vs 15%), and 90-day complication rate (13% vs 20%). The glycemic outcomes including C-peptide detection at 1-year (73% vs 88%) and insulin dependence at 1-year (75% vs 92%) did not differ. The mean length of hospital stay after R-TPIAT was 8.6 days, shorter than for laparoscopic (11.5 days, p = 0.031) and open TPIAT (12.6 days, p = 0.017). Both MIS approaches had a 1-year mortality rate of 0%. CONCLUSIONS: R-TPIAT was associated with a 33% reduction in length of hospital stay (4-day benefit) compared to open TPIAT. R-TPIAT was similar to open TPIAT on measures of feasibility, safety, pain control, and 1-year glycemic outcomes. Our data suggest that robotic technology, a new component in the multidisciplinary therapy of TPIAT, is poised to develop into the primary surgical approach for experienced pancreatic surgeons.

Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy is associated with a higher incidence of postoperative venous thromboembolism when compared to the open approach: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Despite the increased use of minimally invasive approaches for pancreatoduodenectomy (PD), the association between surgical approach and venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk is still unknown. This study aims to compare VTE rates following open (OPD) and minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD). METHOD: MEDLINE, Web of Sciences and EMBASE databases were searched to identify eligible studies. Studies were considered suitable if the incidence of postoperative VTE in open and minimally invasive (laparoscopic or robotic) pancreatic surgery was reported. The review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. RESULTS: Five studies including 12 984 patients met the inclusion criteria and were considered for meta-analysis. A total of 11 060 patients underwent OPD and 1924 MIPD. Overall, patients who underwent OPD had a lower rate of VTE compared to MIPD (3.6 % vs 4.6 %, OR (95 % CI) = 0.66 (0.52-0.85), p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis showed similar results for pulmonary embolism (PE) (1.1 % in OPD vs 1.9 % in MIPD, OR (95 % CI) = 0.54 (0.36-0.80), p 0.002) and deep venous thrombosis (DVT) (1.3 % in OPD vs 3.1 % in MIPD, OR (95 % CI) = 0.48 (0.29-0.79), p 0.004). CONCLUSION: Patients who undergo minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy have a higher incidence of postoperative VTE when compared to open pancreatoduodenectomy.

Oncological outcomes of robotic pancreatectomy in patients with pancreatic cancer who receive adjuvant chemotherapy: A propensity score-matched retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Limited data are available regarding long-term oncological outcomes in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) who undergo robotic pancreatectomy (RP). METHOD: All patients who underwent RP and open pancreatectomy (OP) for resectable PDAC between January 2011 and December 2019 were included. The RP group was matched 1:1 with OP group by propensity score matching (PSM). The oncological outcomes were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: Overall, 1606 patients were included in this study. After PSM, a well-balanced cohort of 335 patients in each group was selected for further analysis. The RP group had shorter operative time (210 min vs. 240 min, P < 0.001), lower estimated blood loss (200 ml vs. 300 ml, P = 0.011), lower wound infection rates (4.5% vs. 10.1%, P = 0.005) and shorter length of postoperative hospital stay (15 days vs. 17 days, P = 0.001) compared to the OP group, with no significant differences in other perioperative outcomes. OS was comparable between the two groups (31 months vs. 28 months, P = 0.077); however, RFS was improved in the RP group (17 months vs. 14 months, P = 0.015). Subgroup analysis showed that patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) in the RP group had better RFS than the similar patient cohort in the OP group (17 months vs. 14 months, P = 0.024). CONCLUSION: Robotic pancreatectomy is safe and oncologically effective for resectable PDAC. OS was comparable between RP and OP, and RFS was improved in the RP group, especially in patients who receive AC.

A retrospective comparative study of robotic distal pancreatectomy with or without splenic vessel and spleen preservation.

BACKGROUND: Robotic distal pancreatectomy has been accepted to be safe and effective for pancreatic tail lesion. Whether spleen preservation by preserving the splenic vessels with robot assistance is feasible and beneficial remains controversial. Here we would like to compare the operative outcomes of robotic distal pancreatectomy and splenectomy (DPS) with robotic spleen preserving distal pancreatectomy by means of splenic vessel preservation (SVP). METHODS: Between March 2011 and September 2019, 56 consecutive patients undergoing robotic distal pancreatectomy were identified, with 28 patients in each group. Patient demographics, histopathology findings and operative outcomes were prospectively collected and compared between the two groups. A subgroup analysis was made after excluding malignant and pancreatic lesions >6 cm in the DPS group. RESULTS: The two groups had similar conversion rate, blood loss, morbidity and pancreatic fistula rate. There was no operative mortality. The SVP group had shorter median operative time (245 vs 303.5 min, P = 0.019) and shorter median hospital stay (5 vs 6 days, P = 0.019) than the DPS group. However, all malignant lesions occurred in the DPS group and lesion size in DPS group was significantly larger. After matching, there were 28 SVP and 15 DPS. The histopathology findings and lesion size became comparable. The SVP group still had shorter operative time (245 vs 290 min, P = 0.022) and shorter hospital stay (5 vs 7 days, P = 0.014) than the DPS group. CONCLUSION: Apart from avoiding risk of overwhelming postsplenectomy sepsis, robotic SVP had additional advantage of shorter operative time and shorter hospital stay than robotic DPS.

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

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to compare the perioperative outcomes of patients who underwent minimally invasive spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (MI-SPDP) versus open surgery SPDP (O-SPDP). It also aimed to determine the long-term vascular patency after spleen-saving vessel-preserving distal pancreatectomies (SSVDPs). METHODS: A retrospective review of 74 patients who underwent successful SPDP and met the study criteria was performed. Of these, 67 (90.5%) patients underwent SSVDP, of which 38 patients (21 open, 17 MIS) had adequate long-term post-operative follow-up imaging to determine vascular patency. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients underwent open SPDP, whereas 23 patients underwent minimally invasive SPDP, out of which 10 (43.5%) were laparoscopic and 13 (56.5%) were robotic. Patients who underwent MI-SPDP had significantly longer operative time (307.5 vs. 162.5 min, P = 0.001) but shorter hospital stay (5 vs. 7 days, P = 0.021) and lower median blood loss (100 vs. 200 cc, P = 0.046) compared to that of O-SPDP. Minimally-invasive spleen-saving vessel-preserving distal pancreatectomy (MI-SSVDP) was associated with poorer long-term splenic vein patency rates compared to O-SSVDP (P = 0.048). This was particularly with respect to partial occlusion of the splenic vein, and there was no significant difference between the complete splenic vein occlusion rates between the MIS group and open group (29.4% vs. 28.6%, P = 0.954). The operative time was statistically significantly longer in patients who underwent robotic surgery versus laparoscopic surgery (330 vs. 173 min, P = 0.008). CONCLUSION: Adoption of MI-spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (SPDP) is safe and feasible. MI-SPDP is associated with a shorter hospital stay, lower blood loss but longer operation time compared to O-SPDP. In the present study, MI-SSVDP was associated with poorer long-term splenic vein patency rates compared to O-SSVDP.

The current status and future directions of robotic pancreatectomy.

Robotic surgery has emerged as an alternative to laparoscopic surgery and it has also been applied to pancreatectomy. With the increase in the number of robotic pancreatectomies, several studies comparing robotic pancreatectomy and conventional open or laparoscopic pancreatectomy have been published. However, the use of robotic pancreatectomy remains controversial. In this review, we aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of the current status of robotic pancreatectomy. Various aspects of robotic pancreatectomy and conventional open or laparoscopic pancreatectomy are compared, including the benefits, limitations, oncological efficacy, learning curves, and costs. Both robotic pancreatoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy have favorable or comparable outcomes to conventional procedures, and robotic pancreatectomy has the potential to be an alternative to open or laparoscopic procedures. However, there are still several disadvantages to robotic platforms, such as prolonged operative duration and the high cost of the procedure. These disadvantages will be improved by developing instruments, overcoming the learning curve, and increasing the number of robotic pancreatectomies. In addition, robotic pancreatectomy is still in the introductory period in most centers and should only be used in accordance with strict indications.

Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies: A systematic review and meta-analysis on costs and perioperative outcome.

AIM: The aim of this meta-analysis is to compare perioperative outcomes and costs of robotic and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (RDP and LDP). MATERIAL AND METHODS: In accordance with the PRISMA guidelines, we searched Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane and Web of Science for reports published before December 2020. RESULTS: The literature search identified 11 papers (1 187 patients). RDP showed a lower conversion rate (odds ratio: 2.56, 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 1.31 to 5.00) with no significant differences in bleeding and operative time, complications ≥ Clavien-Dindo grade III, pancreatic fistulas and length of stay. Despite RDP presenting higher costs in all included studies, none of these differences were significant. However, RDP showed higher total costs than LDP (standardized mean differences [SMD]: -1.18, 95% CI: -1.97 to -0.39). A subgroup analysis according to the continent of origin showed that studies coming from Asian research groups kept showing significant differences (SMD: -2.62, 95% CI: -3.38 to -1.85), while Western groups did not confirm these findings. CONCLUSION: Based on low-quality evidence, despite some potential technical advantages, RDP still seems to be costlier than LDP.

Feasibility and safety of robotic-assisted total pancreatectomy: a pilot western series.

This study was designed to demonstrate non-inferiority of robot-assisted total pancreatectomy (RATP) to open total pancreatectomy (OPT) based on an intention-to-treat analysis, having occurrence of severe post-operative complications (SPC) as primary study endpoint. The two groups were matched (2:1) by propensity scores. Assuming a rate of SPC of 22.5% (non-inferiority margin: 15%; α: 0.05; ß: 0.20; power: 80%), a total of 25 patients were required per group. During the study period (October 2008-December 2019), 209 patients received a total pancreatectomy. After application of exclusion and inclusion criteria, matched groups were extracted from an overall cohort of 132 patients (OPT: 107; RATP: 25). Before matching, the two groups were different with respect to prevalence of cardiac disease (24.3% versus 4.0%; p = 0.03), presence of jaundice (45.8% versus 12.0%; p = 0.002), presence of a biliary drainage (23.4% versus 0; p = 0.004), history of weight loss (28.0% versus 8.0%; p = 0.04), and vein involvement (55.1% versus 28.0%) (p = 0.03). After matching, the two groups (OTP: 50; RATP: 25) were well balanced. Regarding primary study endpoint, SPC developed in 13 patients (26.0%) after OTP and in 6 patients (24.0%) after RATP (p = 0.85). Regarding secondary study endpoints, RATP was associated with longer median operating times [475 (408.8-582.5) versus 585 min (525-637.5) p = 0.003]. After a median follow-up time of 23.7 months (10.4-71), overall survival time [22.6 (11.2-81.2) versus NA (27.3-NA) p = 0.006] and cancer-specific survival [22.6 (11.2-NA) versus NA (27.3-NA) p = 0.02] were improved in patients undergoing RATP. In carefully selected patients, robot-assisted total pancreatectomy is non-inferior to open total pancreatectomy regarding occurrence of severe post-operative complications.

Formal robotic training diminishes the learning curve for robotic pancreatoduodenectomy: Implications for new programs in complex robotic surgery.

INTRODUCTION: The learning curve associated with robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) is a hurdle for new programs to achieve optimal results. Since early analysis, robotic training has recently expanded, and the RPD approach has been refined. The purpose of this study is to examine RPD outcomes for surgeons who implemented a new program after receiving formal RPD training to determine if such training reduces the learning curve. METHODS: Outcomes for consecutive patients undergoing RPD at a single tertiary institution were compared to optimal RPD benchmarks from a previously reported learning curve analysis. Two surgical oncologists with formal RPD training performed all operations with one surgeon as bedside assistant and the other at the console. RESULTS: Forty consecutive RPD operations were evaluated. Mean operative time was 354 ± 54 min, and blood loss was 300 ml. Length of stay was 7 days. Three patients (7.5%) underwent conversion to open. Pancreatic fistula affected five patients (12.5%). Operative time was stable over the study and lower than the reported benchmark. These RPD operative outcomes were similar to reported surgeon outcomes after the learning curve. CONCLUSION: This study suggests formal robotic training facilitates safe and efficient adoption of RPD for new programs, reducing or eliminating the learning curve.

Robotic vs open distal pancreatectomy: A multi-institutional matched comparison analysis.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic surgery is still a challenge even in high-volume centers. Clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) represents the greatest contributor to major morbidity and mortality, especially following pancreatic distal resection. In this study, we compared robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) to open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) in terms of CR-POPF development and analyzed oncologic efficacy of RDP in the subgroup of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). METHODS: We collected data from five high-volume centers for pancreatic surgery and performed a matched comparison analysis to compare short and long-term outcomes after ODP or RDP. Patients were matched with a 2:1 ratio according to age, ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) score, body mass index (BMI), final pathology, and TNM (Tumour, Node, Metastasis) staging system VIII ed. RESULTS: Two hundred and forty-six patients who underwent 82 RDPs and 164 ODPs were included. No differences were found in the incidence of CR-POPF. In the PDAC group, median DFS and OS were 10.8 months and 14.8 months in the ODP group and 10.4 months and 15 months in the RDP group, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic distal pancreatectomy is a safe surgical strategy for PDAC and incidence of CR-POPF is equivalent between RDP and ODP. RDP should be considered equivalent to ODP in terms of oncological efficacy when performed in high-volume and proficient centers.

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

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive pancreatic surgeries (MIPS) are increasingly adopted worldwide. However, it remains uncertain if these reported experiences are reproducible throughout the world today. This study examines the safety and evolution of MIPS at a single institution in Southeast Asia. METHODS: This is a retrospective review of 150 consecutive patients who underwent MIPS between 2006 and 2018 of which 135 cases (90%) were performed since 2012. To determine the evolution of MIPS, the study population was stratified into 3 equal groups of 50 patients. Comparison was also made between pancreatoduodenectomies (PD), distal pancreatectomies (DP) and other pancreatic surgeries. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty patients underwent MIPS (103 laparoscopic, 45 robotic and 2 hand-assisted). Forty-three patients underwent PD, 93 DP and 14 other MIPS. There were 21 (14.0%) open conversions. There was an exponential increase in caseload over the study period. Comparison across the 3 time periods demonstrated that patients were significantly more likely to have a higher American Society of Anesthesiologists score, older, undergo PD and a longer operation time. The conversion rate decreased from 28% to 0% and increased again to 14% across the 3 time periods. Comparison between the various types of MIPS demonstrated that patients who underwent PD were significantly older, more likely to have symptomatic tumours, had longer surgery time, increased blood loss, increased frequency of extended pancreatectomies, increased frequency of hybrid procedures, longer post-operative stay, increased post-operative morbidity rate and increased post-operative major morbidity rate. CONCLUSION: The case volume of MIPS increased rapidly at our institution over the study period. Furthermore, although the indications for MIPS expanded to include more complex procedures in higher risk patients, there was no change in key perioperative outcomes.

Outcome of minimally-invasive versus open pancreatectomies for solid pseudopapillary neoplasms of the pancreas: A 2:1 matched case-control study.

BACKGROUNDS/AIMS: Solid pseudopapillary neoplasm (SPPN) is typically seen in young healthy females who would likely benefit from minimally-invasive pancreatectomy (MIP). A few comparative studies have suggested that MIP is associated with favorable outcomes when compared to the open approach for SPPN. This study aims to mitigate potential selection bias by performing a matched case-control study comparing MIP vs open pancreatectomy (OP) for SPPN. METHODS: We performed a single-institution retrospective electronic chart review of all patients who underwent surgery for pathologically confirmed SPPN between 2000 and 2017. A 2:1 matched comparison using age, gender, tumor size and the type of pancreatectomy was performed between OP and MIP. RESULTS: A total of 40 patients with a median age of 40.3 years (range 16.5-64.4) and female sex predominance (n=34, 85.0%) underwent surgery during the study period. Nine patients underwent MIP. Matched comparison between 18 OP and 9 MIP demonstrated that MIP was associated with a longer median operating time (305 vs 180 min, p=0.046) and shorter median postoperative stay (6 vs 9 days, p=0.015). There were no significant differences in intraoperative blood loss, blood transfusion requirements, postoperative morbidity (including postoperative pancreatic fistula) and mortality, resection margins, lymph node yield and long-term survival. CONCLUSIONS: MIP is a safe and viable option in the management of SPPN with the benefit of a shorter postoperative length of stay at the expense of a longer operation time. There was no significant difference in oncologic outcomes between both groups of patients.

Robotic assisted laparoscopic completion pancreatectomy for recurrent intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm after previous open pancreatoduodenectomy: A case report and literature review.

Completion pancreatectomy (CP), is an effective, and potentially curative option for selected patients with local recurrence of pancreatic neoplasms in the remnant pancreas after initial pancreatoduodenectomy (PD). Traditionally CP has been performed via the open approach. Reports of minimally-invasive CP particularly after previous open PD are rare. We present a case of a 72-year old male who previously underwent open PD 5 years ago for intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) with high grade dysplasia in the uncinate process. He had multifocal IPMN and low-risk lesions in the body and tail were managed conservatively. On routine surveillance, the cyst in the body was noted to be increasing in size with the development of a non-enhancing solid component confirmed on magnetic resonance imaging and subsequent endoscopic ultrasonography. The patient underwent successful robotic assisted laparoscopic completion pancreatectomy. Final histology confirmed a recurrent IPMN with low-to-intermediate grade dysplasia. The postoperative recovery was uneventful and he was discharged on postoperative day 9.

External validation of the Japanese difficulty scoring system for minimally-invasive distal pancreatectomies.

INTRODUCTION: Preoperative prediction of the difficulty of surgery would be useful for surgeons embarking on MIDP. A novel difficulty scoring system(DSS) was recently developed in Japan but has not been externally validated. This study aims to externally validate the DSS determine its association with important clinical outcome parameters. METHODS: Retrospective review of 90 patients who underwent MIDP from 2006 to 2018. The patients were stratified into 3 groups (low, intermediate and high difficulty) according to the DSS with some minor modifications. RESULTS: Difficulty of MIDP was classified as low in 45(50%), intermediate in 32(35.5%) and high in 13(14.4%). Comparison between the baseline characteristics across the 3 difficulty groups demonstrated a significant difference in the frequency of malignant tumors, larger tumor size, frequency of extended pancreatectomies and use of robotic assistance. There was statistically significant increase in operation time, blood loss and blood transfusion rate across the 3 groups from low to high difficulty. CONCLUSION: The DSS correlated significantly with operation time, blood loss and blood transfusion rate. These findings support the validity of the system.

Initial experience with laparoscopic and robotic surgery for the treatment of periampullary tumours: single institution experience with the first 30 consecutive cases.

BACKGROUND: Concerns have been raised about the safety of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) during the early learning phase. In this study, we present our initial experience with MIS for periampullary tumours. METHODS: Retrospective review of the first 30 consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic (LS)/robotic surgery (RS) for periampullary tumours between 2014 and 2017. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients underwent PD, including three total pancreatectomies (TPs) and three underwent palliative bypasses. Twenty underwent LS, of which 18 were hybrid PDs, including two TPs and two bypasses. Ten patients underwent RS, of which nine were PDs, including one TP and one bypass. Five of 10 RSs were totally MIS procedures. There were four PDs with venous resection, of which three were by RS. There were four (13.3%) open conversions all in the LS cohort. There were five (16.7%) major (>grade 2) morbidities, including three pancreatic fistulas (two grade B and one grade C). There was no 30-day and one (3.3%) 90-day mortality. Comparison between RS and LS demonstrated that RS had a higher likelihood of being completed via totally MIS (five (50%) versus 0, P = 0.002), tended to have a shorter post-operative stay (eight (range 6-36) versus 14.5 (range 6-62) days, P = 0.058) but tended to be associated with a longer operation time (670 (range 500-930) versus 577 (range 235-715) min, P = 0.056). CONCLUSION: Our initial experience demonstrated that both LS and RS can be safely adopted for the treatment of periampullary tumours. The learning curve for RS seemed to be shorter than LS as we could transition more quickly from hybrid PDs to totally MIS safely.

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

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.

Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic left pancreatectomy at a high-volume, minimally invasive center.

INTRODUCTION: While minimally invasive left pancreatectomy has become more widespread and generally accepted over the last decade, opinions on modality of minimally invasive approach (robotic or laparoscopic) remain mixed with few institutions performing a significant portion of both operative approaches simultaneously. METHODS: 247 minimally invasive left pancreatectomies were retrospectively identified in a prospectively maintained institutional REDCap™ database, 135 laparoscopic left pancreatectomy (LLP) and 108 robotic-assisted left pancreatectomy (RLP). Demographics, intraoperative variables, postoperative outcomes, and OR costs were compared between LLP and RLP with an additional subgroup analysis for procedures performed specifically for pancreatic adenocarcinoma (35 LLP and 23 RLP) focusing on pathologic outcomes and 2-year actuarial survival. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in preoperative demographics or indications between LLP and RLP with 34% performed for chronic pancreatitis and 23% performed for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. While laparoscopic cases were faster (p < 0.001) robotic cases had a higher rate of splenic preservation (p < 0.001). Median length of stay was 5 days for RLP and LLP, and rate of clinically significant grade B/C pancreatic fistula was approximately 20% for both groups. Conversion rates to laparotomy were 4.3% and 1.8% for LLP and RLP approaches respectively. RLP had a higher rate of readmission (p = 0.035). Pathologic outcomes and 2-year actuarial survival were similar between LLP and RLP. LLP on average saved $206.67 in OR costs over RLP. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that at a high-volume center with significant minimally invasive experience, both LLP and RLP can be equally effective when used at the discretion of the operating surgeon. We view the laparoscopic and robotic platforms as tools for the modern surgeon, and at our institution, given the technical success of both operative approaches, we will continue to encourage our surgeons to approach a difficult operation with their tool of choice.

Surgical resection of pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasm by minimally invasive surgery-the robotic approach?

Over the past decade, there has been increasing adoption of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery world-wide and this has naturally expanded to the management of pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (PNENs). More recently, robotic pancreatic surgery (RPS) was introduced to overcome the limitations during laparoscopic pancreatic surgery (LPS). Due to the relative rarity of PNEN and the novelty of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery in particular RPS today, the evidence for robotic surgery in PNENs remains extremely limited. Presently, the available evidence is limited to a few low level retrospective case-control studies. These studies suggest that RPS may be associated with a higher splenic preservation rates and lower open conversion rates compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery. Ideally a prospective randomized trial should be performed but this would be extremely challenging due to the rarity of PNEN, making it almost impossible to conduct a sufficiently powered trial.

Evolution of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomies at a single institution.

INTRODUCTION: This study aims to study the changing trends and outcomes associated with the adoption of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) at a single centre. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective review of sixty consecutive patients who underwent MIDP from September 2006 to November 2016 at a single institution. To study the evolution of MIDP, the study population was divided into three groups consisting of twenty patients (Group I, Group II and Group III). RESULTS: Sixty patients underwent MIDP with 11 (18.3%) requiring open conversions. The median operation time was 305 (range: 85-775) min and the median post-operative stay was 6 (range: 3-73) days. Fifteen procedures were spleen-saving pancreatectomies. Major post-operative morbidity (>Grade 2) occurred in 12 (20.0%) patients and there was no mortality or reoperations. There were 33 (55.0%) pancreatic fistulas, of which 15 (25.0%) were Grade B fistulas of which 12 (20.0%) required percutaneous drainage. Comparison between the three groups demonstrated a statistically significant increase in the frequency of procedures performed, increase in robotic-assisted procedures and proportion of asymptomatic tumours resected. There also tended to be non-significant decrease in open conversion rates from 25% to 5% between the three groups and increase in tumour size resected from 24 to 40 mm. CONCLUSION: Comparison between the three groups demonstrated that MIDP was performed with increased frequency. There was a statistically significant increase in the frequency of resections performed for asymptomatic tumours and resections performed through robotic assistance. There was also a non-significant trend towards a decrease in open conversions and increase in the size of tumours resected.

Early experience with robot-assisted laparoscopic hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery in Singapore: single-institution experience with 20 consecutive patients.

INTRODUCTION: Experience with robot-assisted laparoscopic (RAL) hepatobiliary and pancreatic (HPB) surgery remains limited worldwide. In this study, we report our early experience with RAL HPB surgery in Singapore. METHODS: A retrospective review of the first 20 consecutive patients who underwent RAL HPB surgery at a single institution over a 34-month period from February 2013 to November 2015 was conducted. The 20 cases were performed by three principal surgeons, of which 17 (85.0%) were performed by a single surgeon. RESULTS: The median age of patients was 56 (range 22-75) years and median tumour size was 4.0 (range 1.2-7.5) cm. The surgeries performed included left-sided pancreatectomies (n = 10), hepatectomies (n = 7), triple bypass with bile duct exploration for obstructing pancreatic head cancer with choledocholithiasis (n = 1), cholecystectomy for Mirizzi's syndrome (n = 1) and gastric resection for gastrointestinal stromal tumour (n = 1). The median operation time was 445 (range 80-825) minutes and median blood loss was 350 (range 0-1,200) mL. There was only 1 (5%) open conversion. There were 2 (10.0%) major morbidities (> Grade II on the Clavien-Dindo classification) and no 30-day/in-hospital mortalities. There was no reoperation for postoperative complications. The median postoperative stay was 5.5 (range 3-22) days. CONCLUSION: Our initial experience confirms the feasibility and safety of RAL HPB surgery.