Outcomes After Minimally Invasive Versus Open Total Pancreatectomy: A Pan-European Propensity Score Matched Study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess postoperative 90-day outcomes after minimally invasive (laparoscopic/robot-assisted) total pancreatectomy (MITP) in selected patients versus open total pancreatectomy (OTP) among European centers. BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive pancreatic surgery is becoming increasingly popular but data on MITP are scarce and multicenter studies comparing outcomes versus OTP are lacking. It therefore remains unclear if MITP is a valid alternative. METHODS: Multicenter retrospective propensity-score matched study including consecutive adult patients undergoing MITP or OTP for all indications at 16 European centers in 7 countries (2008-2017). Patients after MITP were matched (1:1, caliper 0.02) to OTP controls. Missing data were imputed. The primary outcome was 90-day major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo ≥3a). Secondary outcomes included 90-day mortality, length of hospital stay, and survival. RESULTS: Of 361 patients (99MITP/262 OTP), 70 MITP procedures (50 laparoscopic, 15 robotic, 5 hybrid) could be matched to 70 OTP controls. After matching, MITP was associated with a lower rate of major morbidity (17% MITP vs. 31% OTP, P = 0.022). The 90-day mortality (1.4% MITP vs. 7.1% OTP, P = 0.209) and median hospital stay (17 [IQR 11-24] MITP vs. 12 [10-23] days OTP, P = 0.876) did not differ significantly. Among 81 patients with PDAC, overall survival was 3.7 (IQR 1.7-N/A) versus 0.9 (IQR 0.5-N/ A) years, for MITP versus OTP, which was nonsignificant after stratification by T-stage. CONCLUSION: This international propensity score matched study showed that MITP may be a valuable alternative to OTP in selected patients, given the associated lower rate of major morbidity.

Single-centre comparison of robotic and open pancreatoduodenectomy: a propensity score-matched study.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic head and periampullary cancers is still associated with high perioperative morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study was to compare the short-term outcomes of robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy (RAPD) and open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) performed in a high-volume centre. METHODS: A single-centre, prospective database was used to retrospectively compare the early outcomes of RAPD procedures to standard OPD procedures completed between January 2014 and December 2018. Of the 121 included patients, 78 underwent RAPD and 43 underwent OPD. After propensity score matching (PSM), 35 RAPD patients were matched with 35 OPD patients with similar preoperative characteristics. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences in most of the baseline demographics and perioperative outcomes in the two groups after PSM optimization with the exception of the operative time (530 min (RAPD) versus 335 min (OPD) post-match, p < 0.000). No differences were found between the two groups in terms of complications (including pancreatic leaks, 11.4% in both OPD and RAPD), perioperative mortality, reoperations or readmissions. Earlier refeeding was obtained in the RAPD group vs. the OPD group (3 vs. 4 days, p = 0.002). Although the differences in the length of the hospital stay and blood transfusions were not statistically significant, both parameters showed a positive trend in favour of RAPD. The number of harvested lymph nodes was similar and oncologically adequate. CONCLUSIONS: RAPD is a safe and oncologically adequate technique to treat malignancies arising from the pancreatic head and periampullary region. Several perioperative parameters resulted in trends favouring RAPD over OPD, at the price of longer operating time. Data should be reinforced with a larger sample to guarantee statistical significance.

Correction to: Single-centre comparison of robotic and open pancreatoduodenectomy: a propensity score-matched study.

In the Abstract, in the Methods section the sentence "Of the 121 included patients, 78 underwent RAPD and 43 underwent OPD." Should read: Of the 121 included patients, 77 underwent OPD and 44 underwent RAPD."

Robotic enucleations of pancreatic benign or low-grade malignant tumors: preliminary results and comparison with robotic demolitive resections.

BACKGROUND: The incidental detection of benign to low-grade malignant small pancreatic neoplasms increased in the last decades. The surgical management of these patients is still under debate. The aim of this paper is to evaluate the safety and feasibility of robotic enucleations and to compare the outcomes with non-parenchymal sparing robotic resections. METHODS: The study included a total of 25 patients. Nine of them underwent a robotic enucleation (EN Group) and 16 patients received a robotic demolitive resection (DR Group). Perioperative and medium-term outcomes were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: Patients' baseline characteristics were similar in the two groups except for presence of symptoms and tumor size, due to the inclusion criteria. Operative time was significantly shorter and postoperative results were better for EN group, including a significant shorter hospitalization (5 vs. 8 days, p = 0.027), reduced pancreatic leaks (22% vs. 50%, p = 0.287) and a better preservation of glandular function (100% vs. 62.5%, p = 0.066). Mortality rate was zero in both groups, with all patients free from disease at a median follow-up of 18 months. CONCLUSIONS: The risks of under/overtreatment remain still unavoidable for benign to low-grade malignant small pancreatic neoplasms. Simple enucleation should be performed whenever oncological appropriate, to achieve the best postoperative outcomes. The adoption of robotic technique might widen the indications for parenchymal sparing, minimally invasive surgery.

Ultrasound-Guided Robotic Enucleation of Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PanNETs) are relatively rare neoplasms with a low to mild malignant potential. They can be further divided into functioning and nonfunctioning, according to their secretive activity. Surgery is an optimal approach, but the classic open approach is challenging, with some patients having long hospitalization and potentially life-threatening complications. The robotic approach for PanNETs may represent an option to optimize their management. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed our prospectively maintained databases from 2 high-volume Italian centers for pancreatic surgery. Demographics, pathological characteristics, perioperative outcome, and medium-term follow-up of patients who underwent robotic pancreatic enucleations were collected. RESULTS: Twelve patients with final diagnosis of PanNET were included. The mean age of the patients was 53.8 years (25-77). The median body mass index was 26 (24-29). Three lesions were functioning insulinomas, while the others were nonfunctioning tumors. No deaths occurred. Mild postoperative complications occurred, except for 1 grade B pancreatic fistula. The mean postoperative stay was 3.9 days (2-5). CONCLUSIONS: Our results confirm that robotic enucleation is a feasible and safe approach for the treatment of PanNETs, with short hospital stay and low incidence of morbidity.

Robotic right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis compared with laparoscopic right colectomy with extracorporeal and intracorporeal anastomosis: a retrospective multicentre study.

BACKGROUND: Growing evidence suggests that the intracorporeal fashioning of an anastomosis after a laparoscopic right colectomy may offer several advantages. However, due to the difficulty of the intracorporeal technique, laparoscopic extracorporeal confectioning of the anastomosis remains the most widely adopted technique. Although the purpose of the robotic approach was to overcome the limitations of the laparoscopic technique and to simplify the most demanding surgical procedures, such as performing an intracorporeal anastomosis, evidence is lacking that compares the robotic right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis (RRCIA) technique with both the conventional laparoscopic right colectomy with extracorporeal anastomosis (LRCEA) and the laparoscopic right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis confectioning (LRCIA) techniques. This study aims to compare the intraoperative and postoperative outcomes of the RRCIA to those of both the LRCEA and the LRCIA. METHODS: A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database of two Italian centres was performed on the data on patients undergoing an RRCIA, LRCEA or LRCIA for cancer or adenomas. RESULTS: Two hundred and thirty-six patients (RRCIA = 102, LRCEA = 94, LRCIA = 40) met the criteria for inclusion in the study. The three groups were comparable in their demographic and baseline characteristics. No significant differences were found in the conversion to open rates, intraoperative blood loss, 30-day morbidity and mortality, number of lymphnodes harvested and other pathological characteristics. Compared with the LRCEA, the RRCIA required a longer operative time (P < 0.0001) but had better recovery outcomes, such as a shorter length of hospital stay (P < 0.0001). Compared with the LRCIA, the RRCIA had a shorter time to first flatus (P < 0.0001) but offered no advantages in terms of the length of the hospital stay. CONCLUSION: Performing the RRCIA offers significantly better perioperative recovery outcomes compared with the LRCEA, with a substantial reduction in the length of the hospital stay. The RRCIA does not offer the same advantages compared with the LRCIA.

Robot-integrated intraoperative ultrasound: Initial experience with hepatic malignancies.

PURPOSE: A new robotic surgery tool allows intraoperative ultrasound to be performed using a fully robotic technique. Herein, we evaluate the feasibility and reliability of robotically integrated ultrasound to guide resection of malignant hepatic tumors. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A consecutive series of ultrasound-guided robotic resections of primary and secondary hepatic malignancies was analyzed in terms of perioperative data and specimen evaluation, focusing on the reliability of the new robot-integrated ultrasound probe. RESULTS: Ten consecutive patients underwent 15 robotic liver resections. Two patients were resected to excise primary hepatocellular cancers and eight underwent resections of liver metastases. R0 resections were achieved for all lesions. The median operative time was 247 min, and blood loss was limited. No mortality occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Our present analysis confirmed the reliability of fully robotic liver resection guided via robotically integrated ultrasonic assessment. Robotic surgery, particularly hepatic resection, may benefit greatly from better manageability, and the fact that the surgeon can directly manage both the operative and the diagnostic parts of the procedure.

Robot-assisted renal artery aneurysm repair with a saphenous vein Y-graft interposition.

BACKGROUND: Renal artery aneurysms (RAA) treatment includes both surgical repair and endovascular techniques, mostly depending on the location of aneurysm. For complex RAA located at renal artery bifurcation or distally, open surgical repair represents the gold standard of treatment. However, the transperitoneal open access to the renal artery requires a wide laparotomy--hence the attempt to be minimally invasive with the first reports of laparoscopic approach. Even if it represents a possibility, laparoscopy has not yet gained widespread acceptance for the technical difficulties in performing vascular anastomosis. We herein describe the repair of a complex RAA using the Da Vinci Surgical System. METHODS: A 41-year-old woman had an accidentally discovered saccular aneurysm of the right renal artery with a maximum diameter of 20 mm, with one in and four out. A laparoscopic robot-assisted approach was planned. Intraoperatively, we confirm the strategy to group the four output branches in two different patches. Thus, a Y-shaped autologous saphenous graft was prepared and introduced through a trocar. For the three anastomoses, a polytetrafluoroethylene running suture was preferred. RESULTS: The total operation time was 350 min, and the estimated surgical blood loss was about 200 ml. Warm ischemia time was 58 min for the posterior branch and 24 min for the second declamping. The patient resumed a regular diet on postoperative day 2, and the hospital stay lasted 4 days. No intraoperative or postoperative morbidity was noted. A CT scan performed 2 months later revealed the patency of all the reconstructed branches. CONCLUSIONS: The experience of our group counts five other renal aneurysm repair performed with a robot-assisted technique. The presence of five different arterial branches involved in the reconstruction makes this procedure difficult. Robot-assisted laparoscopic technique represents a valid alternative to open surgery in complex cases.

Robot-assisted gastrectomy for gastric cancer: current status and technical considerations.

BACKGROUND: Robot-assisted gastrectomy has been reported as a safe alternative to the conventional laparoscopy or open approach for treating early gastric carcinoma. To date, however, there are a limited number of published reports available in the literature. METHODS: We assess the current status of robotic surgery in the treatment of gastric cancer, focusing on the technical details and oncological considerations. RESULTS: In gastric surgery, the biggest advantage of robotic surgery is the ease and reproducibility of D2-lymphadenectomy. Reports show that even the intracorporeal digestive restoration is facilitated by use of the robotic approach, particularly following total gastrectomy. Additionally, the accuracy of robotic dissection is confirmed by decreased blood loss, as reported in series comparing robot-assisted with laparoscopic gastrectomy. The learning curve and technical reproducibility also appear to be shorter with robotic surgery and, consequently, robotics can help to standardize and diffuse minimally invasive surgery in the treatment of gastric cancer, even in the later stages. This is important because the application of minimally invasive surgery is limited by the complexity of performing a D2-lymphadenectomy. The potential to reproduce D2-lymphadenectomy, enlarged resections, and complex reconstructions provides robotic surgery with an important role in the therapeutic strategy of advanced gastric cancer. CONCLUSIONS: While published reports have shown no significant differences in surgical morbidity, mortality, or oncological adequacy between robot-assisted and conventional laparoscopic gastrectomy, more studies are needed to assess the indications and oncological effectiveness of robotic use in the treatment of gastric carcinoma. Herein, the authors assess the current status of robotic surgery in the treatment of gastric cancer, focusing on the technical details and oncological considerations.

Pure laparoscopic versus robotic liver resections: Multicentric propensity score-based analysis with stratification according to difficulty scores.

BACKGROUND: The benefits of pure laparoscopic and robot-assisted liver resections (LLR and RALR) are known in comparison to open surgery. The aim of the present retrospective comparative study is to investigate the role of RALR and LLR according to different levels of difficulty. METHODS: The institutional databases of six high-volume hepatobiliary centers were retrospectively reviewed. The study population was divided in two groups: LLR and RALR. The procedures were stratified for difficulty levels accordingly to three classifications. A propensity score matching was implemented to mitigate selection bias. Short-term outcomes were the object of comparison. RESULTS: Nine hundred and thirty-six LLR and 403 RALR were collected. RALR exhibited fewer cases of intraoperative blood loss, lower transfusion and conversion rates (especially for oncological radicality) than LLR in the setting of highly difficult operations, whereas LLR had lower postoperative morbidity and fewer low-grade complications. For intermediate and low-difficulty resections, the intraoperative advantages of RALR gradually decreased to nonsignificant results and LLR remained associated with lower postoperative morbidity. CONCLUSION: Robot-assisted liver resections do not show operative nor clinically significant benefits over LLR for low- and intermediate-difficulty resections. By reducing conversion rates, RALR can favour the operative feasibility of difficult resections possibly extending the indications of minimally invasive approaches for liver resection.

Robotic Versus Open Liver Resection in Hepatocarcinoma: Surgical and Oncological Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive approaches are spreading in every field of surgery, including liver surgery. However, studies comparing robotic hepatectomy with the conventional open approach regarding oncologic outcomes for hepatocellular carcinoma are limited. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed demographics characteristics, pathologic features, surgical, and oncological outcomes of patients who underwent robotic and conventional open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma. RESULTS: No significant differences in demographics features, tumor size, tumor location, and type of liver resection were found. The morbidity rate was similar, 23% for the open group versus 17% of the robotic group (P=0.605). Perioperative data analysis showed a greater estimated blood loss in patients who underwent open resection, if compared with robotic group (P=0.003). R0 resection and disease-free resection margins showed no statistically significant differences. The 3-year disease-free survival of the robotic group was comparable with that of the open group (54% vs. 37%; P=0.592), as was the 3-year overall survival (87% vs. 78%; P=0.203). CONCLUSIONS: The surgical and the oncological outcomes seem to be comparable between minimally invasive and open hepatectomy. Robotic liver resections are effective, and do not compromise the oncological outcome, representing a reasonable alternative to the open approach.

Robotic distal pancreatectomy with selective closure of pancreatic duct: surgical outcomes.

Pancreatic fistula is the main post-operative complication of distal pancreatectomy associated with other further complications, such as intra-abdominal abscesses, wound infection, sepsis, electrolyte imbalance, malabsorption and hemorrhage. Surgeons have tried various techniques to close the stump of the remaining pancreas, but the controversy regarding the impact of stapler closure and suture closure of the pancreatic stump is far from resolved. In this study, we reported our technique and results of robotic assisted distal pancreatectomy with ultrasound identification and consequent selective closure of pancreatic duct. Twenty-one patients underwent consecutive robotic-assisted distal pancreatectomy were included in our study. We describe our technique and analyzed the operative and peri-operative data including mean operative time, intra-operative bleeding, blood transfusions necessity, conversion rate, mortality and morbidity rate, pancreatic fistula rate and grade, time of refeeding and canalization, length of hospital stay and readmission. Median operative time was 260 min. No conversion occurred. Estimated blood loss was 100 mL (range 50-200). No blood transfusions were performed. Mortality rate was 0%. One (5%) patient had a major complication, while 9 (43%) patients had minor complications (grade I). Three (14%) patients developed pancreatic fistula (grade B), while two (10%) patients had a biochemical leak. No late pancreatic fistula and re-operation occurred. The refeeding was started at second day (range 1^-6^) and the median canalization time was 4 days (range 2-7). The median hospital stay was 6 days (range 3-25) with a readmission rate of 0%. Robotic distal pancreatectomy can be considered safe and feasible. Our technique is easily reproducible, with good surgical results.

Surgical and oncological outcomes after ultrasound-guided robotic liver resections for malignant tumor. Analysis of a prospective database.

AIM: Robotic surgery is thought to have a role in widening the application of minimally invasive liver surgery. Nonetheless, data concerning surgical results for liver malignancies are presently still lacking. We aimed to evaluate the surgical and oncological outcomes of ultrasound guided robotic liver resections for hepatic malignancies. METHODS: All consecutive patients who received robotic resection of primary and secondary liver malignancies from September 2008 to January 2017 were analyzed. The same surgical team performed all procedures following the principle of parenchymal-sparing surgery. RESULTS: From a total of 51 patients, 13 patients (25%) underwent major and 38 (75%) minor hepatectomy. No mortality occurred. Two procedures were converted to open surgery. Five patients experienced major complications, with a reintervention rate of 6%. Median hospital stay was 5 days. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic surgery is a safe and feasible procedure for liver resection even when dealing with malignancies. Our data show that robotic surgery can be considered a valid option to treat patients with liver malignancies in a minimally invasive manner, without compromise the oncological results.

Outcomes of robotic liver resections for colorectal liver metastases. A multi-institutional analysis of minimally invasive ultrasound-guided robotic surgery.

BACKGROUND: Current evidence supporting robotics to perform minimally invasive liver resection is based on single center case series reporting surgical outcomes in heterogeneous groups of patients. On the contrary, relatively scarce data specifically focusing on secondary hepatic malignancies is available. The objective of this study is to assess short- and long-term outcomes following liver resection for colorectal liver metastasis on a multi-institutional series of patients. METHODS: All consecutive patients undergoing robotic surgery for colorectal liver metastasis at three different tertiary hospitals over a 10-year time frame were included in this analysis. All patients received ultrasound-guided liver resection according to tumor location following the principle of parenchymal sparing surgery. Perioperative, clinicopathologic and oncological outcomes were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 59 patients underwent liver resection. There were 7 cases of conversion to open surgery. The postoperative complication rate was 27%, 5% being the rate of major morbidity. Overall, the mean postoperative hospital stay was 6 days and no mortality occurred. R0 resection was achieved for 92% of lesions. At a mean follow-up of 19 months, the 1-year and 3-year DFS was 83.5% and 41.9%, while the 1-year and 3-year OS was 90.4% and 66.1%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic liver surgery does not impair surgical outcome and oncological results in patients with liver metastases from colorectal cancer.

Early experience with totally robotic esophagectomy for malignancy. Surgical and oncological outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Over recent decades, minimally invasive esophagectomy has gained popularity and is increasingly performed worldwide. The aim of this work was to investigate the perioperative, clinicopathologic, and oncological outcomes of robot-assisted esophagectomy on a consecutive series of totally robotic procedures. METHODS: All patients received either an Ivor Lewis or a McKeown procedure according to tumor location. Perioperative, clinicopathologic and oncological outcomes were examined. RESULTS: A total of 38 patients underwent robot-assisted esophagectomy procedures. All underwent surgery for primary esophageal neoplasms. Neoadjuvant therapy was given to 22 patients. R0 resections were achieved in all patients and no conversion to open surgery occurred. Overall morbidity and mortality were 42% and 10%, respectively. The 1 year disease free survival was 78.9%, whereas the 1 year overall survival was 84.2%. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic surgery can be employed to treat esophageal malignancy competently. Robotic esophagectomy satisfies all features of pathologic appropriateness and offers the expected oncological results.

Pringle maneuver in robotic liver surgery: preliminary study.

BACKGROUND: Liver resection may be complicated by unpredictable intraoperative bleeding. Pringle's maneuver was the first attempt to control bleeding, but the main problem is the duration of ischemia. Robotic surgery thanks to the magnified view, three-dimensional visualization associated and fine movement allow to perform good parenchymal dissection and identification of vascular structure. Aim of study is to evaluate blood loss and the need to perform Pringle maneuver in patients underwent robotic liver resection. METHODS: Thirty-three patients underwent robotic liver resections were analyzed, 16 (48%) male and 17 (52%) female, with median age of 64 years. Seven (21%) patients had benign lesions and twenty-six (79%) malignant tumor. RESULTS: Seventeen (52%) patients had anatomical resections, while sixteen (48%) patients had non anatomical resection. Operative time was 270 minutes. Estimated blood loss was 100 mL and Pringle maneuver was carried out on seven patients. Median hospital stay was 4 days. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that liver resections with robotic technique can be performed safely even without systematic Pringle maneuver.

Robot-assisted laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

Phase III evidence in the shape of a series of randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses has shown that laparoscopic gastrectomy is safe and gives better short-term results with respect to the traditional open technique for early-stage gastric cancer. In fact, in the East laparoscopic gastrectomy has become routine for early-stage gastric cancer. In contrast, the treatment of advanced gastric cancer through a minimally invasive way is still a debated issue, mostly due to worries about its oncological efficacy and the difficulty of carrying out an extended lymphadenectomy and intestinal reconstruction after total gastrectomy laparoscopically. Over the last ten years the introduction of robotic surgery has implied overcoming some intrinsic drawbacks found to be present in the conventional laparoscopic procedure. Robot-assisted gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy has been shown to be safe and feasible for the treatment of gastric cancer patients. But unfortunately, most available studies investigating the robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer compared to laparoscopic and open technique are so far retrospective and there have not been phase III trials. In the present review we looked at scientific evidence available today regarding the new high-tech surgical robotic approach, and we attempted to bring to light the real advantages of robot-assisted gastrectomy compared to the traditional laparoscopic and open technique for the treatment of gastric cancer.

Robotic Rectal Resection With a Single-docking Technique Thanks to the Rotation of the R3 Arm.

BACKGROUND: Robotic surgery for rectal resection presents some advantages compared with the traditional technique; however, it also presents some limitations, especially due to the multiple changes of surgical fields. We describe a new technique to perform low-anterior resection using single docking with the rotation of the third arm and our perioperative results. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 31 patients who underwent low-anterior rectal robotic resection with single-docking technique using robotic daVinci SI (Surgical Intuitive System) were included in the study. RESULTS: The mean operative time was 338 minutes. The conversion rate was 3%. The mean time of refeeding was 1.4 days and the mean time of hospital stay was 6 days. CONCLUSIONS: Our technique allowed to use the robot for all surgical steps with a single docking, thereby reducing the cost of the hybrid technique and facilitating the operative team in the management of the robotic cart.

Minimally invasive surgery for gastric cancer: A comparison between robotic, laparoscopic and open surgery.

AIM: To investigate the role of minimally invasive surgery for gastric cancer and determine surgical, clinical, and oncological outcomes. METHODS: This is a propensity score-matched case-control study, comparing three treatment arms: robotic gastrectomy (RG), laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG), open gastrectomy (OG). Data collection started after sharing a specific study protocol. Data were recorded through a tailored and protected web-based system. Primary outcomes: harvested lymph nodes, estimated blood loss, hospital stay, complications rate. Among the secondary outcomes, there are: operative time, R0 resections, POD of mobilization, POD of starting liquid diet and soft solid diet. The analysis includes the evaluation of type and grade of postoperative complications. Detailed information of anastomotic leakages is also provided. RESULTS: The present analysis was carried out of 1026 gastrectomies. To guarantee homogenous distribution of cases, patients in the RG, LG and OG groups were 1:1:2 matched using a propensity score analysis with a caliper = 0.2. The successful matching resulted in a total sample of 604 patients (RG = 151; LG = 151; OG = 302). The three groups showed no differences in all baseline patients characteristics, type of surgery (P = 0.42) and stage of the disease (P = 0.16). Intraoperative blood loss was significantly lower in the LG (95.93 ± 119.22) and RG (117.91 ± 68.11) groups compared to the OG (127.26 ± 79.50, P = 0.002). The mean number of retrieved lymph nodes was similar between the RG (27.78 ± 11.45), LG (24.58 ± 13.56) and OG (25.82 ± 12.07) approach. A benefit in favor of the minimally invasive approaches was found in the length of hospital stay (P < 0.0001). A similar complications rate was found (P = 0.13). The leakage rate was not different (P = 0.78) between groups. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic and robotic surgery can be safely performed and proposed as possible alternative to open surgery. The main highlighted benefit is a faster postoperative functional recovery.