Using the propensity-matched methodology, this meta-analysis and comprehensive review aimed to compare robotic distal pancreatectomy with laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy in terms of perioperative and short-term oncologic outcomes. Within the scope of this investigation, complete and total adherence to the PRISMA guidelines for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses was established. The search we conducted in PubMed, Google Scholar, and EMBASE was automated to find relevant papers that matched the tendency up to July 1, 2024. The length of time spent while operating, the rate of conversion, and the collection of lymph nodes were the primary factors that were considered. Other metrics that were taken into consideration were the approximate amount of blood loss, the length of time spent in the hospital, the need for transfusions, and the occurrence of major adverse events. In the end, there were 8 studies that involved 1649 patients. Of those patients, 758 had robotic assisted distal pancreatectomy, whereas 891 underwent laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. In comparison to laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy, the robotic assisted technique did result in higher anticipated blood loss and conversion rates; however, it also required longer durations of operation due to its lengthier duration. In terms of lymph node retrieval, the duration of hospital stay, the need for blood transfusions, and the incidence of postoperative pancreatic fistula, there were no distinctions that could be considered statistically significant between the two techniques. A realistic and risk-free surgical alternative is a distal pancreatectomy that is performed with the aid of robotic technology. When compared to laparoscopic surgery, the outcomes of robot-assisted surgery were superior in terms of conversion rates to laparotomy and less anticipated intraoperative blood loss. However, the operation took longer to complete than laparoscopic surgery.

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy offers recognised benefits over open surgery. Robotic surgery, with its shorter learning curve and technical advancements, presents a promising alternative to laparoscopy in managing pancreatic diseases.

This study enrolled consecutive patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy between January 2013 and May 2022. After propensity score matching, perioperative and medium-term outcomes were compared between robotic and open procedures.

Among 79 patients analysed, 50 were eligible after matching. Both groups showed similar demographics, with 11% experiencing grade III-IV complications, and one patient died within 90 days after surgery. Robotic surgery exhibited longer operating times but allowed for earlier refeeding, drain removal, canalisation, and shorter hospital stays compared with open surgery. Spleen preservation rates, postoperative pancreatic fistula occurrences and survival were comparable between the groups.

Overall, robotic and open distal pancreatectomy demonstrated similar outcomes, with robotic surgery offering advantages in certain postoperative parameters despite longer operation times.

Minimally invasive surgery (MI) has become the standard of care for many surgical procedures aimed at reducing the burden on patients. However, its adoption in pancreatic surgery (PS) has been limited by the pancreas's unique location and the complexity of the dissection and reconstruction phases. These factors continue to contribute to PS having one of the highest morbidity and mortality rates in general surgery. Despite a rough start, MIPS has gained widespread acceptance in clinical practice recently. Robust evidence supports MI distal pancreatectomy safety, even in oncological cases, indicating its potential superiority over open surgery. However, definitive evidence of MI pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) feasibility and safety, particularly for malignant lesions, is still lacking. Nonetheless, reports from high-volume centers are emerging, suggesting outcomes comparable to those of the open approach. The robotic PS increasing adoption, facilitated by the wider availability of robotic platforms, may further facilitate the transition to MIPD by overcoming the technical constraints associated with laparoscopy and accelerating the learning curve. Although the MIPS implementation process cannot be stopped in this evolving world, ensuring patient safety through strict outcome monitoring is critical. Investing in younger surgeons with structured and recognized training programs can promote safe expansion.

Total pancreatectomy is a complex procedure used in the management of pancreatic cancer. While minimally invasive techniques have been increasingly adopted, limited data exist comparing robotic total pancreatectomy (RTP) and laparoscopic total pancreatectomy (LTP). This study evaluates the utilization, short- and long-term outcomes of RTP and LTP using the National Cancer Database. Patients with stages I-III pancreatic adenocarcinoma who underwent RTP or LTP between 2010 and 2019 were identified. Patient demographics, treatment characteristics, pathologic outcomes, postoperative outcomes, and overall survival were compared. Multivariable logistic regression and Cox proportional-hazards models were used to assess the association of surgical approach with outcomes. Of the 995 patients included, 188 (19%) underwent RTP and 807 (81%) underwent LTP. The utilization of minimally invasive techniques increased over time, with RTP accounting for 24% of cases in 2019. RTP had lower conversion rates than LTP (16% vs. 24%, p = 0.031), but this difference was not significant after adjusting for confounders. Postoperative outcomes, including length of stay, 30-day readmission, and 30- and 90-day mortality, were similar between RTP and LTP. The median overall survival was 22.3 months for RTP and 23.6 months for LTP (p = 0.647). RTP and LTP demonstrate comparable perioperative, pathological, and oncological outcomes for the management of pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Despite the increasing adoption of minimally invasive total pancreatectomy, it remains a rare operation and should be performed in experienced centers to optimize outcomes.

Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is a significant contributor to morbidity and mortality after robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP). Ligamentum teres hepatis (LTH) reinforcement of the pancreatic remnant may reduce the incidence of POPF.

Patients ≥18 years old, who underwent RDP at the University of Massachusetts Memorial Medical Center from 01/01/2018-08/31/2022. Primary endpoint was POPF incidence. Secondary outcomes included peri- and postoperative variables.

Thirty-three patients underwent RDP, of which LTH reinforcement was used in 21 (64 ​%) cases. Six (18 ​%) patients developed a POPF. No association was identified between LTH flap reinforcement and POPF (OR 1.18, 95 ​% CI 0.18 to 7.85, p ​= ​0.87). There were no peri- or postoperative complications related to ligamentum teres flap creation.

LTH reinforcement of the pancreatic remnant can be safely performed during RDP. Further studies are needed to assess the utility of this intervention to mitigate the risk of pancreatic fistula formation following RDP.

This study analyzed the Quality of Life (QoL) and cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic (LDP) versus robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP).

Consecutive patients submitted to LDP or RDP from 2010 to 2020 in four high-volume Italian centers were included, with a minimum of 12 months of postoperative follow-up were included. QoL was evaluated using the EORTC QLQ-C30 and EQ-5D questionnaires, self-reported by patients. After a propensity score matching, which included BMI, gender, operation time, multiorgan and vascular resections, splenic preservation, and pancreatic stump management, the mean differential cost and Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALY) were calculated and plotted on a cost-utility plane.

The study population consisted of 564 patients. Among these, 271 (49%) patients were submitted to LDP, while 293 (51%) patients to RDP. After propensity score matching, the study population was composed of 159 patients in each group, with a median follow-up of 59 months. As regards the QoL analysis, global health and emotional functioning domains showed better results in the RDP group (p = 0.037 and p = 0.026, respectively), whereas the other did not differ. As expected, the median crude costs analysis confirmed that RDP was more expensive than LDP (16,041 Euros vs. 10,335 Euros, p < 0.001). However, the robotic approach had a higher probability of being more cost-effective than the laparoscopic procedure when a willingness to pay more than 5697 Euros/QALY was accepted.

RDP was associated with better QoL as explored by specific domains. Crude costs were higher for RDP, and the cost-effectiveness threshold was set at 5697 euros/QALY.

Distal gastrectomy (DG) with lymph node dissection for gastric cancer is routinely performed. In this meta-analysis, we present an updated overview of the perioperative and oncological outcomes of laparoscopic DG (LDG) and robotic DG (RDG) to compare their safety and overall outcomes in patients undergoing DG. An extensive search was conducted using the MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from the establishment of the database to June 2023 for randomized clinical trials comparing RDG and LDG. The primary outcome was operative results, postoperative recovery, complications, adequacy of resection, and long-term survival. We identified twenty studies, evaluating 5,447 patients (1,968 and 3,479 patients treated with RDG and LDG, respectively). We observed no significant differences between the two groups in terms of the proximal resection margin, number of dissected lymph nodes, major complications, anastomosis site leakage, time to first flatus, and length of hospital stay. The RDG group had a longer operative time (P < 0.00001), lesser bleeding (P = 0.0001), longer distal resection margin (P = 0.02), earlier time to oral intake (P = 0.02), fewer overall complications (P = 0.004), and higher costs (P < 0.0001) than the LDG group. RDG is a promising approach for improving LDG owing to acceptable complications and the possibility of radical resection. Longer operative times and higher costs should not prevent researchers from exploring new applications of robotic surgery.

Our study provides a comparative analysis of the Laparo-Endoscopic Single Site (LESS) and robotic surgical approaches for distal pancreatectomy and splenectomy, examining their cosmetic advantages, patient outcomes, and operative efficiencies through propensity score matching (PSM). We prospectively followed 174 patients undergoing either the LESS or robotic procedure, matched by cell type, tumor size, age, sex, and BMI from 2012 to 2023. Propensity score matching (PSM) was utilized for data adjustment, with results presented as median (mean ± SD). Post-PSM analysis showed no significant differences in age or BMI between the two groups. LESS approach exhibited a shorter operative duration (180(180 ± 52.0) vs. 248(262 ± 78.5) minutes, p = 0.0002), but increased estimated blood loss (200(317 ± 394.4) vs. 100 (128 ± 107.2) mL, p = 0.04). Rates of intraoperative and postoperative complications, length of hospital stay, readmissions within 30 days, in-hospital mortalities, and costs were comparably similar between the two procedures. While the robotic approach led to lower blood loss, LESS was more time-efficient. Patient outcomes were similar in both methods, suggesting that the choice between these surgical techniques should balance cosmetic appeal with technical considerations.

Robotic platform usage for distal pancreatectomy and splenectomy has grown exponentially in recent years. This study aims to identify the impact of readmission following robotic distal pancreatectomy and splenectomy and to analyze the financial implications of these readmissions.

We prospectively followed 137 patients after robotic distal pancreatectomy and splenectomy. Readmission was defined as rehospitalization within 30 days post-discharge. Total cost incorporated initial and readmission hospital costs, when applicable. Outcomes were analyzed using chi-square/Fisher's exact test and Student's t test. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD).

Of 137 patients, 20 (14%) were readmitted. Readmitted patients were 67 (66 ± 10.3) years old and had a BMI of 30 (30 ± 7.0) kg/m2; 9 (45%) had previous abdominal operations. Non-readmitted patients were 67 (62 ± 14.7) years old and had a BMI of 28 (28 ± 5.7) kg/m2; 37 (32%) had previous abdominal operations (P = NS, for all). Readmitted patients vs non-readmitted patients had operative durations of 327 (363 ± 179.1) vs 251 (293 ± 176.4) minutes (P = .10), estimated blood loss (EBL) of 90 (159 ± 214.6) vs 100 (244 ± 559.4) mL (P = .50), and tumor diameter of 3 (4 ± 2.0) vs 3 (4 ± 2.9) cm (P = 1.00). Initial length of stay (LOS) for readmitted patients vs patients who were not readmitted was 5 (5 ± 2.7) vs 4 (5 ± 3.0) days (P = 1.00); total hospital cost of those readmitted, including both admissions, was $29,095 (32,324 ± 20,227.38) vs $24,663 (25,075 ± 10,786.45) (P = .018) for those not readmitted.

Despite a similar perioperative course, readmissions were associated with increased costs. We propose thorough consideration before readmission and increased patient education initiatives will reduce readmissions after robotic distal pancreatectomy and splenectomy.

Minimally invasive surgery is increasingly preferred for left-sided pancreatic resections. The SIMPLR study aims to compare open, laparoscopic, and robotic approaches using propensity score matching analysis.

This study included 258 patients with tumors of the left side of the pancreas who underwent surgery between 2016 and 2020 at three high-volume centers. The patients were divided into three groups based on their surgical approach and matched in a 1:1 ratio.

The open group had significantly higher estimated blood loss (620 mL vs. 320 mL, p < 0.001), longer operative time (273 vs. 216 min, p = 0.003), and longer hospital stays (16.9 vs. 6.81 days, p < 0.001) compared to the laparoscopic group. There was no difference in lymph node yield or resection status. When comparing open and robotic groups, the robotic procedures yielded a higher number of lymph nodes (24.9 vs. 15.2, p = 0.011) without being significantly longer. The laparoscopic group had a shorter operative time (210 vs. 340 min, p < 0.001), shorter ICU stays (0.63 vs. 1.64 days, p < 0.001), and shorter hospital stays (6.61 vs. 11.8 days, p < 0.001) when compared to the robotic group. There was no difference in morbidity or mortality between the three techniques.

The laparoscopic approach exhibits short-term benefits. The three techniques are equivalent in terms of oncological safety, morbidity, and mortality.

Robotic-assisted pancreatectomy has been widely used. Organ-preserving pancreatectomy (OPP) and parenchymal-sparing pancreatectomy (PSP) has been gradually adopted for pancreatic benign or low-grade malignant tumors. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted OPP/PSP in our institute.

Patients undergoing robotic-assisted OPS/PSP at First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University between July 2015 and October 2021 were included in this study. The short-term and long-term outcomes of patients were retrospectively analyzed.

Seventy-two patients were enrolled, including spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy, central pancreatectomy, duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resection, and enucleation. Patients included were more likely to be young female (female: 46/72, median age: 47 years old). The median intraoperative blood loss and operation time was 50 ml and 255 min, respectively. Clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula was 20.8% (grade B: 15/72, 20.8%; no grade C). The overall complication rate was 22.2% with the median postoperative length-of-stay of 8 days. At a median follow-up time of 28.5 months, the 5-year overall survival and recurrence-free survival rate were 100.0% and 100.0%, respectively.

The short-term and long-term outcomes of patients receiving robotic-assisted OPP/PSP were acceptable. Robotic-assisted OPP/PSP was a feasible and safe technique for pancreatic benign or low-grade malignant lesions.

This study aimed to validate the accuracy of the Preoperative Pancreatic Resection (PREPARE) risk score in pancreatic resection patients.

This prospective study included 216 patients who underwent pancreatic resection between January 2015 and December 2018. All patients in our cohort with weight loss or lack of appetite received dietary advice and preoperative oral nutritional supplementation (600 kcal/day). Demographic, clinicopathological, operative, and postoperative data were collected prospectively. The PREPARE score and the predicted risk of major complications were computed for each patient. Differences in major postoperative complications were analyzed using a multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression model. The predicted and observed risks of major complications were tested using the C-statistic.

The study included 216 patients [117 men (54.2%)] with a median age of 65.0 (30.0-83.0) years. The majority of patients were classified as American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA)' Physical Status score II (N = 164/216; 75.9%) and as "low risk" PREPARE score (N = 185/216; 85.6%) before the surgery. Only 4 (1.9%) patients were malnourished, with albumin levels of less than 3.5 g/dl. The most common type of pancreatic resection was a pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (N = 122/216; 56.5%). Major morbidity and 30-day mortality rates were 11.1% and 1.9%, respectively. The type of surgical procedure (hazard ratio [HR]: 3.849; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.208-12.264) and ASA score (HR: 3.089; 95% CI: 1.067-8.947) were significantly associated with the incidence of major postoperative complications in multivariate analysis. The receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.657 for incremental values and 0.559 for risk categories, indicating a weak predictive model.

The results of the present study suggest that the PREPARE risk score has low accuracy in predicting the risk of major complications in patients with consistent preoperative nutritional support. This limits the use of PREPARE risk score in future preoperative clinical routines.

The objective was to study the effect of immediate pre-operative warm-up using virtual reality simulation on intraoperative robot-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy (RALH) performance by gynecology trainees (residents and fellows).

We randomized the first, non-emergent RALH of the day that involved trainees warming up or not warming up. For cases assigned to warm-up, trainees performed a set of exercises on the da Vinci Skills Simulator immediately before the procedure. The supervising attending surgeon, who was not informed whether or not the trainee was assigned to warm-up, assessed the trainee's performance using the Objective Structured Assessment for Technical Skill (OSATS) and the Global Evaluative Assessment of Robotic Skills (GEARS) immediately after each surgery.

We randomized 66 cases and analyzed 58 cases (30 warm-up, 28 no warm-up), which involved 21 trainees. Attending surgeons rated trainees similarly irrespective of warm-up randomization with mean (SD) OSATS composite scores of 22.6 (4.3; warm-up) vs 21.8 (3.4; no warm-up) and mean GEARS composite scores of 19.2 (3.8; warm-up) vs 18.8 (3.1; no warm-up). The difference in composite scores between warm-up and no warm-up was 0.34 (95% CI: -1.44, 2.13), and 0.34 (95% CI: -1.22, 1.90) for OSATS and GEARS respectively. Also, we did not observe any significant differences in each of the component/subscale scores within OSATS and GEARS between cases assigned to warm-up and no warm-up.

Performing a brief virtual reality-based warm-up before RALH did not significantly improve the intraoperative performance of the trainees.

Distal pancreatectomy (DP) is currently well established as a minimally invasive surgery (MIS) procedure, using either a laparoscopic (LDP) or robotic (RDP) approach.

Out of 83 DP performed between January 2018 and March 2022, 57 cases (68.7%) were performed using MIS: 35 LDP and 22 RDP (da Vinci Xi). We have assessed the experience with the two techniques and analyzed the value of the robotic approach. Cases of conversion have been examined in detail.

The mean operative times for LDP and RDP were 201.2 (SD 47.8) and 247.54 (SD 35.8) minutes, respectively (P = NS). No differences were observed in length of hospital stay or conversion rate: 6 (5-34) vs. 5.6 (5-22) days, and 4 (11.4%) vs. 3 (13.6%) cases, respectively (P = NS). The readmission rate was 3/35 patients (11.4%) treated with LDP and 6/22 (27.3%) cases of RDP (P = NS). There were no differences in morbidity (Dindo-Clavien ≥ III) between the two groups. Mortality was one case in the robotic group (a patient with early conversion due to vascular involvement). The rate of R0 resection was greater and statistically significant in the RDP group (77.1% vs. 90.9%) (P = .04).

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) is a safe and feasible procedure in selected patients. Surgical planning and stepwise implementation based on prior experience help surgeons successfully perform technically demanding procedures. RDP could be the approach of choice in distal pancreatectomy, and it is not inferior to LDP.

The systematic review is aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and open distal pancreatectomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy.

The MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, and clinical trial registries were systematically searched using the PRISMA framework. Studies of adults aged ≥ 18 year comparing laparoscopic and/or robotic versus open DP and/or PD that reported cost of operation or index admission, and cost-effectiveness outcomes were included. The risk of bias of non-randomised studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, while the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB2) tool was used for randomised studies. Standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for continuous variables.

Twenty-two studies (152,651 patients) were included in the systematic review and 15 studies in the meta-analysis (3 RCTs; 3 case-controlled; 9 retrospective studies). Of these, 1845 patients underwent MIS (1686 laparoscopic and 159 robotic) and 150,806 patients open surgery. The cost of surgical procedure (SMD 0.89; 95% CI 0.35 to 1.43; I2 = 91%; P = 0.001), equipment (SMD 3.73; 95% CI 1.55 to 5.91; I2 = 98%; P = 0.0008), and operating room occupation (SMD 1.17, 95% CI 0.11 to 2.24; I2 = 95%; P = 0.03) was higher with MIS. However, overall index hospitalisation costs trended lower with MIS (SMD - 0.13; 95% CI - 0.35 to 0.06; I2 = 80%; P = 0.17). There was significant heterogeneity among the studies.

Minimally invasive major pancreatic surgery entailed higher intraoperative but similar overall index hospitalisation costs.

Pancreatic fistulas belong to the most feared complications after surgery on or near the pancreas, abdominal trauma, or severe pancreatitis. The majority occur in the setting of operative interventions and are called postoperative pancreatic fistulas (POPF). They can lead to various complications, including abscesses, delayed gastric emptying or hemorrhages with a significant impact on morbidity and mortality. Several risk factors have been identified, including smoking, high BMI, male gender, and age. Prophylactic measures and treatment options have been explored but with limited success. This study aimed to analyze the incidence and management of pancreatic fistulas treated in a tertiary referral center, particularly focusing on an endoscopic approach. The data of 60 patients with clinically relevant pancreatic fistulas were analyzed between 2018 and 2021. Different treatment approaches, including conservative management, percutaneous drainage, transpapillary stenting, and endoscopic transmural drainage, were evaluated. An endoscopic transmural approach using lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) was used in almost half of this cohort showing promising results, with a high rate of fistula closure in refractory cases and a mean time until closure of 2.7 months. The findings suggest that an endoscopic approach, particularly using LAMS, can be effective in the management of pancreatic fistulas.

Pancreatic cancer remains a social and medical burden despite the tremendous advances that medicine has made in the last two decades. The incidence of pancreatic cancer is increasing, and it continues to be associated with high mortality and morbidity rates. The difficulty of early diagnosis (the lack of specific symptoms and biomarkers at early stages), the aggressiveness of the disease, and its resistance to systemic therapies are the main factors for the poor prognosis of pancreatic cancer. The only curative treatment for pancreatic cancer is surgery, but the vast majority of patients with pancreatic cancer have advanced disease at the time of diagnosis. Pancreatic surgery is among the most challenging surgical procedures, but recent improvements in surgical techniques, careful patient selection, and the availability of minimally invasive techniques (e.g., robotic surgery) have dramatically reduced the morbidity and mortality associated with pancreatic surgery. Patients who are not candidates for surgery may benefit from locoregional and systemic therapy. In some cases (e.g., patients for whom marginal resection is feasible), systemic therapy may be considered a bridge to surgery to allow downstaging of the cancer; in other cases (e.g., metastatic disease), systemic therapy is considered the standard approach with the goal of prolonging patient survival. The complexity of patients with pancreatic cancer requires a personalized and multidisciplinary approach to choose the best treatment for each clinical situation. The aim of this article is to provide a literature review of the available treatments for the different stages of pancreatic cancer.

Robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RDP) has been suggested to hold some benefits over laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) but consensus and data on specific subgroups are lacking. This systematic review and meta-analysis reports the surgical and oncological outcome and costs between RDP and LDP including subgroups with intended spleen preservation and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).

Studies comparing RDP and LDP were included from PubMed, Cochrane Central Register, and Embase (inception-July 2022). Primary outcomes were conversion and unplanned splenectomy. Secondary outcomes were R0 resection, lymph node yield, major morbidity, operative time, intraoperative blood loss, in-hospital mortality, operative costs, total costs and hospital stay.

Overall, 43 studies with 6757 patients were included, 2514 after RDP and 4243 after LDP. RDP was associated with a longer operative time (MD = 18.21, 95% CI 2.18-34.24), less blood loss (MD = 54.50, 95% CI - 84.49-24.50), and a lower conversion rate (OR = 0.44, 95% CI 0.36-0.55) compared to LDP. In spleen-preserving procedures, RDP was associated with more Kimura procedures (OR = 2.23, 95% CI 1.37-3.64) and a lower rate of unplanned splenectomies (OR = 0.32, 95% CI 0.24-0.42). In patients with PDAC, RDP was associated with a higher lymph node yield (MD = 3.95, 95% CI 1.67-6.23), but showed no difference in the rate of R0 resection (OR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.67-1.37). RDP was associated with higher total (MD = 3009.31, 95% CI 1776.37-4242.24) and operative costs (MD = 3390.40, 95% CI 1981.79-4799.00).

RDP was associated with a lower conversion rate, a higher spleen preservation rate and, in patients with PDAC, a higher lymph node yield and similar R0 resection rate, as compared to LDP. The potential benefits of RDP need to be weighed against the higher total and operative costs in future randomized trials.

Robotic surgery is the most recent advanced minimally invasive approach for distal pancreatectomy. However, its benefits over laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) remain undetermined. Previous studies were limited by their small sample size or variations in surgeon skills. This study aimed to compare robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) performed by a single surgeon with LDP performed by skilled laparoscopic surgeons in a high-volume center.

We retrospectively analyzed consecutive RDP performed by a single surgeon between December 2020 and November 2021 with LDP performed by experienced surgeons during the same period in a high-volume center. Patient characteristics and perioperative variables were compared.

The analysis included 55 RDP and 146 LDP procedures. The operative time in the RDP group was significantly shorter than the LDP group (171 vs. 222 min, P < 0.001), both in spleen-preserved (154 vs. 212 min, P < 0.001) and spleen-removed (192 vs. 230 min, P = 0.005) procedures. The RDP group made more frequent use of the stapler technique for pancreas transection (87.3 vs. 68.5%, P = 0.007), and its estimated blood loss was lower (79 vs. 155 mL, P < 0.001) than the LDP group. The postoperative hospital stay in the RDP group was significantly shorter than the LDP group (8 vs. 12 days, P < 0.001). The groups were similar in their complication distributions.

RDP is as safe and feasible a minimally invasive approach as LDP. The advanced manipulation and visualization capabilities of the robotic approach in distal pancreatectomy could help reduce operative time and blood loss, and is related to shorter postoperative hospital stay.

Although recent studies have reported potential benefits of laparoscopic approach in distal pancreatectomy, reports of conversion during minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) were limited.

This was a retrospective study using data from Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital around May 2013 to December 2018. Outcomes of patients who had conversions during MIDP were compared with patients with successful MIDP and with patients undergoing open distal pancreatectomy (ODP).

Two-hundred and eighty-three cases were included in this study: 225 (79.5%) had MIDP, 30 (10.6%) had conversions and 28 (9.9%) had outpatient department. The risk factors for conversion included large lesion size (heart rates [HR]: 5.632, 95% confidencevinterval [CI]: 1.036-1.450, P = 0.018) and pancreatic cancer (HR: 6.957, 95% CI: 1.359-8.022, P = 0.009). Compared with MIDP, those who required conversion were associated with longer operations (P = 0.003), higher blood loss (P < 0.001) and more severe of the complications (P < 0.001). However, no statistically significant differences were found between the conversion group and ODP.

Large lesion size and pancreatic cancer were reported to be independent risk factors for conversion during MIDP. As for post-operative outcomes, the outcomes of successfully MIDP were better than those for conversion. However, conversion did not lead to worsening outcomes when compared with ODP.

Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is a challenging procedure with peri-operative complications. Robotic surgery offers improved dexterity, visibility, and accessibility. Recently, many centres have reported improved clinical outcomes for robotic PD. We reviewed the safety and efficacy of robotic PD in comparison to open PD using 'Therapeutic Index' (TI).

A systematic review of the literature was conducted in various databases. Articles published between January 2010 and March 2021 reporting totally-robotic and open PD were included, according to the PRISMA and AMSTAR-2 guidelines. The Cochrane tool was used for risk of bias assessment. We compared 30-day mortality rates (MR₃₀), lymphadenectomy rates (LR), R0 resection rates (R₀RR) and therapeutic index (TI). STATA 16.1 was used for statistical analysis.

The four studies that met inclusion criteria included 5090 PDs, out of which 617 were totally-robotic (RPD) and 4473 were open (OPD). Variance ratio tests demonstrated a)Higher TI for RPD versus OPD (1807.42 vs 1723.37, p = 0.86), b)Significantly smaller MR₃₀ (2.50 vs 19.00, p = 0.0004), c)Significantly lower R₀RR (130.50 vs 939.25, p = 0.00) and d)No significant difference in LR between RPD and OPD (35.63 vs 38.25, p = 0.81). Meta-regression analysis showed a significantly higher TI coefficient of RPD than OPD (0.66 vs -0.40, p = 0.08, α = 0.1).

Our study suggests that robotic PD is safe and not inferior to open PD and our analysis RPD demonstrated a higher therapeutic index than OPD. Randomised controlled trials are required to establish the efficacy of robotic PD. Also, standardisation of reporting mortality, survival and oncological outcomes is needed for the effective calculation of TI.

Distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy is the gold-standard surgery for the treatment of left-sided pancreatic cancer. Margin negative resection accompanied by effective lymphadenectomy are the deciding factors affecting the outcome of tail-body pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (RAMPS) is considered as a reasonable approach for margin-negative and systemic lymph node clearance. Herein, we aim to present all existing data regarding this novel approach including surgical technique and comparison with standardized procedures. RAMPS has shown oncological superiority comparing to distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy due to radical lymphadenectomy and improved dissection of the posterior pancreatic aspects. Robotic-assisted RAMPS has recently been described as a valuable alternative to open RAMPS. With this novel technique, anterior, posterior or modified approaches can be achieved; favorable clinical and oncological outcomes have been reported in the current literature, with reduced conversion rates compared to other minimally invasive approaches, as well as vastly improved maneuverability, accuracy and vision. Robotic-assisted RAMPS is not only technically feasible but also oncologically safe in cases of well-selected, left-sided pancreatic cancer.

Two areas that remain the focus of improvement in pancreatic cancer include high post-operative morbidity and inability to uniformly translate surgical success into long-term survival. This narrative review addresses specific aspects of pancreatic cancer surgery, including neoadjuvant therapy, vascular resections, extended pancreatectomy, extent of lymphadenectomy and current status of minimally invasive surgery. R0 resection confers longer disease-free survival and overall survival. Vascular and adjacent organ resections should be undertaken after neoadjuvant therapy, only if R0 resection can be ensured based on high-quality preoperative imaging, and that too, with acceptable post-operative morbidity. Extended lymphadenectomy does not offer any advantage over standard lymphadenectomy. Although minimally invasive distal pancreatectomies offers some short-term benefits over open distal pancreatectomy, safety remains a concern with minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy. Strict adherence to principles and judicious utilization of surgery within a multimodality framework is the way forward.

The aim of this study was to assess the perioperative and pathologic outcomes of robotic distal pancreatectomy compared with a laparoscopic approach.

A total of 121 robotic distal pancreatectomies and 992 laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies were retrospectively evaluated, comparing the demographic, perioperative and pathologic outcomes. After 1:2 propensity score matching (PSM) with 11 demographic variables, the factors were analysed again.

Following PSM, 104 robotic distal pancreatectomy patients were compared with 208 laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy patients. The operation time and proportion of spleen preservation were not different between the groups. The rates of open conversion were lower, whereas the hospital costs were higher in the robotic group. Other perioperative outcomes and pathologic factors did not differ between the groups.

Although robotic distal pancreatectomy is more expensive, this operation is feasible, with a higher probability of proceeding with the planned operation and with low open conversion rate.

Minimally invasive surgery is gaining support for resection of gallbladder cancer (GBC). This study aims to compare operative and early outcomes of robotic resection (RR) to open resection (OR) from a single institution performing a high volume of robotic HPB surgery.

Twenty patients with GBC underwent RR from January 2013 to August 2019. Outcomes were compared to a historical control of 23 patients with OR. Radical cholecystectomy for suspected GBC and completion operations for incidental GBC after routine cholecystectomy were both included.

Robotic resection had lower blood loss compared to OR (150 vs 350 mL, P = .002) and shorter postoperative length of stay (2.5 vs 6 days, P < .001), while median operative time was similar (193 vs 208 min, P = .604). There were no statistical differences in 30-day major complications or readmissions. No 30-day mortalities occurred. There was no statistical difference in survival trend (P = .438) or median lymph node harvest (5 vs 3, P = .189) for RR compared to OR.

Robotic resection of GBC is safe and efficient, with lower length of hospital stay and blood loss compared to OR. Technical benefits of robotic-assisted surgery may prove advantageous though larger studies are still needed.

Robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) are the two principal minimally invasive surgical approaches for patients with pancreatic body and tail adenocarcinoma. The use of RDP and LDP for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains controversial, and which one can provide a better R0 rate is not clear.

A comprehensive search for studies that compared robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for PDAC published until July 31, 2021, was conducted. Data on perioperative outcomes and oncologic outcomes (R0-resection and lymph node dissection) were subjected to meta-analysis. PubMed, Cochrane Central Register, Web of Science, and EMBASE were searched based on a defined search strategy to identify eligible studies before July 2021.

Six retrospective studies comprising 572 patients (152 and 420 patients underwent RDP and LDP) were included. The present meta-analysis showed that there were no significant differences in operative time, tumor size, and lymph node dissection between RDP and LDP group. Nevertheless, compared with the LDP group, RDP results seem to demonstrate a possibility in higher R0 resection rate (p<0.0001).

This systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that RDP is a technically and oncologically safe and feasible approach for selected PDAC patients. Large randomized and controlled prospective studies are needed to confirm this data.

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#recordDetails, identifier [CRD42021269353].

The use robotics in surgery is gaining momentum. This approach holds substantial promise in pancreas surgery. Robotic surgery for pancreatic lesions and malignancies has become well accepted and is expanding to more and more center annually. The number of centers using robotics in pancreatic surgery is rapidly increasing. The most studied robotic pancreas surgeries are pancreaticoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy. Most studies are in their early phases, but they report that robotic pancreas surgery is safe feasible. Robotic pancreas surgery offers several advantages over open and laparoscopic techniques. Data regarding costs of robotics versus conventional techniques is still lacking. Robotic pancreas surgery is still in its early stages. It holds promise to become the new surgical standard for pancreatic resections in the future, however, more research is still needed to establish its safety, cost effectiveness and efficacy in providing the best outcomes.

To train practicing surgeons in robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RADP) and assess the impact on 5 domains of healthcare quality.

RADP may reduce the treatment burden compared with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP), but studies on institutional training and implementation programs are scarce.

A retrospective, single-center, cohort study evaluating surgical performance during a procedure-specific training program for RADP (January 2006 to September 2017). Baseline and unadjusted outcomes were compared "before training" (ODP only; June 2012). Exclusion criteria were neoadjuvant therapy, vascular- and unrelated organ resection. Run charts evaluated index length of stay (LOS) and 90-day comprehensive complication index. Cumulative sum charts of operating time (OT) assessed institutional learning. Adjusted outcomes after RADP versus ODP were compared using a secondary propensity-score-matched (1:1) analysis to determine clinical efficacy.

After screening, 237 patients were included in the before-training (133 ODP) and after-training (24 ODP, 80 RADP) groups. After initiation of training, mean perioperative blood loss decreased (-255 mL, P<0.001), OT increased (+65 min, P < 0.001), and median LOS decreased (-1 day, P < 0.001). All other outcomes remained similar (P>0.05). Over time, there were nonrandom (P < 0.05) downward shifts in LOS, while comprehensive complication index was unaffected. We observed 3 learning curve phases in OT: accumulation (<31 cases), optimization (case 31-65), and a steady-state (>65 cases). Propensity-score-matching confirmed reductions in index and 90-day LOS and blood loss with similar morbidity between RADP and ODP.

Supervised procedure-specific training enabled successful implementation of RADP by practicing surgeons with immediate improvements in length of stay, without adverse effects on safety.

The aim of this meta-analysis is to compare perioperative outcomes and costs of robotic and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (RDP and LDP).

In accordance with the PRISMA guidelines, we searched Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane and Web of Science for reports published before December 2020.

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.

Based on low-quality evidence, despite some potential technical advantages, RDP still seems to be costlier than LDP.

Feasibility and safety of robotic surgery for pancreatic disease has been well demonstrated; however, there is scarce literature on long-term oncologic outcomes. We compared perioperative and oncologic outcomes between robotic left pancreatectomy (RLP) and laparoscopic left pancreatectomy (LLP) for pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

A retrospective review evaluated left pancreatectomies performed for pancreatic adenocarcinoma from 2009 to 2019 in a tertiary institution. Baseline characteristics, operative and oncologic outcomes were compared between RLP and LLP.

There were 75 minimally invasive left pancreatectomy cases for pancreatic adenocarcinoma identified of which 33 cases were done robotically and 42 laparoscopically. Baseline characteristics demonstrated no difference in gender, age, BMI, T stage, N stage, neoadjuvant, or adjuvant chemotherapy. An analysis of operative variables demonstrated no difference in blood loss, increased duration, and higher lymph node yield with RLP (20 vs 12; P = .0029). Postoperatively, both cohorts had 30% pancreatic fistulas and no difference in complications. There were no differences in length of stay (LOS), 30- or 90-day readmission rates, or 90-day mortality. The analysis of oncologic outcomes demonstrated similar R0 resections (RLP: 72% vs OLP: 67%), recurrence rates (RLP: 36% vs OLP: 41%), and time to recurrence (RLP: 324 vs OLP 218 days). There was increased survival in the RLP cohort that was not significant (32 vs 19 months).

This analysis demonstrates RLP is at least equivalent to LLP in perioperative and oncologic outcomes. The significantly higher lymph node yield and trend toward an improved survival suggests oncologic advantage. Randomized controlled studies are needed to clarify benefit.

A reduced-port approach including single-site surgery has been used for distal pancreatectomy. However, triangulation is difficult in reduced-port laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy, and instrument crowding, and collision may occur, so this approach has not been widely used. Recently, an innovative technique for distal pancreatectomy using a robotic single-site surgical system was introduced. Herein, we evaluate the safety and feasibility of this technique.

Twenty-seven patients with a pancreatic tail mass underwent robotic single-site plus one-port distal pancreatectomy at six centers. We collected clinicopathologic data and evaluated the short-term perioperative outcomes of robotic single-site plus one-port distal pancreatectomy.

We evaluated 26 patients who underwent robotic single-site plus one-port distal pancreatectomy excluding one patient who needed more ports because of fatty abdomen. The mean age and body mass index were 47.3 years (range 21-74) and 22.6 kg/m2 (range 15.8-28.8), respectively. The most common pathologic diagnosis was solid papillary neoplasm followed by a neuroendocrine tumor. The mean operating time was 201 min. The mean length of hospital stay after surgery was 7 days (range 4-10). The rate of spleen preservation was 34.6% (9/26). Six patients had postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) grade A, and no patients had POPF grade B or C. Only one patient had class II morbidity.

Robotic single-site plus one-port distal pancreatectomy is safe and feasible in terms of short-term outcomes. This technique could be performed in select cases to expand the surgical boundaries of the robotic single-site platform. Further studies are needed with more cases to investigate long-term outcomes.

This study aims to describe our experience with minimally-invasive distal pancreatectomies, with emphasis on the comparison between robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP).

Retrospective review of 102 consecutive RDP and LDP from 2006 to 2019 was performed.

There were 27 and 75 patients who underwent RDP and LDP, respectively. There were 12 (11.8%) open conversions and 16 (15.7%) patients had major (＞grade 2) morbidities. Patients who underwent RDP had significantly higher rates of splenic preservation (44.4% vs. 13.3%, p=0.002), higher rates of splenic-vessel preservation (40.7% vs. 9.3%, p=0.001), higher median difficulty score (5 vs. 3, p=0.002) but longer operation time (385 vs. 245 minutes, p＜0.001). The rate of open conversion tended to be lower with RDP (3.7% vs. 14.7%, p=0.175).

In our institution practice, both RDP and LDP were safe and effective. The use of RDP appeared to be complementary to LDP, allowing us to perform more difficult procedures with comparable postoperative outcomes.

This study aimed to compare the short-term outcomes of open and robotic-assisted distal pancreatectomy (ODP and RDP) for benign and low-grade malignant tumors.

The patients who underwent RDP and ODP for benign or low-grade malignant pancreatic tumors at our center were included. After PSM at a 1:1 ratio, the perioperative variations in the two cohorts were compared.

After 1:1 PSM, 219 cases of RDP and ODP were recorded. The RDP cohort showed advantages in the operative duration [120 (90-150) min vs 175 (130-210) min, P < 0.001], estimated blood loss [50 (30-175) ml vs 200 (100-300) ml, P < 0.001], spleen preservation rate (63.5% vs 26.5%, P < 0.001), infection rate (4.6% vs 12.3%, P = 0.006), and gastrointestinal function recovery [3 (2-4) vs. 3 (3-5), P = 0.019]. There were no significant differences in postoperative pancreatic fistula, postoperative hemorrhage, and delayed gastric emptying. Multivariate analysis showed that RDP (HR 0.24; 95% CI 0.16-0.36, P < 0.001), age (HR 1.02; 95% CI 1.00-1.03, P = 0.033), tumor size (HR 1.28; 95% CI 1.17-1.40, P < 0.001), pathological inflammatory neoplasm type (HR 5.12; 95% CI 2.22-11.81, P < 0.001), and estimated blood loss (HR 1.003; 95% CI 1.001-1.004, P < 0.001) were independent predictors of spleen preservation; RDP (HR 0.27; 95% CI 0.17-0.43, P < 0.001), age (HR 1.02; 95% CI 1.00-1.03, P = 0.022), elevated CA 19-9 level (HR 2.55; 95% CI 1.02-6.39, P = 0.046), tumor size (HR 1.44; 95% CI 1.29-1.61, P < 0.001), pathological inflammatory neoplasm type (HR 4.48; 95% CI 1.69-11.85, P = 0.003), and estimated blood loss (HR 1.003; 95% CI 1.001-1.004, P < 0.001) were independent predictors of spleen preservation with the Kimura technique.

RDP has advantages in the operative time, blood loss, spleen preservation, infection rate, and gastrointestinal function recovery over ODP in treating benign and low-grade malignant pancreatic tumors. The robotic-assisted approach was an independent predictor of spleen preservation and use of the Kimura technique.

Acinar cell carcinoma (ACC) of the pancreas is a rare neoplasm with less aggressive behavior than ductal carcinoma. As a result, surgical resection for metastatic ACC is a therapeutic option which can result in long-term survival. There is a paucity of data describing institutional approaches to these challenging patients, and therefore, we herein describe our institution's approach to a patient with a distal pancreatic ACC and isolated liver metastasis. The patient underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy (FOLFIRINOX), followed by a robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy/splenectomy and non-anatomic segment 6 resection. He was discharged to home post-operative day 2. Final pathology revealed complete tumor response of the liver metastasis and a margin negative resection of the primary tumor. He remains disease free and without complications at 3 months. We highlight that combined modality therapy for metastatic ACC can yield long-term survival in selected patients. Similarly, the robotic platform enables performance of complex multivisceral resections with rapid recovery. Future research investigating precision medicine for metastatic ACC is warranted given widely variable tumor biology in this disease.

The aim of this study was to develop and externally validate the first evidence-based guidelines on minimally invasive pancreas resection (MIPR) before and during the International Evidence-based Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreas Resection (IG-MIPR) meeting in Miami (March 2019).

MIPR has seen rapid development in the past decade. Promising outcomes have been reported by early adopters from high-volume centers. Subsequently, multicenter series as well as randomized controlled trials were reported; however, guidelines for clinical practice were lacking.

The Scottisch Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) methodology was used, incorporating these 4 items: systematic reviews using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases to answer clinical questions, whenever possible in PICO style, the GRADE approach for assessment of the quality of evidence, the Delphi method for establishing consensus on the developed recommendations, and the AGREE-II instrument for the assessment of guideline quality and external validation. The current guidelines are cosponsored by the International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the Americas Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the Asian-Pacific Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the European-African Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery, Pancreas Club, the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgery, the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

After screening 16,069 titles, 694 studies were reviewed, and 291 were included. The final 28 recommendations covered 6 topics; laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomy, central pancreatectomy, pancreatoduodenectomy, as well as patient selection, training, learning curve, and minimal annual center volume required to obtain optimal outcomes and patient safety.

The IG-MIPR using SIGN methodology give guidance to surgeons, hospital administrators, patients, and medical societies on the use and outcome of MIPR as well as the approach to be taken regarding this challenging type of surgery.

This study aimed to compare success rate of spleen preservation between robotic and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (DP).

Between November 2007 and March 2018, forty-one patients underwent the conventional laparoscopic DP (Lap group) and the other 37 patients underwent robotic DP (Robot group). The perioperative clinicopathologic variables were compared.

The robotic procedure was chosen by younger patients compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery (42.9±14.0 vs. 51.3±14.6 years, P=0.016). The mean operation time was longer (313 vs. 246 min, P=0.000), but the mean tumor size was smaller in Robot group (2.7±1.2 vs. 4.2±3.3 cm, P=0.018). The overall spleen-preserving rate was higher in the Robot group (91.9% vs. 68.3%, P=0.012). However, with accumulating laparoscopic experiences (after 16th case), the statistical differences in spleen preservation rate between the Robot and Lap groups had diminished (P=0.428).

The present results suggest a robot can be helpful to save the spleen during DP for benign and borderline malignancy. However, a surgeon highly experienced in the laparoscopic approach can also produce a high success rate of spleen preservation, similar to that shown with the robotic approach.

The present study aimed to compare robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic distal pancreatic resection and enucleation for potentially benign pancreatic neoplasms.

Patients were retrieved from a prospectively maintained database. Demographic data, tumor types, and the perioperative outcomes were retrospectively analyzed.

In a 10-year period, 75 patients (female, n = 44; male, n = 31; median age, 53 years [range, 9-84 years]) were identified. The majority of patients had pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (n = 39, 52%) and cystic neoplasms (n = 23, 31%) with a median tumor size of 17 (3-60) mm. Nineteen (25.3%) patients underwent enucleation (robotic, n = 11; laparoscopic, n = 8) and 56 (74.7%) patients underwent distal pancreatic resection (robotic, n = 24; laparoscopic, n = 32), of those 48 (85%) underwent spleen-preserving procedures. Eight (10.7%) procedures had to be converted to open surgery. The rate of vessel preservation in distal pancreatectomy was significantly higher in robotic-assisted procedures (62.5% vs. 12.5%, p = 0.01). Twenty-six (34.6%) patients experienced postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo grade > 3). Twenty (26.7%) patients developed a pancreatic fistula type B. There was no mortality. After a median follow-up period of 58 months (range 2-120 months), one patient (1.3%) developed local recurrence (glucagonoma) after enucleation, which was treated with a Whipple procedure.

The robotic approach is comparably safe, but increases the rate of splenic vessel preservation and reduces the risk of conversion to open surgery.

Introduction. Despite the widespread use of the robotic technology, only a few studies with small sample sizes report its application to pancreatic diseases treatment. Our aim is to present the results of a multicenter study on the safety and feasibility of robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RDP). Materials and Methods. All RDPs for benign, borderline, and malignant diseases performed in 5 referral centers from 2008 to 2016 were included. Perioperative outcomes were evaluated. Results. Two hundred thirty-six patients were included. Spleen preservation was performed in 114 cases (48.3%). Operative time was 277.8 ± 93.6 minutes. Progressive improvement in operative time was observed over the study period. Conversion rate was 6.3%. Morbidity occurred in 102 cases (43.2%), mainly due to grade A fistulas. Reoperation was required in 10 patients. Postoperatively, 2 patients died of sepsis due to a grade C fistula. Hospital readmission was necessary in 11 cases. A R0 resection was always achieved, with a mean number of 16.2 ± 15 harvested lymph nodes. Conclusion. To our knowledge, this is one of the largest RDP series. Safety and feasibility including the low conversion rate, the high spleen preservation rate, the adequate operative time, and the acceptable morbidity and mortality rates confirm the validity of this technique. Appropriate oncological outcomes have been also obtained.

Aim: To evaluate and compare the short-term outcomes of robotic surgery and laparoscopic approach in distal pancreatectomy (DP). Materials & methods: EMBASE, PubMed, the Cochrane Library, CNKI and Wan Fang database were retrieved from the inception of electronic databases to June 2019. All analyses were performed using Stata/SE 15.1 version (StataCorp). Results: Twenty-two papers were included, four of which were prospective studies and the rest were retrospective studies. There was significant difference in spleen preservation rate (odds ratio: 2.020; 95% CI: 1.085-3.758; p = 0.027), operation time (mean difference [MD]: 27.372; 95% CI: 8.236-47.210; p = 0.000), the length of hospital stay (MD: -0.911; 95% CI: -1.287 to -0.535; p = 0.000), conversion rate (rate difference: -0.090; 95% CI: -1.287 to -0.535; p = 0.000), operation cost (MD: 2816.564; 95% CI: 1782.028-3851.064; p = 0.000). However, no significant difference was detected in estimated blood loss, total complication, severe complication, lymph nodules harvest, blood transfusion rate, total pancreatic fistula, severe pancreatic fistula, R0 resection rate and mortality. Conclusion: Both robotic and laparoscopic DP are safe and feasible. Although robotic DP increases the operation cost, the spleen-preserving rate is much higher. Robotic surgery may be an alternative approach to DP.

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is preferred for distal pancreatectomy but is not always attempted due to the risk of conversion to open. We hypothesized that the total cost for MIS converted to open procedures would be comparable to those that started open.

A prospectively collected institutional registry (2011-2017) was reviewed for demographic, clinical, and perioperative cost data for patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy.

There were 80 patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy: 41 open, 39 MIS (11 laparoscopic and 28 robotic). Conversion to open occurred in 14 of 39 (36%, 3 laparoscopic and 11 robotic). Length of stay was shorter for the MIS completed (6 days; range, 3-8), and MIS converted to open (7 days; range, 4-10) groups, compared with open (10 days; range, 5-36; P = .003). Laparoscopic cases were the least expensive (P = .02). Robotic converted to open procedures had the highest operating room cost. However, the total cost for robotic converted to open cohort was similar to the open cohort due to cost savings associated with a shorter length of stay.

Despite the higher intraoperative costs of robotic surgery, there is no significant overall financial penalty for conversion to open. Financial considerations should not play a role in selecting a robotic or open approach.