Robotic distal pancreatectomy – the first experience
Authors:
S. Jaroščiaková; J. Tvrdoň; P. Hladík; T. Haruštiak; M. Podhráský; R. Lischke
Authors place of work:
III. chirurgická klinika, 1. lékařská fakulta Univerzity Karlovy, Fakultní nemocnice v Motole, Praha
Published in the journal:
Rozhl. Chir., 2023, roč. 102, č. 3, s. 125-129.
Category:
Original articles
doi:
https://doi.org/10.33699/PIS.2023.102.3.125–129
Summary
Introduction: Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) includes both laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP). MIDP is often adopted first due to the absence of the requirement of a complex reconstruction. In recent years, an increase in the use of robotic surgery has been noted.
Methods: The authors present initial experience with RDP and retrospective analysis of data from prospectively collected database.
Results: Between September 2021 and October 2022 five patients undergoing RDP with splenectomy performed in the 3rd Department of Surgery, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and Motol University Hospital were included from a prospectively maintained database. The age was from 20 to 70 years. No conversion was required. One patient underwent reoperation due to staple-line hemorrhage. Postoperative hospital stay was from 4 to 14 days. The follow-up period was from 2 to 14 months.
Conclusion: Our first experience demonstrates RDP is a safe and efficacious approach for tumors of pancreatic body and tail in selected patients. A larger number of patients is needed to obtain more accurate results.
Keywords:
minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy – MIDP – robotic distal pancreatectomy – RDP
Zdroje
1. Finney JM. VII. Resection of the pancreas: Report of a case. Ann Surg. 1910;51(6): 818−829. doi:10.1097/00000658-191006000-00007.
2. Maeso S, Reza M, Mayol JA, et al. Efficacy of the Da Vinci surgical system in abdominal surgery compared with that of laparoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg. 2010;252(2):254−262. doi:10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181e6239e.
3. Asbun HJ, Moekotte AL, Vissers FL, et al. The Miami international evidence-based guidelines on minimally invasive pancreas resection. Ann Surg. 2020;271(1):1−14. doi:10.1097/SLA.0000000000003590.
4. Melvin WS, Needleman BJ, Krause KR, et al. Robotic resection of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2003 Feb;13(1):33−36. doi: 10.1089/109264203321235449.
5. Doyle DJ, Hendrix JM, Garmon EH. American Society of Anesthesiologists classification. In: StatPearls. Treasure Island (FL). StatPearls Publishing 2022.
6. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004 Aug;240(2):205−213. doi: 10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934. ae.
7. Bassi C, Marchegiani G, Dervenis C, et al. International Study Group on Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS). The 2016 update of the International Study Group (ISGPS) definition and grading of postoperative pancreatic fistula: 11 years after. Surgery 2017 Mar;161(3):584−591. doi: 10.1016/j. surg.2016.11.014.
8. Wente MN, Veit JA, Bassi C, et al. Postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH): an International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) definition. Surgery 2007 Jul;142(1):20−25. doi: 10.1016/j. surg.2007.02.001.
9. Stauffer JA, Coppola A, Mody K, et al. Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. World J Surg. 2016;40(6):1477−1484. doi:10.1007/s00268-016-3412-6.
10. de Rooij T, van Hilst J, van Santvoort H, et al. Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group. Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy (LEOPARD): A multicenter patient-blinded randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg. 2019 Jan;269(1):2−9. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002979.
11. Björnsson B, Larsson AL, Hjalmarsson C, et al. Comparison of the duration of hospital stay after laparoscopic or open distal pancreatectomy: randomized controlled trial. Br J Surg. 2020 Sep;107(10):1281−1288. doi:10.1002/bjs.11554.
12. Mehrabi A, Hafezi M, Arvin J, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy for benign and malignant lesions of the pancreas: it’s time to randomize. Surgery 2015;157(1):45−55. doi:10.1016/j. surg.2014.06.081.
13. van Hilst J, de Rooij T, Klompmaker S, et al. Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy for ductal adenocarcinoma (DIPLOMA): A Pan-European propensity score matched study. Ann Surg. 2019;269(1):10−17. doi:10.1097/ SLA.0000000000002561.
14. van Hilst J, Korrel M, de Rooij T, et al. Oncologic outcomes of minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2019;45(5):719−727. doi:10.1016/j.ejso.2018.12.003.
15. van Hilst J, Korrel M, Lof S, et al. Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (DIPLOMA): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials 2021;22(1):608. doi:10.1186/s13063-021- 05506-z.
16. Lof S, van der Heijde N, Abuawwad M, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: multicentre analysis. Br J Surg. 2021;108(2):188−195. doi:10.1093/ bjs/znaa039.
17. Hong S, Song KB, Madkhali AA, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for left-sided pancreatic tumors: a single surgeon’s experience of 228 consecutive cases. Surg Endosc. 2020;34(6):2465−2473. doi:10.1007/ s00464-019-07047-8.
18. Raoof M, Nota CLMA, Melstrom LG, et al. Oncologic outcomes after robot- assisted versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: Analysis of the National Cancer Database. J Surg Oncol. 2018;118(4):651−656. doi:10.1002/jso. 25170.
19. de Rooij T, van Hilst J, Boerma D, et al. Impact of a nationwide training program in minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (LAELAPS). Ann Surg. 2016;264(5):754−762. doi:10.1097/SLA. 0000000000001888.
20. Shakir M, Boone BA, Polanco PM, et al. The learning curve for robotic distal pancreatectomy: an analysis of outcomes of the first 100 consecutive cases at a high-volume pancreatic centre. HPB (Oxford) 2015;17(7):580−586. doi:10.1111/hpb.12412.
21. Benizri EI, Germain A, Ayav A, et al. Short-term perioperative outcomes after robot-assisted and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. J Robot Surg. 2014;8(2):125−132. doi:10.1007/s11701- 013-0438-8.
22. van der Heijde N, Lof S, Busch OR, et al. Incidence and impact of postoperative pancreatic fistula after minimally invasive and open distal pancreatectomy. Surgery 2022;171(6):1658−1664. doi:10.1016/j. surg.2021.11.009.
Štítky
Surgery Orthopaedics Trauma surgeryČlánok vyšiel v časopise
Perspectives in Surgery
2023 Číslo 3
- Spasmolytic Effect of Metamizole
- Metamizole at a Glance and in Practice – Effective Non-Opioid Analgesic for All Ages
- Metamizole in perioperative treatment in children under 14 years – results of a questionnaire survey from practice
Najčítanejšie v tomto čísle
- Robotic distal pancreatectomy – the first experience
- Our experience with solitary fibrous tumors in the chest area
- Pneumoperitoneum, pneumomediastinum and subcutaneous emphysema following argon plasma coagulation treatment of colonic angioectasia
- Risk factors predicting cervical spine fracture on CT in craniocervical trauma − retrospective study