Solid pseudopapillary neoplasia managed by robot- -assisted spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy
Authors:
K. Pončáková; M. Rousek; P. Záruba; R. Pohnán
Authors‘ workplace:
2. LF UK a ÚVN – VFN Praha
; Chirurgická klinika
Published in:
Rozhl. Chir., 2025, roč. 104, č. 1, s. 25-29.
Category:
Case Report
doi:
https://doi.org/10.48095/ccrvch202525
Overview
Summary
Introduction: With the introduction of the Da Vinci Xi robotic system, there has been an exponential development of robot-assisted surgical interventions. The benefits of robotic surgery are also successfully used in the field of pancreatic surgery. We present a case report of a 24-year-old female with solid pseudopapillary neoplasia of the pancreas operated on using this robotic system.
Case report: A young female patient with symptomatic solid pseudopapillary neoplasia of the cauda of the pancreas underwent robot-assisted spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (the Kimura procedure). The operation was performed according to the plan with the use of the Da Vinci Xi robotic system without complications. The postoperative course was smooth with subsequent discharge on the sixth postoperative day. Further postoperative development was favorable and the patient is in good general condition six months after the operation.
Conclusion: Robot-assisted surgical procedures also bring a number of advantages to the field of pancreatic surgery, which can be achieved safely and minimally invasively even in anatomically unfavorable terrain with the help of a robotic system. Although presenting a technically challenging method, it is a safe method in the treatment of benign and low-grade malignant pancreatic neoplasia.
Keywords:
robotic surgery – Pancreas – distal pancreatectomy – pancreatic neoplasm
Sources
1. Law JK, Ahmed A, Singh VK et al. A systematic review of solid-pseudopapillary neoplasms: are these rare lesions? Pancreas 2014; 43(3): 331–337. doi: 10.1097/MPA.0000000000000061.
2. La Rosa S, Bongiovanni M. Pancreatic solid pseudopapillary neoplasm: key pathologic and genetic features. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2020; 144(7): 829–837. doi: 10.5858/arpa.2019-0473-RA.
3. Dinarvand P, Lai J. Solid pseudopapillary neoplasm of the pancreas: a rare entity with unique features. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2017; 141(7): 990–995. doi: 10.5858/arpa.2016-0322-RS.
4. Mylonas KS, Doulamis IP, Tsilimigras DI et al. Solid pseudopapillary and malignant pancreatic tumors in childhood: a systematic review and evidence quality assessment. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2018; 65(10): e27114. doi: 10.1002/pbc.27114.
5. Reddy K, Gharde P, Tayade H et al. Advancements in robotic surgery: a comprehensive overview of current utilizations and upcoming frontiers. Cureus 2023; 15(12): e50415. doi: 10.7759/cureus.50415.
6. Granieri S, Bonomi A, Frassini S et al. Kimura‘s vs Warshaw‘s technique for spleen preserving distal pancreatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of high-quality studies. HPB (Oxford) 2023; 25(6): 614–624. doi: 10.1016/j.hpb.2023.02.009.
7. Hlavsa J, Pavlík T, Marek D et al. Minimálně invazivní chirurgie karcinomu pankreatu na Chirurgické klinice Lékařské fakulty Masarykovy Univerzity a Fakultní nemocnice Brno. Rozhl Chir 2024; 103(4): 122–131. doi: 10.33699/PIS.2024.103.4.122–131.
8. Abu Hilal M, van Ramshorst TM, Boggi U et al. The Brescia Internationally Validated European Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Surgery (EGUMIPS). Ann Surg 2024; 279(1): 45–57. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000006006.
9. Kimura W, Inoue T, Futakawa N et al. Spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy with conservation of the splenic artery and vein. Surgery 1996; 120(5): 885–890. doi: 10.1016/s0039-6060(96)80099-7.
10. Gupta AK, Vazquez OA. Overwhelming post-splenectomy infection syndrome: variability in timing with similar presentation. Cureus 2020; 12(8): e9914. doi: 10.7759/cureus.9914.
11. Pohnan R. Prevence infekčních komplikací u pacientů po splenektomii. Vakcinologie 2019; 13(3): 117–119.
12. Kristinsson SY, Gridley G, Hoover RN et al. Long-term risks after splenectomy among 8,149 cancer-free American veterans: a cohort study with up to 27 years follow-up. Haematologica 2014; 99(2): 392–398. doi: 10.3324/haematol.2013.092460.
13. Buzelé R, Barbier L, Sauvanet A et al. Medical complications following splenectomy. J Visc Surg 2016; 153(4): 277–286. doi: 10.1016/j.jviscsurg.2016.04.013.
14. Barmparas G, Lamb AW, Lee D et al. Postoperative infection risk after splenectomy: a prospective cohort study. Int J Surg 2015; 17: 10–14. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2015.03.007.
15. Palkar AV, Agrawal A, Verma S et al. Post splenectomy related pulmonary hypertension. World J Respirol 2015; 5(2): 69–77. doi: 10.5320/wjr.v5.i2.69.
16. Abu Hilal M, Carvalho L, van Ramshorst TM et al. Minimally invasive vessel-preservation spleen preserving distal pancreatectomy – how I do it, tips and tricks and clinical results. Surg Endosc 2023; 37(9): 7024–7038. doi: 10.1007/s00464-023-10173-z.
17. Nakata K, Ohtsuka T, Miyasaka Y et al. Evaluation of relationship between splenic artery and pancreatic parenchyma using three-dimensional computed tomography for laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2021; 406(6): 1885–1892. doi: 10.1007/s00423-021-02101-3.
18. Yang F, Windsor JA, Fu DL. Optimizing prediction models for pancreatic fistula after pancreatectomy: current status and future perspectives. World J Gastroenterol 2024; 30(10): 1329–1345. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v30.i10.1329.
19. Nebbia M, Capretti G, Nappo G et al. Updates in the management of postoperative pancreatic fistula. Int J Surg 2024; 110(10): 6135–6144. doi: 10.1097/JS9.0000000000001395.
20. van Bodegraven EA, De Pastena M, Vissers FL et al. Routine prophylactic abdominal drainage versus no-drain strategy after distal pancreatectomy: a multicenter propensity score matched analysis. Pancreatology 2022; 22(6): 797–802. doi: 10.1016/j.pan.2022.06.002.
21. van Bodegraven EA, Balduzzi A, van Ramshorst TME et al. Prophylactic abdominal drainage after distal pancreatectomy (PANDORINA): an international, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled, non-inferiority trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2024; 9(5): 438–447. doi: 10.1016/S2468-1253(24)00037-2.
Labels
Surgery Orthopaedics Trauma surgeryArticle was published in
Perspectives in Surgery
2025 Issue 1
- Metamizole vs. Tramadol in Postoperative Analgesia
- Metamizole at a Glance and in Practice – Effective Non-Opioid Analgesic for All Ages
- Obstacle Called Vasospasm: Which Solution Is Most Effective in Microsurgery and How to Pharmacologically Assist It?
Most read in this issue
- Novoroční pozdrav předsedy výboru České chirurgické společnosti ČLS JEP
- Congenital lumbar hernia in a child
- Novelizace vyhlášky o vzdělávání v základních kmenech lékařů
- Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy with a portal vein resection