A 62-year-old man was referred to the Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary (HPB) surgeons with left upper quadrant discomfort. The initial investigations and CT scans revealed a tumour in the pancreatic tail with liver metastases, confirmed on MRI. It was initially thought to be an adenocarcinoma; however, further investigations found that it was a grade 1 neuroendocrine tumour with Ki 67 at 1% and it was agreed that he would undergo a total robotic surgery involving resection of the locally advanced tumour of the tail of pancreas, with the involvement of the stomach, and splenic flexure of the colon with liver metastases. The resulting procedure was a total robotic distal pancreatectomy, splenectomy, sleeve resection of stomach, cholecystectomy, atypical resection of two liver lesions and microwave ablation of multiple liver lesions. Four days post-operatively, he was discharged from hospital and commenced adjuvant chemotherapy. He currently enjoys a good quality of life.

Summary Background Elective splenectomy has various indications and can be performed open or minimally invasively. Laparoscopic splenectomy (LS) is popular but has limitations. Some studies suggest potential superiority of robotic splenectomy (RS) over LS. As such, we conducted a systematic review to determine whether RS has greater positive perioperative outcomes in comparison to LS in the adult population. Methods We searched for studies that reported perioperative outcomes and compared RS to LS in the adult population. Outcome measures were operative time, conversion to open surgery, postoperative complications, mortality, length of stay, blood loss and cost analysis. A simple, unpaired two-tailed student’s t‑test was used to compare outcomes between the RS and LS patient groups. Results After full-text analysis of 47 papers, three studies met the inclusion criteria. The studies involved 72 patients (28 in the RS group, 44 in the LS group). RS demonstrated no significantly reduced blood loss in comparison to LS (p = 0.13). RS had no cases converting to open surgery and no postoperative complications in comparison to LS. No significant difference was found between RS and LS with regards to LOS (p = 0.89) and cost benefit (p = 0.74). RS had a higher operative time in comparison to LS which was not statistically significant (p = 0.45). Conclusion The RS approach may be associated with lower blood loss and a lower risk of conversions. There was no statistical difference between RS and LS with regards to length of stay (LOS) and cost. RS takes longer to perform in comparison to LS.