Introduction:The role and application of robotic surgery are debated, particularly given the expansion of laparoscopy, especially laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) surgery. This cohort study was undertaken to delineate differences in outcomes between LESS and robotic distal pancreatectomy and splenectomy.Methods:With Institutional Review Board approval, patients undergoing LESS or robotic distal pancreatectomy and splenectomy from September 1, 2012, through December 31, 2014, were prospectively observed, and data were collected. The results are expressed as the median, with the mean ± SD.Results:Thirty-four patients underwent a minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy and splenectomy: 18 with robotic and 16 with LESS surgery. The patients were similar in sex, age, and body mass index. Conversions to open surgery and estimated blood loss were similar. There were two intraoperative complications in the group that underwent the robotic approach. Time spent in the operating room was significantly longer with the robot (297 vs 254 minutes, P = .03), although operative duration (i.e., incision to closure) was not longer (225 vs 190 minutes; P = .15). Of the operations studied, 79% were undertaken for neoplastic processes. Tumor size was 3.5 cm for both approaches; R0 resections were achieved in all patients. Length of stay was similar in the two study groups (5 vs 4 days). There was one 30-day readmission after robotic surgery.Conclusions:Patient outcomes are similar with LESS or robotic distal pancreatectomy and splenectomy. Robotic operations require more time in the operating room. Both are safe and efficacious minimally invasive operations that follow similar oncologic principles for similar tumors, and both should be in the surgeon's armamentarium for distal pancreatectomy and splenectomy.

Based on meta-analysis, TTE is associated with a lower leak rate and does not result in higher morbidity or mortality than THE. The previously assumed higher rate of transthoracic anastomotic leak-associated mortality is overstated, thus supporting surgeon discretion and other factors to influence the choice of thoracic versus cervical anastomosis.

While most providers support the concept of a multidisciplinary approach to patient care, challenges exist to the implementation of successful multidisciplinary clinical programs. As patients become more knowledgeable about their disease through research on the Internet, they seek hospital programs that offer multidisciplinary care. At the University of Colorado Hospital, we utilize a formal multidisciplinary approach across a variety of clinical settings, which has been beneficial to patients, providers, and the hospital. We present a reproducible framework to be used as a guide to develop a successful multidisciplinary program.

Relative to laparoscopic cholecystectomy, robotic cholecystectomy takes longer and has greater charges. Revenue, EBDIT, and Net Income are similar after either approach; this indicates that costs with either approach are similar. Notably, this is possible because much of hospital-based costs are determined by cost allocation and not cost accounting. Thus, the cost of longer operations and costs inherent to the robotic approach for cholecystectomy do not translate to a perceived financial burden.

Pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (PPPD) and duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resection (DPPHR) are important treatment options for patients with chronic pancreatitis. This meta-analysis was undertaken to compare the long-term outcomes of DPPHR versus PPPD in patients with chronic pancreatitis. A systematic literature search was conducted using Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane, and PubMed databases on all studies published between January 1991 and January 2013 reporting intermediate and long-term outcomes after DPPHR and PPPD for chronic pancreatitis. Long-term outcomes of interest were complete pain relief, quality of life, professional rehabilitation, exocrine insufficiency, and endocrine insufficiency. Other outcomes of interest included perioperative morbidity and length of stay (LOS). Ten studies were included comprising of 569 patients. There was no significant difference in complete pain relief ( P = 0.24), endocrine insufficiency ( P = 0.15), and perioperative morbidity ( P = 0.13) between DPPHR and PPPD. However, quality of life ( P < 0.00001), professional rehabilitation ( P = 0.004), exocrine insufficiency ( P = 0.005), and LOS ( P = 0.00001) were significantly better for patients undergoing DPPHR compared with PPPD. In conclusion, there is no significant difference in endocrine insufficiency, postoperative pain relief, and perioperative morbidity for patients undergoing DPPHR versus PPPD. Improved intermediate and long-term outcomes including LOS, quality of life, professional rehabilitation, and preservation of exocrine function make DPPHR a more favorable approach than PPPD for patients with chronic pancreatitis.