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.

We conclude by stating that this case of emphysematous gastritis, due to gastric ulcers, would have no difference in outcome if treated medically instead of surgically. Historically, patients with emphysematous gastritis warranted surgical intervention. More recently, case reports of emphysematous gastritis are favoring conservative management. The consensus still remains that there is no standard approach for these patients and most patients in extremis are undergoing surgical intervention.

This analysis has shown that external pancreatic duct stenting is indeed efficacious in the incidence of both any grade as well as clinically significant POPF formation following PD. Length of hospital stay was also found to be significantly less by external duct stenting.

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.