Our initial experience showed that RPS can be adopted safely with a low open conversion rate for a wide variety of procedures including pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Background: Concerns have been raised about the safety of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) during the early learning phase. In this study, we present our initial experience with MIS for periampullary tumours. Methods: Retrospective review of the first 30 consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic (LS)/robotic surgery (RS) for periampullary tumours between 2014 and 2017. Results: Twenty-seven patients underwent PD, including three total pancreatectomies (TPs) and three underwent palliative bypasses. Twenty underwent LS, of which 18 were hybrid PDs, including two TPs and two bypasses. Ten patients underwent RS, of which nine were PDs, including one TP and one bypass. Five of 10 RSs were totally MIS procedures. There were four PDs with venous resection, of which three were by RS. There were four (13.3%) open conversions all in the LS cohort. There were five (16.7%) major (>grade 2) morbidities, including three pancreatic fistulas (two grade B and one grade C). There was no 30-day and one (3.3%) 90-day mortality. Comparison between RS and LS demonstrated that RS had a higher likelihood of being completed via totally MIS (five (50%) versus 0, P = 0.002), tended to have a shorter post-operative stay (eight (range 6-36) versus 14.5 (range 6-62) days, P = 0.058) but tended to be associated with a longer operation time (670 (range 500-930) versus 577 (range 235-715) min, P = 0.056). Conclusion: Our initial experience demonstrated that both LS and RS can be safely adopted for the treatment of periampullary tumours. The learning curve for RS seemed to be shorter than LS as we could transition more quickly from hybrid PDs to totally MIS safely. © 2019 Royal Australasian College of Surgeons ANZ J Surg 89 (2019) E137-E141 ANZJSurg.com E138 Goh et al.

Background: Presently, experience with robotic biliary surgery (RBS) is increasing worldwide although widespread adoption remains limited. In this study, we report our initial experience with RBS. Methods: Retrospective review of a single institution prospective database of 95 consecutive robotic hepatopancreatobiliary surgeries performed between 2013 and 2018. Of these, 27 patients who underwent RBS were included in this study. RBS was performed by three principal console surgeons of whom one surgeon performed 23 (85%) and supervised all cases. Additionally, to evaluate our initial outcomes with bilio-enteric anastomoses, eight consecutive pancreatoduodenectomies were included. Results: Of the 27 RBS performed, these included 10 hepaticojejunostomies with bile duct resections (including two concomitant pancreatoduodenectomies and one right hepatectomy) for choledochal cysts, bile duct strictures and biliary malignancies; five liver resections with hilar lymph node clearance for gallbladder cancer; four for Mirizzi syndrome; two cholecystectomies with cholecystoenteric fistula and two bile duct exploration after failed endoscopic treatment of choledocholithiasis. There were no open conversions, no 90-day mortality and four (14.8%) major (>Grade II) morbidities. The median postoperative stay was 6 (range 1-29) days and there was one (3.7%) 30-day readmissions. Of our first 18 robotically constructed bilio-enteric anastomoses, there was only one (5.5%) early anastomotic complication (bile leak requiring reoperation). Conclusion: Our initial experience demonstrated that RBS can be adopted safely with a low open conversion rate. Robotically constructed bilio-enteric anastomosis can be performed safely with a low anastomotic complication rate.

Background: Minimally-invasive pancreato-biliary surgery (MIPBS) is increasingly reported worldwide. This study examines the changing trends, safety and outcomes associated with the adoption of MIPBS based on a contemporary experience of an early adopter in Southeast Asia. Methods: Retrospective review of 114 consecutive patients who underwent MIPBS by a single surgeon over 86 months from 2011. The study population was stratified into three equal groups of 38 patients. Comparison was also performed between minimally-invasive pancreato surgery (MIPS) and minimally-invasive biliary surgery (MIBS). Results: There were 70 MIPS and 44 MIBS. Sixty-three cases (55.3%) were performed using robotic assistance and fourteen (12.3%) were hybrid procedures with open reconstruction. Forty-four (38.6%) procedures were performed for malignancy. There were 8 (7.0%) open conversions and median operation time was 335 (range, 60–930) min. There were nine extended pancreatectomies including seven involving vascular reconstructions. Major morbidity (>Grade 2) occurred in 20 (17.5%) patients including 6 (5.3%) reoperations and there was no mortality. Comparison across the three groups demonstrated that with increasing experience, there was a significant trend in a higher proportion of higher ASA score patients, increasing frequency of procedures requiring anastomosis and increasing the use of robotic assistance without significant difference in key perioperative outcomes such as open conversion rate, morbidity and hospital stay. Comparison between MIPS and MIBS demonstrated that MIPS was associated with significantly longer operation time, increased blood loss, increased transfusion rate, longer hospital stay, increased readmission rate and increased morbidity. Conclusion: MIPBS can be safely adopted today with a low open conversion rate.

Online first papers have undergone full scientific review and copyediting, but have not been typeset or proofread. To cite this article, use the DOIs number provided. Mandatory typesetting and proofreading will commence with regular print and online publication of the online first papers of the SMJ.

Background/Aims: The International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery recently published a consensus statement on the definition of extended pancreatectomy (EP). We aimed to determine the safety profile and short-term outcomes of EP compared to standard pancreatectomy (SP). To mitigate surgeon bias, only pancreatectomies performed by a single surgeon were included. Methods: Ninety consecutive patients who underwent pancreatectomy by a single surgeon over a period of 5 years and who met our study criteria were classified into an SP or an EP group. Sixty-two patients underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD), including total pancreatectomy, and 28 patients underwent distal pancreatectomy. Results: The 25 patients who underwent EP had significantly increased operation time, estimated blood loss, postoperative intensive care unit (ICU) transfer, and postoperative stay compared to the 65 patients who underwent SP. There was 1 (1.1%) 30-day mortality and 4 (4.4%) in-hospital mortalities. Postoperative morbidity and mortality were similar between both groups. Subgroup analysis of the patients who underwent PD demonstrated that the EP group (n = 22) had significantly increased operation time and postoperative ICU transfers. Conclusion: Although patients who underwent EP experienced significantly increased operative time, blood loss, and postoperative stay, they did not experience significantly higher postoperative morbidity or mortality compared to patients who underwent SP.

Background: Recently, there have been several reports on minimally-invasive surgery for extended pancreatectomy (MIEP) in the literature. However, to date, only a limited number of studies reporting on the outcomes of MIEP have been published. In the present study, we report our initial experience with MIEP defined according to the latest the International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery (ISPGS) guidelines. Methods: Over a 14-month period, a total of 6 consecutive MIEP performed by a single surgeon at a tertiary institution were identified from a prospectively maintained surgical database. EP was defined as per the 2014 ISPGS consensus. Hybrid pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) was defined as when the entire resection was completed through minimally-invasive surgery, and the reconstruction was performed open through a mini-laparotomy incision. Results: Six cases were performed including 2 robotic extended subtotal pancreatosplenectomies with gastric resection, 1 laparoscopic-assisted (hybrid) extended PD with superior mesenteric vein wedge resection, 2 robotic-assisted (hybrid) PD with portal vein resection (1 interposition Polytetrafluoroethylene graft reconstruction and 1 wedge resection) and 1 totally robotic PD with wedge resection of portal vein. Median estimated blood loss was 400 (250–1500) ml and median operative time was 713 (400-930) min. Median post-operative stay was 9 (6–36) days. There was 1 major morbidity (Grade 3b) in a patient who developed early post-operative intestinal obstruction secondary to port site herniation necessitating repeat laparoscopic surgery. There were no open conversions and no in-hospital mortalities. Conclusion: Based on our initial experience, MIEP although technically challenging and associated with long operative times, is feasible and safe in highly selected cases.

old). The correlation between the complications and E-PASS score and survival outcome in two groups were compared. Results: There were no statistical background differences between two groups. Occurrence rate of PF (non-elderly 18 vs elderly 9%, p = 0.16), hospital stay (26 vs 24 days), mortality rate (1 vs 0%) were equivalent in two groups. In addition, overall survival rate (p = 0.49) and disease free survival rate (p = 0.54) were also equivalent in two groups. In risk evaluation, PRS in elderly group was higher than non-elderly group (0.267 vs 0.360, p< 0.01).In elderly group, there were 17 patients (39%) who developed some complications, CRS in complication (+) patients was higher than (À) patients (0.505 vs 0.669, p = 0.02). Conclusion: PD for elderly patient could be contribute to prolong the prognosis as same as non-elderly patients.