Robotic hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery: lessons learned and predictors for conversion

Hanna, Erin M.; Rozario, Nigel; Rupp, Christopher C.; Sindram, David; Iannitti, David A.; Martinie, John B.

doi:10.1002/rcs.1492

Cited by 32 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Characteristics of the study included in our review are summarized in Table 2 [9,11,[17][18][19][20][21][22][23]. Nine studies were included in the analysis, including 6 retrospective and 3 prospective.…”

Section: Robotic Distal Pancreatectomy (Rdp)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy: State of the art

Méméo

Sangiuolo

Blasi

et al. 2016

Journal of Visceral Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over recent years, minimally invasive pancreatic resections have increasingly been reported in the literature. Even though pancreatic surgery is still considered a challenge for surgeons due to its technical difficulties and high morbidity, the development and spread of robotic surgery has highlighted a new interest, which has induced a rapid spread of robotic approaches for pancreatic resections. This study presents a systematic review of the literature regarding robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy in order to assess the safety and feasibility of robotic pancreatic resection.

show abstract

Section: Robotic Distal Pancreatectomy (Rdp)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy: State of the art

Méméo

Sangiuolo

Blasi

et al. 2016

Journal of Visceral Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(42) Hence, based on the current evidence, we can only conclude that RDP is feasible and can be performed safely. (7,11,17) However, there is also growing evidence suggesting that RDP may be associated with a shorter learning curve, (15) a lower conversion rate (15) and an increased rate of splenic preservation (11,23,34,38,42) as compared to conventional laparoscopy. In a recent study by Kang et al from Yonsei University, Korea, the authors reported that the rate of splenic preservation was demonstrated a distended bowel with no transition point.…”

Section: Casementioning

confidence: 99%

“…(5,6) However, the adoption of laparoscopic surgery in the fields of liver and pancreatic surgery has been relatively slow. (7,8) Although the first laparoscopic liver and pancreatic resections were reported in the early 1990s, (9,10) widespread adoption of such operations has been hindered by the technical complexities of these procedures, and concerns about oncological margins and risk of bleeding. (8) Pancreatic surgery is among the most complex and challenging of all abdominal operations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It also provides the additional advantages of improved dexterity and precision due to increased freedom of movement and the elimination of tremors. (7,11) The superiority of robotic surgery over conventional laparoscopy when performing complex surgical tasks has been proven in ex vivo models. (15) However, its use in the clinical setting remains controversial, especially with regard to DP.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

First experience with robotic spleen-saving, vessel-preserving distal pancreatectomy in Singapore: a report of three consecutive cases

Goh

Wong

Chan

et al. 2016

smedj

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

INTRODUCTIONOver the past few decades, the use of laparoscopic surgery has expanded rapidly to become the surgical approach of choice for many abdominal operations, including cholecystectomies, (1) appendicectomies, (2) adrenalectomies,colectomies (4) and gastric resections.(5,6) However, the adoption of laparoscopic surgery in the fields of liver and pancreatic surgery has been relatively slow. (7,8) Although the first laparoscopic liver and pancreatic resections were reported in the early 1990s, (9,10) widespread adoption of such operations has been hindered by the technical complexities of these procedures, and concerns about oncological margins and risk of bleeding. (8) Pancreatic surgery is among the most complex and challenging of all abdominal operations.(11) Despite rapid surgical advancements, pancreatic surgery remains a challenge and is associated with a high morbidity rate worldwide, even in highly specialised and experienced tertiary centres.(12,13) Laparoscopic pancreatic surgery was first reported by Cuschieri in 1994.(9) Since then, a growing number of studies on laparoscopic pancreatic surgeries have been published, although it has yet to gain widespread acceptance.(11) As distal pancreatectomy (DP) is not as technically demanding as pancreaticoduodenectomy, it is not surprising that most of the published studies are on the outcomes of laparoscopic DP (LDP). (14) These early studies have reported the potential benefits of using the laparoscopic approach, including decreased pain and blood loss, faster recovery, and a shorter hospital stay; the laparoscopic approach is also associated with morbidity rates that are similar to those observed with the use of the open approach. (14,15) Despite the increased adoption of LDP, there are barriers to its widespread adoption, which include the significant risk of conversion to the hand-assisted or open approach. (15,16) Robotic surgery was introduced to overcome the shortcomings of conventional laparoscopic surgery. (11,15,17) The robotic platform provides a three-dimensional, high-definition, magnified view of the operative field. It also provides the additional advantages of improved dexterity and precision due to increased freedom of movement and the elimination of tremors. (7,11) The superiority of robotic surgery over conventional laparoscopy when performing complex surgical tasks has been proven in ex vivo models. (15) However, its use in the clinical setting remains controversial, especially with regard to DP. In the first series of robotic distal pancreatectomies (RDPs), reported by Giulianotti et al in 2003, 13 patients underwent RDP. (18) Several studies on RDP have since been reported, most of which were small case series involving less than 50 patients. (17)

show abstract

“…К концу 2015 г. в мировой литературе было опубликовано 426 слу-чаев выполнения этой операции [13][14][15][16][17][18]. Показаниями к операции послужили нейроэндокринная опухоль (29%), протоковая аденокарцинома (23,9%), серозная или муци-нозная цистаденома (22,6%), внутрипротоковая папилляр-но-муцинозная опухоль (20%), другие заболевания (4,5%) [19][20][21][22]. Средняя продолжительность операции соста-вила 278±82,7 мин, интраоперационная кровопотеря -200±131,9 мл [14,23,24].…”

Section: Discussionunclassified