Robot-assisted laparoscopic middle pancreatectomy

ASO Author Reflections: The Role of Robotic Surgery on Central Pancreatectomy

Central pancreatectomy (CP) is indicated for benign or low-grade pancreatic tumors located in the neck or proximal pancreatic body. This procedure is demanding and has a high rate of postoperative complications. Minimally invasive surgery is now commonly used for CP but it is still unclear whether the robotic approach offers any advantages over conventional pancreatic minimally invasive surgery. Most studies on robotic CP are limited to case reports or case series; however, there are two important studies on this topic. Currently, the evidence on robotic CP remains limited, making it challenging to draw definitive conclusions in favor of one technique over the other. The use of a robotic platform, with its integrated tools such as intraoperative ultrasound, can guide the surgeon in performing this technically demanding procedure in a safer manner. The controversy regarding the best minimally invasive surgery approach for CP is still ongoing and requires further research.

Recent trends in organ-preserving pancreatectomy: Its problems and clinical advantages compared with other standard pancreatectomies

In this review article, we focus on recent papers on organ-preserving pancreatectomy procedures published since 2010. When comparing central pancreatectomy (CP) and distal pancreatectomy (DP), most studies have concluded that the CP group exhibited significantly lower incidence of new-onset diabetes or diabetes exacerbation than the DP group postoperatively. However, because of increased incidence of morbidities such as pancreatic fistula, the surgeon faces a considerable trade-off between increased short-term morbidity and long-term preservation of endocrine function. When the outcomes of two types of spleen-preserving DP (Kimura and Warshaw procedures) are compared, most studies mentioned the low incidence of postoperative gastric varices and splenic infarction with the Kimura procedure. Although there are several reports regarding the effect of spleen preservation on prevention of postoperative infections, no report on the contribution of spleen preservation to the prevention of overwhelming post-splenectomy infection is seen. The advantages of duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resection (DPPHR) concerning endocrine and exocrine functions continue to be subjects of discussion, mainly due to the limited number of institutions that have adopted this approach; however, DPPHR should be presented as an option for patients due to its low incidence of postoperative cholangitis. Organ-preserving pancreatectomy requires meticulous surgical techniques, and postoperative complications may increase with this surgery compared with standard pancreatectomy, which may be influenced by the surgeon's skill and the surgical facility where the procedure is performed. Nonetheless, this technique has significant long-term advantages in terms of endocrine and exocrine functions and its wider adoption in the future is expected.

Analysis of the clinical efficacy of laparoscopic middle pancreatectomy in the treatment of benign or low-grade malignant tumors of the pancreas

Objective

The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical efficacy of laparoscopic middle pancreatectomy in the treatment of benign and junctional tumors of the pancreas.

Methods

Retrospective analysis of basic data, tumor diameter, statistical analysis, and evaluation of efficacy-related indicators such as operative time, intraoperative bleeding, pathological findings, postoperative hospital stay, postoperative pancreatic fistula incidence, and pancreatic endocrine function was carried out on 17 patients diagnosed with benign or low-grade malignant tumors of the pancreas and laparoscopic middle pancreatic resection from January 2018 to January 2023 at the First Affiliated Hospital of Hunan Normal University.

Results

A total of 17 patients were screened. There were eight males and nine females; mean age was 42.8 ± 17.4 years (range: 15-69 years); BMI was 22.6 ± 2.5 kg/m2 (range: 18.4-27.5 kg/m2), and the tumor size was 3.4 ± 1.2 cm (range: 1.5-5.5 cm). Preoperative glycan antigen CA19-9 was negative and CA125 was negative. Surgical time was 393.2 ± 57.9 min; intraoperative bleeding was 211.7 ± 113.9 ml; tumor diameter size was 3.4 ± 1.2 cm; postoperative admission time was 19.4 ± 7.6 days; postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) grading was 17 cases, including nine cases of A-grade fistula, three cases of B-grade fistula, and none of C-grade fistula; postoperative pathology results were five cases of plasmacytoma, three cases of mucinous cystadenoma, four cases of SPN (solid pseudopapillary neoplasm), one case of Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Neoplasm (IPMN), three cases of pancreatic Neuroendocrine Neoplasm (pNEN), one case of inflammatory myofibroblastic osteoblastoma. All cases did not develop pancreatic origin diabetes or exacerbation of previous diabetes, and no cases presented symptoms of exocrine insufficiency such as dyspepsia and diarrhea.

Conclusion

Laparoscopic middle pancreatectomy is safe and feasible in the treatment of benign or low-grade malignant tumors in the body of the pancreatic neck and is not accompanied by increased risk of intraoperative and postoperative complications and endocrine dysfunction of the pancreas.

Robotic Parenchymal-Sparing Pancreatectomy: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Parenchymal-sparing approaches to pancreatectomy are technically challenging procedures but allow for preserving a normal pancreas and decreasing the rate of postoperative pancreatic insufficiency. The robotic platform is increasingly being used for these procedures. We sought to evaluate robotic parenchymal-sparing pancreatectomy and assess its complication profile and efficacy.

METHODS

This systematic review consisted of all studies on robotic parenchymal-sparing pancreatectomy (central pancreatectomy, duodenum-preserving partial pancreatic head resection, enucleation, and uncinate resection) published between January 2001 and December 2022 in PubMed and Embase.

RESULTS

A total of 23 studies were included in this review (n = 788). Robotic parenchymal-sparing pancreatectomy is being performed worldwide for benign or indolent pancreatic lesions. When compared to the open approach, robotic parenchymal-sparing pancreatectomies led to a longer average operative time, shorter length of stay, and higher estimated intraoperative blood loss. Postoperative pancreatic fistula is common, but severe complications requiring intervention are exceedingly rare. Long-term complications such as endocrine and exocrine insufficiency are nearly nonexistent.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic parenchymal-sparing pancreatectomy appears to have a higher risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula but is rarely associated with severe or long-term complications. Careful patient selection is required to maximize benefits and minimize morbidity.

Comparison of robotic and open central pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND

Central pancreatectomy (CP) is an ideal parenchyma-sparing procedure. The experience of r robotic central pancreatectomy (RCP) is very limited.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients undergoing CP were included. Comparisons were made between RCP and open central pancreatectomy (OCP) groups.

RESULTS

The most common lesion in patients undergoing CP was serous cystadenoma (35.5%). The median operation time was 4.2 h for RCP versus 5.5 h for OCP. The median blood loss was significantly lower in RCP, 20 c.c. versus 170 c.c., p = 0.001. Postoperative pancreatic fistula occurred in 19.4% of all patients, with 22.1% in RCP and 15.4% in OCP. There was no significant difference regarding other surgical complications between the RCP and OCP groups. Only one patient in the OCP group developed de novo diabetes mellitus (DM), and no steatorrhoea/diarrhoea occurred after either RCP or OCP.

CONCLUSIONS

RCP is feasible and safe without compromising surgical outcomes and pancreatic functions.

Minimally invasive versus open central pancreatectomy: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to give an overview on the postoperative outcome after a minimally invasive (ie, laparoscopic and robot-assisted) central pancreatectomy and open central pancreatectomy with a specific emphasis on the postoperative pancreatic fistula. For benign and low-grade malignant lesions in the pancreatic neck and body, central pancreatectomy may be an alternative to distal pancreatectomy. Exocrine and endocrine insufficiency occur less often after central pancreatectomy, but the rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula is higher.

METHODS

An electronic search was performed for studies on elective minimally invasive central pancreatectomy and open central pancreatectomy, which reported on major morbidity and postoperative pancreatic fistula in PubMed, Cochrane Register, Embase, and Google Scholar until June 1, 2021. A review protocol was developed a priori and registered in PROSPERO as CRD42021259738. A meta-regression was performed by using a random effects model.

RESULTS

Overall, 41 studies were included involving 1,004 patients, consisting of 158 laparoscopic minimally invasive central pancreatectomies, 80 robot-assisted minimally invasive central pancreatectomies, and 766 open central pancreatectomies. The overall rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula was 14%, major morbidity 14%, and 30-day mortality 1%. The rates of postoperative pancreatic fistula (17% vs 24%, P = .194), major morbidity (17% vs 14%, P = .672), and new-onset diabetes (3% vs 6%, P = .353) did not differ significantly between minimally invasive central pancreatectomy and open central pancreatectomy, respectively. Minimally invasive central pancreatectomy was associated with significantly fewer blood transfusions, less exocrine pancreatic insufficiency, and fewer readmissions compared with open central pancreatectomy. A meta-regression was performed with a random effects model between minimally invasive central pancreatectomy and open central pancreatectomy and showed no significant difference for postoperative pancreatic fistula (random effects model 0.16 [0.10; 0.24] with P = .789), major morbidity (random effects model 0.20 [0.15; 0.25] with P = .410), and new-onset diabetes mellitus (random effects model 0.04 [0.02; 0.07] with P = .651).

CONCLUSION

In selected patients and in experienced hands, minimally invasive central pancreatectomy is a safe alternative to open central pancreatectomy for benign and low-grade malignant lesions of the neck and body. Ideally, further research should confirm this with the main focus on postoperative pancreatic fistula and endocrine and exocrine insufficiency.

Resection of the splenic vessels during laparoscopic central pancreatectomy is safe and does not compromise preservation of the distal pancreas

BACKGROUND

The diagnosis of low potential malignant diseases is increasingly frequent, and laparoscopic central pancreatectomy can be indicated in these patients. Laparoscopic central pancreatectomy that usually preserves the splenic vessels results in a low risk of new-onset diabetes but high morbidity, mainly due to postoperative pancreatic fistula and postpancreatectomy hemorrhage. In this study, we evaluated the short and long-term complications after laparoscopic central pancreatectomy with splenic vessel resection.

METHODS

This retrospective single-center cohort study included 650 laparoscopic pancreatic resections from 2008 to 2020 with 84 laparoscopic central pancreatectomy; 15 laparoscopic central pancreatectomy with splenic vessel resection; and 69 laparoscopic central pancreatectomy with preservation of the splenic vessels. Pancreaticogastrostomy was routinely performed, and the patients were discharged after complications had been treated. The 15 laparoscopic central pancreatectomy with splenic vessel resection were matched for age, sex, body mass index, and tumor characteristics [1:2] and compared with 30 laparoscopic central pancreatectomy with the preservation of the splenic vessels.

RESULTS

In the laparoscopic central pancreatectomy with splenic vessel resection group, resection of splenic vessels was performed due to tumoral or inflammatory adhesions (n = 11) or accidental vascular injury (n = 4). The demographic characteristics of the groups were similar. Tumors were larger in the laparoscopic central pancreatectomy with splenic vessel resection group (40 vs 21 mm; P = .008), and right transection on the body of the pancreas (53% vs 13%; P = .01) was more frequent. There were no differences in the characteristics of the pancreas (Wirsung duct size or consistency). The median operative time (minutes) was longer in the laparoscopic central pancreatectomy with splenic vessel resection group than in the laparoscopic central pancreatectomy with preservation of the splenic vessels group (210 vs 180, respectively; P = .15) with more blood loss (100 mL vs 50 mL, respectively; P = .012). The lengths (mm) of the resected pancreas and remnant distal pancreas in the 2 groups were 65 vs 50 (P = .053) and 40 vs 65 (P = .006), respectively. There were no differences in postoperative mortality (0% vs 3%; P = .47), grade B-C postoperative pancreatic fistula (27% vs 27%; P = 1), reintervention (7% vs 13%; P = .50), grade B-C postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (0% vs 13%; P = .13), length of hospital stay (20 days vs 22 days; P = .15), or new-onset diabetes (7% vs 10%; P = .67) between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic central pancreatectomy with splenic vessel resection is a safe technical modification of central pancreatectomy that does not prevent preservation of the distal pancreas and does not influence postoperative pancreatic fistula or endocrine insufficiency. Furthermore, it could reduce the risk of postpancreatectomy hemorrhage.

Robotic central pancreatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Central pancreatectomy is usually performed to excise lesions of the neck or proximal body of the pancreas. In the last decade, thanks to the advent of novel technologies, surgeons have started to perform this procedure robotically. This review aims to appraise the results and outcomes of robotic central pancreatectomies (RCP) through a systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, and Web Of Science identified studies reporting outcomes of RCP. Pooled prevalence rates of postoperative complications and mortality were computed using random-effect modelling.

RESULTS

Thirteen series involving 265 patients were included. In all cases but one, RCP was performed to excise benign or low-grade tumours. Clinically relevant post-operative pancreatic fistula (POPF) occurred in 42.3% of patients. While overall complications were reported in 57.5% of patients, only 9.4% had a Clavien-Dindo score ≥ III. Re-operation was necessary in 0.7% of the patients. New-onset diabetes occurred postoperatively in 0.3% of patients and negligible mortality and open conversion rates were observed.

CONCLUSION

RCP is safe and associated with low perioperative mortality and well preserved postoperative pancreatic function, although burdened by high overall morbidity and POPF rates.

Robotic pancreas surgery: an overview of history and update on technique, outcomes, and financials

The use robotics in surgery is gaining momentum. This approach holds substantial promise in pancreas surgery. Robotic surgery for pancreatic lesions and malignancies has become well accepted and is expanding to more and more center annually. The number of centers using robotics in pancreatic surgery is rapidly increasing. The most studied robotic pancreas surgeries are pancreaticoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy. Most studies are in their early phases, but they report that robotic pancreas surgery is safe feasible. Robotic pancreas surgery offers several advantages over open and laparoscopic techniques. Data regarding costs of robotics versus conventional techniques is still lacking. Robotic pancreas surgery is still in its early stages. It holds promise to become the new surgical standard for pancreatic resections in the future, however, more research is still needed to establish its safety, cost effectiveness and efficacy in providing the best outcomes.

A comparative study of end-to-end pancreatic anastomosis versus pancreaticojejunostomy after robotic central pancreatectomy

Robotic central pancreatectomy has been applied for 20 years with the advantage of minimally invasive surgery. The general pancreatic reconstruction approaches include pancreaticojejunostomy and pancreaticogastrostomy. Recently, our group reported a few preliminary cases of application of end-to-end pancreatic anastomosis in robotic central pancreatectomy. This novel approach has not been compared with the conventional approach on a large scale. The objective of this study is to compare end-to-end pancreatic anastomosis with pancreaticojejunostomy after robotic central pancreatectomy based on the perioperative and long-term outcomes. Clinical data consist of demographics, clinicopathologic characteristics, perioperative and long-term outcomes of patients who underwent robotic central pancreatectomy from March 2015 to December 2019 were collected and analyzed. Seventy-four patients received a robotic central pancreatectomy with either end-to-end pancreatic anastomosis (n = 52) or pancreaticojejunostomy (n = 22). End-to-end pancreatic anastomosis was associated with shorter operative time and reduced blood loss. Despite a higher incidence of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (69.2% vs. 36.4%, p = 0.009), the newer anastomotic technique was also associated with earlier removal of nasogastric tube and resumption of oral intake. Long-term results, in terms of either endocrine or exocrine function, were not affected by the anastomotic technique. We have shown the feasibility of robotic central pancreatectomy with end-to-end pancreatic anastomosis. Despite streamlined technique, the newer anastomosis appears to improve early post-operative results while preserving endocrine and exocrine functions in the long-term period. Evaluation of the true potential of robotic central pancreatectomy with end-to-end pancreatic anastomosis requires a prospective and randomized study enrolling a large number of patients.

Learning curve of robot-assisted middle pancreatectomy (RMP): experience of the first 100 cases from a high-volume pancreatic center in China

OBJECTIVE

Middle pancreatectomy (MP) is safe and feasible in patients with benign or low-grade malignant tumors located at the neck or proximal body of the pancreas. As a tissue-sparing operation, MP can preserve normal pancreatic function and reduce the risk of postoperative endocrine and exocrine insufficiency. However, the morbidity, especially the postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) rate, remains high. A robot-assisted surgical system may provide patients with less trauma; however, there are few reports on robot-assisted middle pancreatectomy (RMP). We describe the experience of RMP at our center to illustrate the learning curve (LC).

METHODS

From August 2010 to July 2017, 100 patients underwent RMP in the Pancreatic Disease Center of Shanghai Ruijin Hospital affiliated to Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine. Patient characteristics, operative outcomes, and oncological outcomes were collected and analyzed. The CUSUM curve was analyzed according to operative time and estimated blood loss (EBL) and was used to describe the LC and identify the flexion points.

RESULTS

Among the 100 patients who underwent RMP in our hospital, the mean age was 47.5 ± 14.2 years, and 69 patients were female. From the CUSUM curve, we found two flexion points: cases 12 and 44. After 44 cases, the rate of improvement was much faster. We separated the patients into two groups based on the LC (cases 1-44 and cases 45-100). There were significant improvements in operative time (173.1 ± 44.7 min vs. 137.3 ± 30.1 min, p < 0.001) and EBL (103.4 ± 90.0 ml vs. 69.3 ± 53.9 ml, p = 0.021). The overall POPF rate was 32% (32/100), while the incidence rate of biochemical leakage was 14% (14/100). However, there was no significant difference in the risk of POPF or other complications between the two groups. The postoperative length of stay (LOS) was also not different. The 90-day mortality rate was 1%. From our long-term follow-up, pancreatic function was preserved in most patients, with only three cases of endocrine insufficiency and two cases of exocrine insufficiency.

CONCLUSION

RMP was helpful and a good choice for the selected patients. PF was the main complication and has not been improved until now. There were two flexion points in the LC at cases 12 and 44. More cases are needed to gain more experience. A larger sample size and prospective studies are needed to verify the advantage of RMP.

International consensus statement on robotic pancreatic surgery

The robotic surgical system has been applied to various types of pancreatic surgery. However, controversies exist regarding a variety of factors including the safety, feasibility, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of robotic surgery. This study aimed to evaluate the current status of robotic pancreatic surgery and put forth experts' consensus and recommendations to promote its development. Based on the WHO Handbook for Guideline Development, a Consensus Steering Group* and a Consensus Development Group were established to determine the topics, prepare evidence-based documents, and generate recommendations. The GRADE Grid method and Delphi vote were used to formulate the recommendations. A total of 19 topics were analyzed. The first 16 recommendations were generated by GRADE using an evidence-based method (EBM) and focused on the safety, feasibility, indication, techniques, certification of the robotic surgeon, and cost-effectiveness of robotic pancreatic surgery. The remaining three recommendations were based on literature review and expert panel opinion due to insufficient EBM results. Since the current amount of evidence was low/meager as evaluated by the GRADE method, further randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are needed in the future to validate these recommendations.

Robotic central pancreatectomy

Central pancreatectomy (CP) is a parenchyma-sparing procedure that can be utilized in the resection of tumors of the neck or the proximal body of the pancreas. Among 872 open CP reported since 1993, the mean rate of morbidity was 43.2% and mean rate of mortality was 0.24%. The mean pancreatic fistula rate was 28%. The rate of clinically significant pancreatic fistulas with ISGPF Grades B and C was 19%. The rate of development of post-operative diabetes mellitus was at 2% and the average incidence of exocrine insufficiency experienced by patients undergoing open CP was 4.4%. Also, the mean length of hospital stay was around 15 days. In comparison, a total of 100 patients underwent either laparoscopic or robotic CP with a mean rate of morbidity of 37.3% and mean rate of mortality of 0%. Also, the mean rate of development of pancreatic fistula was 36.6%. The rate of clinically significant pancreatic fistulas with ISGPF Grades B and C was 17%. The rate of development of post-operative diabetes mellitus was at 1.5%. None of the patients included in these series developed any postoperative exocrine insufficiency. The mean length of hospital stay was around 13 days. Standard procedures such as DP and PD are associated with lower rates of short-term morbidity such as pancreatic fistula development but are also accompanied with a higher rate of long-term endocrine and exocrine insufficiency due to the significant loss of normal pancreatic parenchyma when compared to CP. It can be inferred, albeit from limited and small retrospective studies and case reports, that conventional and robotic-assisted laparoscopic approaches to CP are safe and feasible in highly specialized centers.

MANAGEMENT OF ENDOCRINE DISEASE: Pathogenesis and management of hypoglycemia

Glucose is the main substrate utilized by the brain and as such multiple regulatory mechanisms exist to maintain glucose concentrations. When these mechanisms fail or are defective, hypoglycemia ensues. Due to these robust mechanisms, hypoglycemia is uncommon and usually occurs in the setting of the treatment of diabetes using glucose-lowering agents such as sulfonylureas or insulin. The symptoms of hypoglycemia are non-specific and as such it is important to confirm hypoglycemia by establishing the presence of Whipple's triad before embarking on an evaluation for hypoglycemia. When possible, evaluation of hypoglycemia should be carried out at the time of spontaneous occurrence of symptoms. If this is not possible then one would want to create the circumstances under which symptoms occur. In cases where symptoms occur in the post absorptive state, a 72-h fast should be performed. Likewise, if symptoms occur after a meal then a mixed meal study may be the test of choice. The causes of endogenous hyperinsulinemic hypoglycemia include insulinoma, post-bariatric hypoglycemia and noninsulinoma pancreatogenous hypoglycemia syndrome. Autoimmune hypoglycemia syndrome is clinically and biochemically similar to insulinoma but associated with high levels of insulin antibodies and plasma insulin. Other important causes of hypoglycemia include medications, non-islet cell tumors, hormonal deficiencies, critical illness and factitious hypoglycemia. We provide an overview of the pathogenesis and management of hypoglycemia in these situations.

Minimally Invasive Approaches to Pancreatic Surgery

Minimally invasive techniques have the potential to revolutionize the surgical management of pancreatic disease in the setting of benign and malignant processes. Pancreatic surgery, in particular, may be aided significantly by minimal access surgery given the high morbidity associated with traditional open pancreatic procedures. This article presents a review of two minimally invasive techniques for distal pancreatectomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy, focusing on metrics of technique, safety, morbidity, and oncologic outcomes and potential benefits.

Minimally invasive central pancreatectomy and pancreatogastrostomy: current surgical technique and outcomes

Recent improvements in imaging techniques and more frequent use of cross-sectional imaging have led to an increase in the identification of benign and low-grade lesions of the pancreas. Patients with resectable cancers are commonly treated by either a Whipple procedure or distal pancreatectomy (DP) based on the location of the tumor. Central pancreatectomy (CP) is a less commonly performed operation that has recently been utilized for resection of these now more frequently diagnosed low-grade and benign lesions located in the mid pancreas. Lesions that may have a relatively more indolent nature include branch-type intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMNs), mucinous cystic neoplasms, neuroendocrine tumors, and solid pseudopapillary tumors. The goal of a CP is complete extirpation of the lesion, while preserving pancreatic parenchyma to reduce the risks of developing diabetes and exocrine insufficiency (EI). Although open CP has been shown to be safe and efficacious, the outcomes of a minimally invasive approach are still relatively underreported and therefore unknown. In this paper, we describe our surgical approach to performing a CP with an accompanying video demonstration of the key portions of the operation.

Robotic pancreatectomies

Pancreatic surgery represents one of the most challenging fields in general surgery. Its complexity is related to the severity of the disease and the technical skills required for surgical approach. Given this, most pancreatic resections are performed through classic open surgery. Minimally invasive approaches are gradually gaining widespread popularity also in this specific setting, as for distal resections and enucleations. The robotic platform, due to its 3-dimensional vision and articulated movements, represents the natural progress of laparoscopic surgery overcoming the technical defaults and opening up the possibility to perform major pancreatic resections as pancreaticoduodenectomies. This review focuses on the impact of robotic platform in pancreatic surgery in terms of surgical and oncological outcome.

Laparoscopic long sleeve pancreaticogastrostomy (LPG): a novel pancreatic anastomosis following central pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND

Central pancreatectomy (CP) is preferred to distal pancreatectomy (DP) for the excision of benign tumours at the neck or body of the pancreas, in order to preserve pancreatic function and the spleen. However, the pancreaticoenterostomy is technically difficult to perform laparoscopically and the postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) rate is high.

METHODS

A novel laparoscopic reconstruction of the pancreatic stump during CP is described, the laparoscopic long sleeve pancreaticogastrostomy (LPG).

RESULTS

Two males and two females with a median age of 49 years had a laparoscopic CP with LPG. After a median follow-up of 27.5 months, there was no mortality. One patient had a grade A POPF, managed conservatively.

CONCLUSIONS

The LPG is a safe and technically less demanding method to reconstruct pancreatic drainage laparoscopically.

Outcomes of robotic surgery for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

To explore the effectiveness, safety, and efficacy of the robot-assisted surgery in the radical resection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).

METHODS

The clinical data of 72 patients with PDAC who underwent radical resection using the da Vinci Surgical System from April 2010 to December 2014 were retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

Among these 72 patients, three were converted to conventional laparotomy due to the vascular invasion or due to the difficulties in tissue isolation from the surrounding organs. Among 39 patients who underwent the pancreatoduodenectomy, the average operative time was 395.3±118.8 min, and the mean intra-operative blood loss was 447.3±269.9 mL. Among 31 patients who underwent the distal pancreatectomy (DP), the average operative time was 185.5±74.1 min, and the mean intra-operative blood loss was 267.1±305.3 mL. In two patients who received the middle pancreatectomy (MP), the average operative time was 225 min and mean intra-operative blood loss was 100 mL. Among all the 72 patients, an average of 4.2±2.6 lymph nodes were dissected, with an average hospital stay of 22.6±10.7 days. Complications were observed in 18 patients, which included pancreatic fistula (n=11), bile leak (n=5), anastomotic bleeding (n=2), pancreatic fistula complicated with portal vein thrombosis (n=1), and anastomotic bleeding complicated with acute renal failure (n=1). Except that one patient died due to post-operative bleeding and acute renal failure, all the other patients were cured after conservative treatment. These 72 patients were followed for 1-45 (15.6±5.8) months, during which 10 patients died. Eleven patients suffered from recurrence or metastasis, among which 6 had local recurrence, 4 had liver metastasis, and 1 had ascites accompnaied with incision site tumor metastasis.

CONCLUSIONS

Radical resection of PDAC by robotic surgical system is safe and feasible. It has less surgical trauma and enables faster post-operative recovery, and therefore can achieve the lymph node dissection scope and tumor resection margin required by the standards of radical resection for pancreatic cancer. Nevertheless, its long-term efficacy requires further validation.

Minimally Invasive Techniques for Resection of Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors

Surgical resection remains the treatment of choice for primary pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNETs), because it is associated with increased survival. Minimally invasive procedures are a safe modality for the surgical treatment of PNETs. In malignant PNETs, laparoscopy is not associated with a compromise in terms of oncologic resection, and provides the benefits of decreased postoperative pain, better cosmetic results, shorter hospital stay, and a shorter postoperative recovery period. Further prospective, multicenter, randomized trials are required for the analysis of these minimally invasive surgical techniques for the treatment of PNETs and their comparison with traditional open pancreatic surgery.

Minimally invasive pancreatic surgery - a review

During the past 20 years the application of a minimally invasive approach to pancreatic surgery has progressively increased. Distal pancreatectomy is the most frequently performed procedure, because of the absence of a reconstructive phase. However, middle pancreatectomy and pancreatoduodenectomy have been demonstrated to be safe and feasible as well. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is recognized as the gold standard treatment for small tumors of the pancreatic body-tail, with several advantages over the traditional open approach in terms of patient recovery. The surgical treatment of lesions of the pancreatic head via a minimally invasive approach is still limited to a few highly experienced surgeons, due to the very challenging resection and complex anastomoses. Middle pancreatectomy and enucleation are indicated for small and benign tumors and offer the maximum preservation of the parenchyma. The introduction of a robotic platform more than ten years ago increased the interest of many surgeons in minimally invasive treatment of pancreatic diseases. This new technology overcomes all the limitations of laparoscopic surgery, but actual benefits for the patients are still under investigation. The increased costs associated with robotic surgery are under debate too. This article presents the state of the art of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery.

Robotic oncologic complexity score - a new tool for predicting complications in computer-enhanced oncologic surgery

BACKGROUND

While there is little doubt that robotic interventions have already opened new horizons in surgery due to its inherent complexity, there is still an unmet need for tools allowing center-to-center performance comparisons. A complexity score could be a valuable instrument for further research.

METHODS

The items of the robotic oncologic complexity score (ROCS) were based on risk factors identified in previous studies. We attempt to build the score and validate it on 400 consecutive cases of robotic oncologic surgery. The primary endpoint is to assess the value of ROCS in predicting major complications.

RESULTS

The mean ROCS in the group was 3.3(+/-1.4). Different correlations were calculated: the score and the complications (r=0.38), the major complications (r=0.42), Clavien grade (r=0.5), the operating time (r=0.35), and the length of stay (r=0.47). On the ROC-curve a score >4 has the best specificity and sensibility for predicting major complications (P<0.05).

CONCLUSION

ROCS has potential in predicting complications and hospital length of stay, as well as a role in classifying oncologic robotic surgical interventions. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

State of the art of robotic pancreatic surgery

More than a decade has passed since robotic technology was adopted for abdominal surgery, and virtually every gastrointestinal operation has since been shown to be feasible, safe, and reproducible using the robotic approach. Robotic pancreatic surgery had been left behind at the beginning, because they were technically challenging, requiring not only being very familiar with the robotic technology but also having a perfect knowledge of the anatomical variations, very frequent in this area. Nonetheless in the last few years many authors have approached the robot for pancreatic surgery with very promising results in terms of surgical and oncological outcomes. The aim of this article is to review the literature on robotic pancreatic surgery and to define the state of the art use of the robotic approach for pancreatic disease.

Laparoscopic middle pancreatectomy: how do I do it?

BACKGROUND

Although laparoscopic surgery is now extensively used, laparoscopic middle pancreatectomy (LMP) has rarely been described.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

A 45-year-old woman was diagnosed with branch duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasia (IPMN) at the pancreatic neck, which was discovered after numerous attacks of acute pancreatitis. LMP was decided on for treatment.

RESULTS

The patient underwent pure LMP with right to left dissection and one-layer pancreatogastric anastomosis. Surgery lasted 160 minutes, with 20 mL of blood loss. A frozen section showed negative margins on both sides. The postoperative course was uneventful with 15 days in the hospital. Histology confirmed the diagnosis of branch duct IPMN with moderate dysplasia and negative margins. The patient is symptom free 6 months after surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results and the data in the literature suggest that the laparoscopic approach is indicated for middle pancreatectomy because there are no technical or oncological contraindications and the outcome is similar to that with the open approach.

Laparoscopic pancreatic reconstruction technique following laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy

With the advance of laparoscopic experiences and techniques, it is carefully regarded that laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (lap-PD) is feasible and safe in managing perimapullary pancreatic pathology. Especially, laparoscopic management of remnant pancreas can be a critical step toward completeness of minimally invasive PD. According to available published reports, there is a wide range of technical differences in choosing surgical options in managing remnant pancreas after lap-PD. For the evidence-based surgical approach, it would be ideal to test potential techniques by randomized controlled trials, but, currently, it is thought to be very difficult to expect those clinical trials to be successful because there are still a lack of expert surgeons with sound surgical techniques and experience. In addition, lap-PD is so complicated and technically demanding that many surgeons are still questioning whether this surgical approach could be standardized and popular like laparoscopic cholecystectomy. In general, surgical options are usually chosen based on following question: (1) Is it simple? (2) Is it easy and feasible? (3) Is it secure and safe? (4) Is there any supporting scientific evidence? It would be interesting to estimate which surgical technique would be appropriate in managing remnant pancreas under these considerations. It is hoped that a well standardized multicenter-based randomized control study would be successful to test this fundamental issues based on sound surgical techniques and scientific background.

Central pancreatectomy: The Dagradi Serio Iacono operation. Evolution of a surgical technique from the pioneers to the robotic approach

Central pancreatectomy (CP) is a parenchyma-sparing surgical procedure. The aims are to clarify the history and the development of CP and to give credits to those from whom it came. Ehrhardt, in 1908, described segmental neck resection (SNR) followed, in 1910, by Finney without reconstructive part. In 1950 Honjyo described two cases of SNR combined with gastrectomy for gastric cancer infiltrating the neck of the pancreas. Guillemin and Bessot (1957) and Letton and Wilson (1959) dealt only with the reconstructive aspect of CP. Dagradi and Serio, in 1982, performed the first CP including the resective and reconstructive aspects. Subsequently Iacono has validated it with functional endocrine and exocrine tests and popularized it worldwide. In 2003, Baca and Bokan performed laparoscopic CP and, In 2004, Giulianotti et al performed a robotic assisted CP. CP is performed worldwide either by open surgery or by using minimally-invasive or robotic approaches. This confirms that the operation does not belong to whom introduced it but to everyone who carries out it; however credit must be given to those from whom it came.

Robotics in general surgery: an evidence-based review

Since its introduction, robotic surgery has been rapidly adopted to the extent that it has already assumed an important position in the field of general surgery. This rapid progress is quantitative as well as qualitative. In this review, we focus on the relatively common procedures to which robotic surgery has been applied in several fields of general surgery, including gastric, colorectal, hepato-biliary-pancreatic, and endocrine surgery, and we discuss the results to date and future possibilities. In addition, the advantages and limitations of the current robotic system are reviewed, and the advanced technologies and instruments to be applied in the near future are introduced. Such progress is expected to facilitate the widespread introduction of robotic surgery in additional fields and to solve existing problems.

Single-incision versus conventional laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a single-institution case-control study

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is becoming increasingly established at specialized surgical institutions worldwide. The purpose of this study was to compare single-incision laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (panLESS) with conventional laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (panLAP) to assess feasibility and 30-day morbidity.

METHODS

Eight consecutive patients who underwent panLESS were matched with patients who underwent panLAP in the same time period. Matching criteria were age, body mass index, and American Society of Anesthesiologists score. Feasibility was based on tumor size, operative time, intraoperative bleeding, resection status, and hospital stay. Thirty-day morbidity was defined by the revised Accordion Classification system and the International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistula definition.

RESULTS

Over a 19-month period, 8 and 16 patients were identified for panLESS and panLAP, respectively. There were no significant differences in tumor size, operative time, intraoperative bleeding, resection status, and hospital stay between the two groups. Surgical complications developed in four panLESS patients and five panLAP patients, and out of which, two patients from each group developed a postoperative pancreatic fistula (grade B).

CONCLUSIONS

This study indicates that panLESS is comparable to panLAP in terms of feasibility. More experience is needed to define what role single-incision distal pancreatectomy should have in minimal invasive pancreatic surgery.

Robotic pancreatic surgery is no substitute for experience and clinical judgment: an initial experience and literature review

Robotic pancreatic surgery offers technical advantages, and has been applied across many surgical specialties. We report an initial experience of 12 distal pancreatic resections for benign tumors from an established pancreatic center with previous general and biliary laparoscopic experience. Of a total of 12 patients, 7 were women; the mean age was 55.5 years, and the lesions included 8 distal intraductal papillary mucinous tumors, 1 insulinoma and in 3 a non-functioning neuroendocrine tumor. All operations were performed in between 90 and 180 minutes, and blood loss and hospital stay were minimal.

Systematic review of central pancreatectomy and meta-analysis of central versus distal pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND

Central pancreatectomy (CP) is a parenchyma-sparing surgical procedure that enables the removal of benign and/or low-grade malignant lesions from the neck and proximal body of the pancreas. The aim of this review was to evaluate the short- and long-term surgical results of CP from all published studies, and the results of comparative studies of CP versus distal pancreatectomy (DP).

METHODS

Eligible studies published between 1988 and 2010 were reviewed systematically. Comparisons between CP and DP were pooled and analysed by meta-analytical techniques using random- or fixed-effects models, as appropriate.

RESULTS

Ninety-four studies, involving 963 patients undergoing CP, were identified. Postoperative morbidity and pancreatic fistula rates were 45·3 and 40·9 per cent respectively. Endocrine and exocrine pancreatic insufficiency was reported in 5·0 and 9·9 per cent of patients. The overall mortality rate was 0·8 per cent. Compared with DP, CP had a higher postoperative morbidity rate and a higher incidence of pancreatic fistula, but a lower risk of endocrine insufficiency (relative risk (RR) 0·22, 95 per cent confidence interval 0·14 to 0·35; P < 0·001). The risk of exocrine failure was also lower after CP, although this was not significant (RR 0·59, 0·32 to 1·07; P = 0·082).

CONCLUSION

CP is a safe procedure with good long-term functional reserve. In situations where DP represents an alternative, CP is associated with a slightly higher risk of early complications.

Robotic-assisted minimally invasive central pancreatectomy: technique and outcomes

BACKGROUND

Central pancreatectomy is a definitive treatment for low-grade tumors of the pancreatic neck that preserves pancreatic and splenic function at the potential expense of postoperative pancreatic fistula. We analyzed outcomes after robot-assisted central pancreatectomy (RACP) to reexamine the risk-benefit profile in the era of minimally invasive surgery.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of nine RACP performed between August 2009 through June 2010 at a single institution.

RESULTS

The average age of the cohort was 64 (range 18-75 years) with six women (67 %). Indications for surgery included: five benign cystic neoplasm and four pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor. Median operative time was 425 min (range 305-506 min) with 190 ml median blood loss (range 50-350 ml) and one conversion to open due to poor visualization. Median tumor size was 3.0 cm (range 1.9-6.0 cm); all patients achieved R0 status. Pancreaticogastrostomy was performed in seven cases and pancreaticojejunostomy in two. The median length of hospital stay was 10 days (range 7-19). Two clinically significant pancreatic fistulae occurred with one requiring percutaneous drainage. No patients exhibited worsening diabetes or exocrine insufficiency at the 30-day postoperative visit.

CONCLUSIONS

RACP can be performed with safety and oncologic outcomes equivalent to published open series. Although the rate of pancreatic fistula was high, only 22 % had clinically significant events, and none developed worsening pancreatic endocrine or exocrine dysfunction.

Initial experiences in robot-assisted middle pancreatectomy

OBJECTIVES

Initial results in robot-assisted middle pancreatectomy (MP) have been encouraging. However, data comparing outcomes of robot-assisted MP with those of open MP are limited. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes in patients undergoing open and robot-assisted MP, respectively.

METHODS

Outcomes in an initial experience with seven consecutive patients undergoing robot-assisted MP were compared with those in 36 patients undergoing open MP.

RESULTS

The robot-assisted MP group included five women and two men with a median age of 55 years (range: 30-62 years). Median tumour size, operative time and blood loss were 3.0 cm (range: 0.5-5.0 cm), 210 min (range: 150-330 min) and 200 ml (range: 50-400 ml), respectively. Pancreaticogastrostomy was performed in all patients. No transfusion was given intraoperatively. Pathological examination revealed five serous cystic neoplasms, one mixed-type intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm and one lipoma. Five patients experienced postoperative pancreatic fistula and one experienced post-pancreatectomy haemorrhage. No operative mortality was noted. Compared with the open MP group, the robot-assisted MP group demonstrated a shorter median length of postoperative gastrointestinal tract recovery [2 days (range: 2-3 days) versus 4 days (range: 2-11 days); P = 0.001].

CONCLUSIONS

Robot-assisted MP can be performed safely with satisfactory efficacy; patients experienced faster gastrointestinal tract recovery compared with patients undergoing open surgery.

Robotic-assisted pancreatic resection: a report of 47 cases

BACKGROUND

There are few reports of robot-assisted pancreatic surgery. Our purpose was to report our surgical and clinical experiences and outcomes of 47 cases of robot-assisted pancreatic resection to show that minimally invasive pancreatic surgery is both feasible and effective.

METHODS

The medical records of 47 patients who underwent robot-assisted pancreatic resections for adenocarcinoma, cystic tumours or other pancreatic diseases at our institution by a single surgical team from March 2010 to December 2011 were retrospectively analysed.

RESULTS

There were 32 females and 15 males with a mean age of 48.7 ± 15.4 years, of whom 13 patients had pathologically diagnosed malignancies, 25 had cystic tumours or chronic pancreatitis, three had solid pseudopapillary tumours of pancreas, and six had other lesions. Sixteen patients underwent pancreatoduodenectomy, 16 distal pancreatectomies (nine of which had spleen resections), 10 middle pancreatectomies, four Beger's procedure, and one had enucleation of a pancreatic lesion. The mean surgical time was 299.2 ± 133.5 (range 70-540) min and mean blood loss was 431.8 ± 309.0 (range 50-1100) ml. Nine patients required a blood transfusion (mean transfusion volume 597.2 ± 543.3 ml). There were no conversions to laparotomy. The mean hospital stay was 29.4 ± 9.1 (range 8-41) days. Pancreatic fistula occurred in 20 cases, anastomotic bleeding in three patients and anastomotic leakage in one patient. Two patients, one who received a PD and one who received a distal pancreatectomy, required a second surgery. All other complications were resolved with conservative management. Surgical margins were negative in all cases, with a postoperative histopathological diagnosis of malignancy. Eleven of the 13 patients with malignancies were alive and well without recurrence at the time of publication, while two patients died.

CONCLUSIONS

Our series of 47 robot-assisted pancreatic resections adds further evidence that this technique is feasible and effective.

Laparoscopic pancreatectomy for malignancy

Utilization of laparoscopic techniques for resection of the pancreas has slowly gained acceptance in specific situations and is now being applied to more challenging endeavors, such as pancreaticoduodenectomy for cancer. This review provides a summary of laparoscopic applications for pancreatic malignancy, with specific attention to the most common methods of pancreatic resection and their respective oncologic outcomes, including margin status, lymph node retrieval, and survival.

The current state of robotic-assisted pancreatic surgery

Pancreatic surgery is challenging for both surgeon and patient. With the advent of minimally invasive surgical techniques, patient morbidity could be reduced. However, these techniques must conform to established principles of open pancreatic surgery with regards to meticulous dissection, haemostasis and oncologic results. The robotic platform is utilized in all facets of surgery, and is being increasingly applied in pancreatic surgery. As with the introduction of any new technology, this approach must undergo rigorous examination before widespread adoption of the technique. In this article, we review the techniques and outcomes of robotic-assisted pancreatic resections, focusing on robotic-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy, robotic-assisted distal pancreatectomy and robotic-assisted central pancreatectomy. As the outcomes of robotic-assisted surgery have yet to be rigorously evaluated against the gold standard of open surgery, this Review also highlights major laparoscopic pancreatic series in an effort to summarize the available literature on minimally invasive pancreatic surgery.

Laparoscopic robotic-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy: a case-matched comparison with open resection

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive procedures have expanded recently to include pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD), but the efficacy of a laparoscopic robotic-assisted approach has not been demonstrated. A case-matched comparison was undertaken to study outcomes between laparoscopic robotic approach (LRPD) and the conventional open counterpart (OPD).

METHODS

From March 2009 through December 2010, 30 LRPD were performed by two pancreaticobiliary surgeons at the Cleveland Clinic. Thirty OPD patients operated by four pancreaticobiliary surgeons during this same period were matched by demographics, and postoperative outcomes were compared from review of a prospectively collected database.

RESULTS

Mean age was 62 years for LRPD versus 61 years for OPD (p = 0.43). Mean body mass index was 24.8 versus 25.6 kg/m(2) (p = 0.49). Surgical indications included adenocarcinoma in 14 patients from each group (46%), intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm in 4 (14%), and other in 12 (40%). There was one preoperative death in the LRPD group and none following OPD. Morbidity occurred in nine patients (30%) following LRPD versus 13 (44%) in the OPD group (p = 0.14). Intraoperative factors assessed included blood loss (485.8 vs 775 ml, p = 0.13) and operative time (476.2 vs 366.4 min, p = 0.0005). Conversion from LRPD to open occurred in three patients (12%) due to bleeding. Reoperation was performed in two patients (6%) following LRPD versus seven (24%) following OPD (p = 0.17). Length of hospital stay was 9.79 days for LRPD versus 13.26 days in the OPD group (p = 0.043).

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first comparison of a novel laparoscopic robotic-assisted PD with the open PD in a case-matched fashion. Our data demonstrate a significant increase in operative time but decreased length of stay for LRPD. The favorable morbidity following LRPD makes it a reasonable surgical approach for selected patients requiring PD.

Robot-assisted spleen-preserving laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND

Spleen-preserving laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy would be an ideal approach for benign and borderline malignant tumors in the distal pancreas.1 However, this procedure requires advanced surgical experience and technique because of the disadvantages of conventional laparoscopic surgery.2

METHODS

A 35-year-old female patient visited our institution because of a growing pancreatic mass during follow-up. A preoperative image study showed a cystic tumor of about 3.0 × 2.5 cm in size in the body of the pancreas. Under the impression of a growing serous cystic tumor of the pancreas, she was scheduled to undergo robot-assisted spleen-preserving laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy.

RESULTS

Under general anesthesia, the patient was placed in the supine position with her head and left side elevated. A total of five ports were used. Among them, one 12-mm port was placed for the assistant surgeon's intervention during the procedure. Stable 3-dimensional operative image, endo-wrist function of the instruments, and no tremor were thought to be very helpful for fine dissection of the pancreas from splenic vessels. The total operation time was 300 min, and the estimated intraoperative blood loss was 380 ml. No transfusion was required. The patient's postoperative recovery was uneventful. She was able to go home on the 6th postoperative day without a drain.

CONCLUSIONS

The unique characteristics of a robotic surgical system were thought to be very helpful during the spleen-preserving laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy.2 (-) 6 However, cost is one of the main obstacles for the procedure's popular clinical practice.2.

Outcomes of pancreatoduodenectomy with robotic surgery versus open surgery

BACKGROUND

Pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) for pancreatic cancer is very challenging to many surgeons. Information regarding the advantage of using the Da Vinci robotic system over conventional open surgery for PD is rare. Therefore, a comparison of the outcomes of PD performed using the Da Vinci robotic system with outcomes using open surgery was conducted.

METHODS

Between January 2009 and December 2009 sixteen patients underwent PD, eight patients receiving robot-assisted surgery using the Da Vinci surgical robotic system (Group I) and eight being treated using conventional open surgery (Group II).

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in radical resection (R0) rate between the two groups, 87.5% vs 100%, P = 0.05. The operative time in group I was longer than in group II, 718 ± 186 vs 420 ± 127 min, P = 0.011, while the surgical blood loss in group I was less than in group II, 153 ± 43 vs 210 ± 53 mL, P = 0.045. The length of bed time and hospital stay after surgery in group I were shorter than in group II, 27.5 ± 7.1 vs 96 ± 18.1 h, P = 0.000; 16.4 ± 4.1 vs 24.3 ± 7.1 days, P = 0.04, respectively). Complication rate of group I was lower than that of group II, 25% vs 75%, P = 0.05.

CONCLUSION

It is feasible and safe to perform PD using the Da Vinci robot-assisted surgical system; patients recovered faster postoperatively with less blood loss during surgery.

Training minimal invasive approaches in hepatopancreatobilliary fellowship: the current status

BACKGROUND

There has been an increasing role of advanced minimally invasive procedures in hepatopancreatobilliary (HPB) surgery. However, there are no set minimum laparoscopic case requirements.

METHODS

A 14-question electronic survey was sent to 82 worldwide HPB fellowship programme directors.

RESULTS

Forty-nine per cent (n=40) of the programme directors responded. The programmes were predominantly university based (83%). Programmes had either one (55%) or two fellows (40%) each year. Programmes (35-48%) had average annual volumes of 51-100 hepatic, 51-100 pancreatic and 25-50 biliary cases. For many programmes, <10% of hepatic (48%), pancreatic (40%) and biliary (70%) cases were done laparoscopically. The average annual fellow case volumes for hepatic, pancreatic and biliary surgeries were 25-50 (62%), 25-50 (47%) and <25 (50%), respectively. The average annual number of hepatic, pancreatic and biliary cases done laparoscopically by a fellow was 9, 9 and 4, which constitutes 36%, 36% and 16%, respectively, of the International Hepato-Pancreato-Billiary Association (IHPBA) requirement.

CONCLUSION

We surmise that the low average number of surgeries performed by minimally-invasive techniques by HPB fellows is not sufficient in today's practice. Should there be an increase in the minimal number of hepatic, pancreatic and complex biliary cases to 50, 50, and 25, with at least 50% of these performed laparoscopically?