Technical Aspects and Results of Robot-Assisted Pancreatic Surgery
https://doi.org/10.16931/1995-5464.2015394-101
Abstract
Aim. To improve the results of treatment of patients with pancreatic diseases.
Materials and Methods. For the period from 2010 to 2014 it was performed 59 robot-assisted pancreatic operations. There were distal pancreatectomy in 30 cases and pancreaticoduodenectomy in 12 cases including total pancreatoduodenectomy (1), central resection (5), tumor enucleations (12). The study included 48 (81.4%) females and 11 (19.6%) males. Median age was 48.4 ± 14.5 years.
Results. Average operation time in case of ancreaticoduodenectomy, distal pancreatectomy, central resection and tumor enucleation was 463.1 ± 111.1, 218.0 ± 68.2, 253.0 ± 37.7 and 150.0 ± 49.0 minutes respectively. Postoperative complications arose in 24 (40.7%) cases including external pancreatic fistula in 19 patients, delayed gastric empty in 3 and arrosive hemorrhage in 2 cases. There was one death after robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy.
Conclusion. Indications for robot-assisted pancreatic surgery are malignant tumors T1–T2, neuroendocrine neoplasms and benign tumors with size not more than 5–6 cm. The use of robotic complex doesn’t prevent from specific postoperative complications definitive for pancreatic surgery.
About the Authors
A. G. Kriger
A.V. Vishnevskiy Institute of Surgery
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Doct. of Med. Sci., Professor, Head of the Abdominal Surgery Department No.1 of A.V. Vishnevskiy Institute of Surgery, Health Ministry of the Russian Federation
S. V. Berelavichus
A.V. Vishnevskiy Institute of Surgery
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Cand. of Med. Sci., the Senior Researcher at the Abdominal Surgery Department No.1 of A.V. Vishnevskiy Institute of Surgery, Health Ministry of the Russian Federation
D. S. Gorin
A.V. Vishnevskiy Institute of Surgery
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Cand. of Med. Sci., the Researcher at the Abdominal Surgery Department No.1 of A.V. Vishnevskiy Institute of Surgery, Health Ministry of the Russian Federation
A. R. Kaldarov
A.V. Vishnevskiy Institute of Surgery
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Postgraduate Student at the Abdominal Surgery Department No.1 of A.V. Vishnevskiy Institute of Surgery, Health Ministry
of the Russian Federation
N. A. Karel’skaja
A.V. Vishnevskiy Institute of Surgery
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Cand. of Med. Sci., the Researcher of Radiology Department
of A.V. Vishnevskiy Institute of Surgery, Health Ministry of the Russian Federation
N. N. Vetsheva
A.V. Vishnevskiy Institute of Surgery
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Cand. of Med. Sci., the Researcher at the Ultrasound Department of A.V. Vishnevsky Institute of Surgery, Health Ministry of the Russian Federation
A. V. Smirnov
A.V. Vishnevskiy Institute of Surgery
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Postgraduate Student at the Abdominal Surgery Department No.1 of A.V. Vishnevskiy Institute of Surgery, Health Ministry of the Russian Federation
References
1. Кригер А.Г., Ахтанин Е.А. Причины возникновения и профилактика панкреатических свищей после резекционных операций на поджелудочной железе. Хирургия. Журнал им. Н.И. Пирогова. 2014; 5: 79–83. Kriger A.G., Akhtanin E.A. Causes and prevention of pancreatic fistulae after pancreatic resections. Khirurgiya. Zhurnal im. N.I. Pirogova. 2014; 5: 79–83. (In Russian)
2. Gagner M., Pomp A. Laparoscopic pylorus-preserving pancreatoduodenectomy. Surg. Endosc. 1994; 8 (5): 408–410.
3. Giulianotti P.C., Coratti A., Angelini M. Robotics in general surgery: personal experience in a large community hospital. Arch. Surg. 2003; 138 (7): 777–784.
4. Giulianotti P.С., Sbrana F., Bianco F.M. Robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreatic surgery: single-surgeon experience. Surg. Endosc. 2010; 24 (7): 1646–1657. doi: 10.1007/s00464-009-0825-4.
5. Boggi U., Signori S., De Lio N., Perrone V.G., Vistoli F., Belluomini M., Cappelli C., Amorese G., Mosca F. Feasibility of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy. Br. J. Surg. 2013; 100 (7): 917–925. doi: 10.1002/bjs.9135.
6. Cirocchi R., Partelli S., Trastulli S., Coratti A., Parisi A., Falconib M. A systematic review on robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. Surg. Oncol. 2013; 22 (4): 238–246. doi: 10.1016/j.suronc.2013.08.003.
7. Lai E.C., Yang G.P., Tang C.N. Robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy versus open pancreatico duodenectomy – a сomparative study. Int. J. Surg. 2012; 10 (9): 475–479. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2012.06.003.
8. Zeh H.J., Zureikat A.H., Secrest A., Dauoudi M., Bartlett D., Moser A.J. Outcomes after robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary lesions. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2012; 19 (3): 864–870. doi: 10.1245/s10434-011-2045-0.
9. Bao P.Q., Mazirka P.O., Watkins K.T. Retrospective comparison of robot-assisted minimally invasive versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary neoplasms. J. Gastrointest. Surg. 2014; 18 (4): 682–689.
10. Zhou N.X., Chen J.Z., Liu Q., Zhang X., Wang Z., Ren S., Chen X.F. Outcomes of pancreatoduodenectomy with robotic surgery versus open surgery. Int. J. Med. Robot. 2011; 7 (2): 131–137. doi: 10.1002/rcs.380.
11. Buchs N.C., Addeo P., Bianco F.M., Ayloo S., Benedetti E., Giulianotti P.C. Robotic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: a comparative study at a single institution. World J. Surg. 2011; 35 (12): 2739–2746. doi: 10.1007/s00268-011-1276-3.
12. Chalikonda S., Aguilar-Saavedra J.R., Walsh R.M. Laparoscopic robotic-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy: a case-matched comparison with open resection. Surg. Endosc. 2012; 26 (9): 2397–2402. doi: 10.1007/s00464-012-2207-6.
13. Zhan Q., Deng X.X., Han B., Liu Q., Shen B.Y., Peng C.H., Li H.W. Robotic-assisted pancreatic resection: a report of 47 cases. Int. J. Med. Robot. 2013; 9 (1): 44–51. doi: 10.1002/rcs.1475.
14. Zureikat A.H., Moser A.J., Boone B.A., Bartlett D.L., Zenati M., Zeh H.J. 250 robotic pancreatic resections. Safety and feasibility. Ann. Surg. 2013; 258 (4): 554–562. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3182a4e87c.
15. Кригер А.Г., Берелавичус С.В., Смирнов А.В., Горин Д.С., Ахтанин Е.А. Сравнительные результаты открытой, роботассистированной и лапароскопической дистальной ре зекции поджелудочной железы. Хирургия. Журнал им. Н.И. Пи рогова. 2015; 1: 23–29. Kriger A.G., Berelavichus S.V., Smirnov A.V., Gorin D.S., Akhtanin E.A. Comparative results of traditional, robot-assisted and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. Khirurgiya. Zhurnal im. N.I. Pirogova. 2015; 1: 23–29. (In Russian)
16. Suman P., Rutledge J., Yiengpruksawan A. Robotic spleen preserving distal pancreatectomy is safe and feasible. Gastroenterology. 2012; 142 (5): 1060–1061. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0016-5085(12)64114-6.
17. Hwang H.K., Kang C.M., Chung Y.E., Kim K.A., Choi S.H., Lee W.J. Robot-assisted spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy: a single surgeon's experiences and proposal of clinical application. Surg. Endosc. 2013; 27 (3): 774–781. doi: 10.1007/s00464-012-2551-6.
18. Narula V.K., Mikami D.J., Melvin W.S. Robotic and laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a hybrid approach. Pancreas. 2010; 39 (2): 160–164. doi: 10.1097/MPA.0b013e3181bd604e.
19. D’Annibale A., Orsini C., Morpurgo E., Soveringo G. La chirurgia robotica. Considerazioni dopo 250 interventi. Chirurgia Italiana. 2006; 58 (1): 5–14.
20. Федоров А.В., Кригер А.Г., Берелавичус С.В., Горин Д.С. Роботохирургия. Хирургия. Журнал им. Н.И. Пирогова. 2008; 12: 68–72. Fedorov A.V., Kriger A.G., Berelavichus S.V., Gorin D.S. Robotic surgery. Khirurgiya. Zhurnal im. N.I. Pirogova. 2008; 12: 68–72. (In Russian)
21. Horiguchi A., Uyama I., Ito M., Ishihara S., Asano Y., Yamamoto T., Ishida Y., Miyakawa S. Robotassisted laparoscopic pancreatic surgery. J. Hepatobiliary Pancreat. Sci. 2011; 18 (4): 488–492. doi: 10.1007/s00534-011-0383-8.
22. Kang C.M., Kim D.H., Lee W.J., Chi H.S. Conventional laparoscopic and robotassisted spleen-preserving pancreatectomy: does da Vinci have clinical advantages? Surg. Endosc. 2011; 25 (6): 2004–2009. doi: 10.1007/s00464-010-1504-1.
23. Daouadi M., Zureikat A.H., Zenati M.S., Choudry H., Tsung A., Bartlett D.L., Hughes S.J., Lee K.K., Moser A.J., Zeh H.J. Robot-assisted minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy is superior to the laparoscopic technique. Ann. Surg. 2013; 257 (1): 128–132. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e31825fff08.
24. Кубышкин В.А., Кригер А.Г., Горин Д.С., Кочатков А.В., Берелавичус С.В., Козлов И.А., Гришанков С.А., Ахтанин Е.А. Хирургическое лечение кистозных опухолей поджелудочной железы. Анналы хирургической гепатологии. 2012; 17 (1): 16–24. Kubyshkin V.A., Kriger A.G., Gorin D.S., Kochatkov A.V., Berelavichus S.V., Kozlov I.A., Grishankov S.A., Akhtanin E.A. Surgical treatment of pancreatic cystic neoplasms. Annaly khirurgicheskoy gepatologii. 2012; 17 (1): 16–24. (In Russian)
Review
For citations:
Kriger A.G., Berelavichus S.V., Gorin D.S., Kaldarov A.R., Karel’skaja N.A., Vetsheva N.N., Smirnov A.V. Technical Aspects and Results of Robot-Assisted Pancreatic Surgery. Annaly khirurgicheskoy gepatologii = Annals of HPB Surgery. 2015;20(3):94-101. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.16931/1995-5464.2015394-101
Views:
367
Email this article 