Robotic enucleation & uncinectomy of complex lesions of the proximal pancreas.
enucleation
pancreas
parenchyma preserving
proximal
robotic
uncinectomy
Journal
ANZ journal of surgery
ISSN: 1445-2197
Titre abrégé: ANZ J Surg
Pays: Australia
ID NLM: 101086634
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 Oct 2023
05 Oct 2023
Historique:
revised:
14
09
2023
received:
11
08
2023
accepted:
17
09
2023
medline:
5
10
2023
pubmed:
5
10
2023
entrez:
5
10
2023
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Malignant tumours within the proximal pancreas traditionally require pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) for cure. For smaller lesions with borderline malignant potential the risk/benefit of PD becomes difficult to justify. Robotic approaches to these lesions allow for parenchymal preserving resection with reduced complication profile without oncological compromise. A review of a single surgeons prospectively collated database across two institutions of consecutive robotic enucleations or parenchyma preserving resections of the proximal pancreas was performed between July 2018 and October 2021. Standard demographic data, preoperative variables, intraoperative parameters, post-operative outcomes, morbidity and mortality were recorded. Thirteen patients (8 female and 5 male) underwent robotic enucleation (EN) (8) and/or uncinectomy (UN) (5) in the proximal pancreas. Mean BMI was 32(kg/m A robotic approach in proximal parenchymal preserving pancreatectomy is expanding, safe and feasible.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Malignant tumours within the proximal pancreas traditionally require pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) for cure. For smaller lesions with borderline malignant potential the risk/benefit of PD becomes difficult to justify. Robotic approaches to these lesions allow for parenchymal preserving resection with reduced complication profile without oncological compromise.
METHODS
METHODS
A review of a single surgeons prospectively collated database across two institutions of consecutive robotic enucleations or parenchyma preserving resections of the proximal pancreas was performed between July 2018 and October 2021. Standard demographic data, preoperative variables, intraoperative parameters, post-operative outcomes, morbidity and mortality were recorded.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Thirteen patients (8 female and 5 male) underwent robotic enucleation (EN) (8) and/or uncinectomy (UN) (5) in the proximal pancreas. Mean BMI was 32(kg/m
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
A robotic approach in proximal parenchymal preserving pancreatectomy is expanding, safe and feasible.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2023 Royal Australasian College of Surgeons.
Références
Kornaropoulos M, Moris D, Beal EW et al. Total robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a systematic review of the literature. Surg. Endosc. 2017; 31: 4382-4392.
Cauley CE, Pitt HA, Ziegler KM et al. Pancreatic enucleation: improved outcomes compared to resection. J. Gastrointest. Surg. 2012; 16: 1347-1353.
Hüttner FJ, Koessler-Ebs J, Hackert T, Ulrich A, Büchler MW, Diener MK. Meta-analysis of surgical outcome after enucleation versus standard resection for pancreatic neoplasms. Br. J. Surg. 2015; 102: 1026-1036.
Goh BK, Low TY, Lee SY, Chan CY, Chung AY, Ooi LL. Initial experience with robotic pancreatic surgery in Singapore: single institution experience with 30 consecutive cases. ANZ J. Surg. 2019; 89: 206-210.
Hartwig W, Gluth A, Hinz U et al. Outcomes after extended pancreatectomy in patients with borderline resectable and locally advanced pancreatic cancer. Br. J. Surg. 2016; 103: 1683-1694.
Winter JM, Cameron JL, Campbell KA et al. Pancreaticoduodenectomies for pancreatic cancer: a single institution experience. J. Gastrointest. Surg. 2006; 10: 1199-1210.
Zeh HJ, Zureikat AH, Secrest A, Dauoudi M, Bartlett D, Moser AJ. Outcomes after robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary lesions. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2012; 19: 864-870.
Bartolini I, Bencini L, Bernini M et al. Robotic enucleations of pancreatic benign or low-grade malignant tumors: preliminary results and comparison with robotic demolitive resections. Surg. Endosc. 2019; 33: 2834-2842.
Wilson EB. The evolution of robotic general surgery. Scand. J. Surg. 2009; 98: 125-129.
Bodner J, Augustin F, Wykypiel H et al. The da Vinci robotic system for general surgical applications: a critical interim appraisal. Swiss Med. Wkly. 2005; 135: 674-678.
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications. A new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and result of a survey. Ann. Surg. 2004; 240: 205-213.
Bassi C, Marchegiani G, Dervenis C et al. The 2016 update of the international study group (ISGPS) definition and grading of postoperative pancreatic fistula: 11 years after. Surgery 2017; 161: 584-591.
Zhang JY, Huang J, Zhao SY, Liu X, Xiong ZC, Yang ZY. Risk factors and a new prediction model for pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Risk Manag. Healthc Policy 2021; 10: 1897-1906.
Correa-Gallego C, Dinkelspiel HE, Sulimanoff I et al. Minimally-invasive vs open pancreaticoduodenectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 2014; 218: 129-139.
Zhao Z, Yin Z, Hang Z, Ji G, Feng Q, Zhao Q. A systemic review and an updated meta-analysis: minimally invasive vs open pancreaticoduodenectomy. Sci. Rep. 2017; 7: 2220.
Zureikat AH, Postlewait LM, Liu Y et al. A multi-institutional comparison of perioperative outcomes of robotic and open pancreaticoduodenectomy. Ann. Surg. 2016; 264: 640-649.
De Rooij T, Van Hilst J, Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group. Minimally invasive versus open pancreatoduodenectomy (LEOPARD-2): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials 2018; 19: 1.
Chen K, Pan Y, Liu XL et al. Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary disease: a comprehensive review of literature and meta-analysis of outcomes compared with open surgery. BMC Gastroenterol. 2017; 17: 120.
Sperti C, Beltrame V, Milanetto AC, Moro M, Pedrazzoli S. Parenchyma-sparing pancreatectomies for benign or border-line tumors of the pancreas. World J. Gastrointest. Oncol. 2010; 2: 272-281.
Hackert T, Hinz U, Fritz S et al. Enucleation in pancreatic surgery: indications, technique, and outcome compared to standard pancreatic resections. Langenbecks Arch. Surg. 2011; 396: 1197-1203.
Jin JB, Qin K, Li H. Robotic enucleation for benign or borderline tumours of the pancreas: a retrospective analysis and comparison from a high-volume centre in Asia. World J. Surg. 2016; 40: 3009-3020.
Machado MA, Surjan R, Basseres T, Makdissi F. Robotic resection of the uncinate process of the pancreas. J. Robot Surg. 2019; 13: 699-702.
Beane JD, Borrebach JD, Billderback A et al. Small pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: resect or enucleate? Am. J. Surg. 2021; 222: 29-34.
Heidsma CM, Tsilimigras DI, van Dieren S et al. Indications and outcomes of enucleation versus formal pancreatectomy for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. HPB (Oxford) 2021; 23: 413-421.
Turrini O, Schmidt CM, Pitt HA et al. Side-branch intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms of the pancreatic head/uncinate: resection or enucleation? HPB (Oxford) 2011; 13: 126-131.
Machado MA, Ardengh JC, Makdissi FF, Machado MC. Minimally invasive resection of the uncinate process of the pancreas: anatomical considerations and surgical technique. Surg. Innov. 2022; 29: 600-607.
Brient C, Regenet N, Sulpice L et al. Risk factors for postoperative pancreatic fistulization subsequent to enucleation. J. Gastrointest. Surg. 2012; 16: 1883-1887.
Yu X, Wang W, Yu S, Yang C, Huang X, Yuan Z. The role of main pancreatic duct stent in the enucleation of benign/borderline pancreatic head tumors: a cohort study. Langenbecks Arch. Surg. 2023; 408: 198.
Parekh JR, Wang SC, Bergsland EK et al. Lymph node sampling rates and predictors of nodal metastasis in pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor resections: the UCSF experience with 149 patients. Pancreas 2012; 41: 840-844.
Ardengh JC, Lopes CV, Periera de Lima LF, de Oliveira JR. Diagnosis of pancreatic tumors by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration. World J. Gastroenterol. 2007; 13: 3112-3116.
Kulke MH, Shah MH, Benson AB et al. Neuroendocrine tumors, version 1.2015. J. Natl. Compr. Canc. Netw. 2015; 13: 78-108.
Partelli S, Cirocchi R, Crippa S et al. Systematic review of active surveillance versus surgical management of asymptomatic small non-functioning pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms. Br. J. Surg. 2017; 104: 34-41.
Heidsma C, Engelsman A, van Dieren S et al. Watchful waiting for small non-functional pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours: nationwide prospective cohort study (PANDORA). Br. J. Surg. 2021; 108: 888-891.
Tanaka M, Fernández-del Castillo C, Adsay V, International association of pancreatology. International consensus guidelines 2012 for the management of IPMN and MCN of the pancreas. Pancreatology; 2012; 12(3): 183-197.
Chen J, Yang Y, Liu Y, Kan H. Prognosis analysis of patients with pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors after surgical resection and the application of enucleation. World J. Surg. Oncol. 2021; 19: 11.