Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma: role in 2014 and beyond

Abstract

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for pancreatic adenocarcinoma has found new avenues for performing pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) procedures, a historically technically challenging operation. Multiple studies have found laparoscopic PD to be safe, with equivalent oncologic outcomes as compared to open PD. In addition, several series have described potential benefits to minimally invasive PD including fewer postoperative complications, shorter hospital length of stay, and decreased postoperative pain. Yet, despite these promising initial results, laparoscopic PDs have not become widely adopted by the surgical community. In fact, the vast majority of pancreatic resections performed in the United States are still performed in an open fashion, and there are only a handful of surgeons who actually perform purely laparoscopic PDs. On the other hand, robotic assisted surgery offers many technical advantages over laparoscopic surgery including high-definition, 3-D optics, enhanced suturing ability, and more degrees of freedom of movement by means of fully-wristed instruments. Similar to laparoscopic PD, there are now several case series that have demonstrated the feasibility and safety of robotic PD with seemingly equivalent short-term oncologic outcomes as compared to open technique. In addition, having the surgeon seated for the procedure with padded arm-rests, there is an ergonomic advantage of robotics over both open and laparoscopic approaches, where one has to stand up for prolonged periods of time. Future technologic innovations will likely focus on enhanced robotic capabilities to improve ease of use in the operating room. Last but not least, robotic assisted surgery training will continue to be a part of surgical education curriculum ensuring the increased use of this technology by future generations of surgeons.

Keywords: Whipple; innovation; minimally invasive surgery (MIS); operative technique; pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

Figure 1

Overall complications. The number of complications, including, but not limited to, delayed gastric emptying, surgical site infection and pancreatic anastomosis leak rate was lower in the robotic group (P=0.008).

Figure 2

Length of stay. There was significant difference in ICU length of stay between the open and robotic PD group, in favor of the latter. There was a trend for shorter hospital length of stay in robotic group. However, for this observation there is potential for type II error, given the small sample size of the groups. *, P=0.398; **, P=0.048. PD, pancreaticoduodenectomy.