Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2024 Feb 1;13(1):89-104.
doi: 10.21037/hbsn-23-132. Epub 2024 Jan 18.

International consensus guidelines on robotic pancreatic surgery in 2023

Rong Liu  1 , Mohammed Abu Hilal  2   3 , Marc G Besselink  4   5 , Thilo Hackert  6 , Chinnusamy Palanivelu  7 , Yupei Zhao  8 , Jin He  9 , Ugo Boggi  10 , Jin-Young Jang  11 , Fabrizio Panaro  12 , Brian K P Goh  13 , Mikhail Efanov  14 , Yuichi Nagakawa  15 , Hong-Jin Kim  16 , Xiaoyu Yin  17 , Zhiming Zhao  1 , Yi-Ming Shyr  18 , Shridhar Iyer  19 , Eli Kakiashvili  20 , Ho-Seong Han  21 , Jae Hoon Lee  22 , Roland Croner  23 , Shin-E Wang  18 , Marco Vito Marino  24 , Arun Prasad  25 , Wei Wang  26 , Songqing He  27 , Kehu Yang  28 , Qu Liu  1 , Zizheng Wang  1 , Mengyang Li  1 , Shuai Xu  1 , Kongyuan Wei  1 , Zhaoda Deng  1 , Yuze Jia  1 , Tess M E van Ramshorst  2   4   5
Affiliations
Review

International consensus guidelines on robotic pancreatic surgery in 2023

Rong Liu et al. Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr. .

Abstract

Background: With the rapid development of robotic surgery, especially for the abdominal surgery, robotic pancreatic surgery (RPS) has been applied increasingly around the world. However, evidence-based guidelines regarding its application, safety, and efficacy are still lacking. To harvest robust evidence and comprehensive clinical practice, this study aims to develop international guidelines on the use of RPS.

Methods: World Health Organization (WHO) Handbook for Guideline Development, GRADE Grid method, Delphi vote, and the AGREE-II instrument were used to establish the Guideline Steering Group, Guideline Development Group, and Guideline Secretary Group, formulate 19 clinical questions, develop the recommendations, and draft the guidelines. Three online meetings were held on 04/12/2020, 30/11/2021, and 25/01/2022 to vote on the recommendations and get advice and suggestions from all involved experts. All the experts focusing on minimally invasive surgery from America, Europe and Oceania made great contributions to this consensus guideline.

Results: After a systematic literature review 176 studies were included, 19 questions were addressed and 14 recommendations were developed through the expert assessment and comprehensive judgment of the quality and credibility of the evidence.

Conclusions: The international RPS guidelines can guide current practice for surgeons, patients, medical societies, hospital administrators, and related social communities. Further randomized trials are required to determine the added value of RPS as compared to open and laparoscopic surgery.

Keywords: Robotic surgery; distal pancreatectomy (DP); guidelines; pancreatectomy; pancreaticoduodenectomy.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://hbsn.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/hbsn-23-132/coif). M.A.H., F.P. and H.S.H. serve as unpaid editorial board members of Hepatobiliary Surgery and Nutrition. M.G.B. acknowledges grants support to his hospital for the investigator-initiated DIPLOMA-2 randomized trial. B.K.P.G. reports grant from Intuitive Foundation and consulting fees from Transmedic, Local distributor of the Da Vinci robot. U.B. is proctor for Intuitive Surgical (pancreas surgery). The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Figures

Figure 2
Figure 2
Flow chart of systematic literature review.
Figure 1
Figure 1
The flow chart illustrates the process of guideline development.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Liu R, Zhao GD, Tang WB, et al. A single-team experience with robotic pancreatic surgery in 1010 cases. Nan Fang Yi Ke Da Xue Xue Bao 2018;38:130-4. 10.3969/j.issn.1673-4254.2018.02.02 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Guerra F, Checcacci P, Vegni A, et al. Surgical and oncological outcomes of our first 59 cases of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. J Visc Surg 2019;156:185-90. 10.1016/j.jviscsurg.2018.07.011 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Piedimonte S, Wang Y, Bergman S, et al. Early experience with robotic pancreatic surgery in a Canadian institution. Can J Surg 2015;58:394-401. 10.1503/cjs.003815 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kauffmann EF, Napoli N, Menonna F, et al. Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy with vascular resection. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2016;401:1111-22. 10.1007/s00423-016-1499-8 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Melvin WS, Needleman BJ, Krause KR, et al. Computer-enhanced robotic telesurgery. Initial experience in foregut surgery. Surg Endosc 2002;16:1790-2. 10.1007/s00464-001-8192-9 - DOI - PubMed