Abstract
Background
The minimally invasive approach in spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy has currently been emphasized in benign and pre-malignant pancreatic diseases. The study aims to demonstrate the safety and feasibility of our technique of robotic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (RSPDP) by a stepwise approach.
Methods
The data of consecutive patients presented for RSPDP from 2014 to 2019 at Verona University were retrieved from a prospectively maintained database. The patients were divided into two groups based on the surgical procedure performed, such as Kimura’s (KG) or Warshaw’s (WG) technique, and then compared.
Results
In the study period, 32 patients underwent RSPDP. Twenty-three patients presented for the Kimura procedure (72%), while nine patients underwent the Warshaw procedure (28%). A higher body mass index was found in the KG (26 ± 4 vs. 22 ± 3, p = 0.037). Regarding the pathological data, the WG group differed in the tumor dimension, and the lymph nodes harvested (30 ± 2 vs. 17 ± 10, 9 ± 5 vs. 3 ± 4, p = 0.0028, and p = 0.005, respectively). Notably, no conversions and mortality were recorded. The overall morbidity was 25% ( eight patients) with no difference between the groups (p = 0.820). The mean length of stay was 8 days, and was similar between the groups (p = 0.350).
Conclusions
The present study suggests that RSPDP is a valid option for the treatment of benign or pre-malignant pancreatic diseases of the distal pancreas, with comparable morbidity with the standard treatment and no mortality. Further research is needed to standardize the technique and to assess the immunological, surgical, and financial benefits of the procedure.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Merchant NB, Parikh AA, Kooby DA (2009) Should all distal pancreatectomies be performed laparoscopically? Adv Surg 43:283–300
Butturini G, Damoli I, Crepaz L et al (2015) A prospective non-randomised single-center study comparing laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomy. Surg Endosc 29:3163–3170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-014-4043-3
Tran Cao HS, Lopez N, Chang DC et al (2014) Improved perioperative outcomes with minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy: results from a population-based analysis. JAMA Surg 149:237–243. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2013.3202
Jusoh AC, Ammori BJ (2012) Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy: a systematic review of comparative studies. Surg Endosc 26:904–913. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-011-2016-3
Nigri GR, Rosman AS, Petrucciani N et al (2011) Metaanalysis of trials comparing minimally invasive and open distal pancreatectomies. Surg Endosc 25:1642–1651. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-010-1456-5
van Hilst J, de Rooij T, Klompmaker S et al (2019) Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy for ductal adenocarcinoma (diploma): a pan-European propensity score matched study. Ann Surg 269:10–17. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000002561
Esposito A, Balduzzi A, De Pastena M et al (2019) Minimally invasive surgery for pancreatic cancer. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 19:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/14737140.2019.1685878
De Pastena M, Nijkamp MW, van Gulik TG et al (2018) Laparoscopic hemi-splenectomy. Surg Today 48:735–738. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00595-018-1639-6
Koukoutsis I, Tamijmarane A, Bellagamba R et al (2007) The impact of splenectomy on outcomes after distal and total pancreatectomy. World J Surg Oncol 5:61. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7819-5-61
Kimura W, Inoue T, Futakawa N et al (1996) Spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy with conservation of the splenic artery and vein. Surgery 120:885–890
Warshaw AL (1988) Conservation of the spleen with distal pancreatectomy. Arch Surg 123:550–553
Lee LS, Hwang HK, Kang CM, Lee WJ (2016) Minimally invasive approach for spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy: a comparative analysis of postoperative complication between splenic vessel conserving and Warshaw’s technique. J Gastrointest Surg Off J Soc Surg Aliment Tract 20:1464–1470. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-016-3141-z
Kang CM, Kim DH, Lee WJ, Chi HS (2011) Conventional laparoscopic and robot-assisted spleen-preserving pancreatectomy: does da Vinci have clinical advantages? Surg Endosc 25:2004–2009. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-010-1504-1
von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M et al (2007) The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (strobe) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet Lond Engl 370:1453–1457. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61602-X
Bassi C, Marchegiani G, Dervenis C et al (2017) The 2016 update of the International Study Group (ISGPS) definition and grading of postoperative pancreatic fistula: 11 years after. Surgery 161:584–591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2016.11.014
Wente MN, Bassi C, Dervenis C et al (2007) Delayed gastric emptying (DGE) after pancreatic surgery: a suggested definition by the International Study Group of pancreatic surgery (ISGPS). Surgery 142:761–768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2007.05.005
Wente MN, Veit JA, Bassi C et al (2007) Postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH): an International Study Group of pancreatic surgery (ISGPS) definition. Surgery 142:20–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2007.02.001
Pulvirenti A, Landoni L, Borin A et al (2019) Reinforced stapler versus ultrasonic dissector for pancreatic transection and stump closure for distal pancreatectomy: a propensity matched analysis. Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2019.02.016
Bassi C, Molinari E, Malleo G et al (2010) Early versus late drain removal after standard pancreatic resections: results of a prospective randomized trial. Ann Surg 252:207. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181e61e88
Paiella S, De Pastena M, Korrel M et al (2019) Long term outcome after minimally invasive and open Warshaw and Kimura techniques for spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy: International multicenter retrospective study. Eur J Surg Oncol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2019.04.004
Worhunsky DJ, Zak Y, Dua MM et al (2014) Laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy: the technique must suit the lesion. J Gastrointest Surg Off J Soc Surg Aliment Tract 18:1445–1451. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-014-2561-x
Zureikat AH, Moser AJ, Boone BA et al (2013) 250 robotic pancreatic resections: safety and feasibility. Ann Surg 258:554–559x. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e3182a4e87c(discussion 559-562)
Souche R, Herrero A, Bourel G et al (2018) Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a French prospective single-center experience and cost-effectiveness analysis. Surg Endosc 32:3562–3569. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6080-9
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors have no conflicts of interest.
Ethical approval
The present study design was an observational one conducted with human participants. The Institutional Review Board approval for data collection and analysis was obtained.
Informed consent
All the patients signed the informed consent form.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Esposito, A., Casetti, L., De Pastena, M. et al. Robotic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy: the Verona experience. Updates Surg 73, 923–928 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-020-00731-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-020-00731-8