250 robotic pancreatic resections safety and feasibility

Annals of Surgery

Volumn 258, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 554-559

  Zureikat, Amer H ^a   Moser, A James ^c   Boone, Brian A ^a   Bartlett, David L ^a   Zenati, Mazen ^b   Zeh III, Herbert J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^c BETH ISRAEL DEACONESS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Minimally invasive surgery; Pancreatic; Pancreatic cancer; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Robotic surgery

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ANASTOMOSIS LEAKAGE; CONFERENCE PAPER; ENDOSCOPIC RETROGRADE CHOLANGIOPANCREATOGRAPHY; FALSE ANEURYSM; FEASIBILITY STUDY; FEMALE; GASTRIC ISCHEMIA; HEART INFARCTION; HUMAN; ISCHEMIA; LUNG EMBOLISM; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICAL RECORD REVIEW; MULTIPLE ORGAN FAILURE; OPERATION DURATION; PANCREAS CANCER; PANCREAS FISTULA; PANCREAS RESECTION; PANCREATIC ENUCLEATION; PANCREATICODUODENECTOMY; PATIENT SAFETY; PERIOPERATIVE PERIOD; PLEURA EFFUSION; POSTOPERATIVE HEMORRHAGE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RESPIRATORY FAILURE; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; ROBOTICS; SMALL INTESTINE OBSTRUCTION; STOMACH DISEASE; SURGICAL MORTALITY; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; CONVERSION TO OPEN SURGERY; FEASIBILITY STUDIES; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OPERATIVE TIME; PANCREATECTOMY; PANCREATIC DISEASES; PANCREATICODUODENECTOMY; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; ROBOTICS; SURGERY, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; TREATMENT OUTCOME; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84884501120     PISSN: 00034932     EISSN: 15281140     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3182a4e87c     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (34)

1. Kendrick ML, Cusati D. Total laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: feasibility and outcome in an early experience. Arch Surg. 2010;145:19-23.
2. Kendrick ML. Laparoscopic and robotic resection for pancreatic cancer. Cancer J. 2012;18:571-576.
3. Stauffer JA, Rosales-Velderrain A, Goldberg RF, et al. Comparison of open with laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a single institution's transition over a 7-year period. HPB (Oxford). 2013;15:149-155.
4. Kneuertz PJ, Patel SH, Chu CK, et al. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: trends and lessons learned through an 11-year experience. J Am Coll Surg. 2012;215:167-176.
5. Kooby DA, Gillespie T, Bentrem D, et al. Left-sided pancreatectomy: a multicenter comparison of laparoscopic and open approaches. Ann Surg. 2008;248:438-446.
6. Venkat R, Edil BH, Schulick RD, et al. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is associated with significantly less overall morbidity compared to the open technique: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg. 2012;255:1048-1059.
7. Wilson CB. Adoption of new surgical technology. BMJ. 2006;332:112-114.
8. Barkun JS, Aronson JK, Feldman LS, et al. Evaluation and stages of surgical innovations. Lancet. 2009;374:1089-1096.
9. Gagner M, Palermo M. Laparoscopic Whipple procedure: review of the literature. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg. 2009;16:726-730.
10. Sohn W, Lee HJ, Ahlering TE. Robotic surgery: review of prostate and bladder cancer. Cancer J. 2013;19:133-139.
11. Orady M, Hrynewych A, Nawfal AK, et al. Comparison of robotic-assisted hysterectomy to other minimally invasive approaches. JSLS. 2012;16:542-548.
12. Close A, Robertson C, Rushton S, et al. Comparative cost-effectiveness of robot-assisted and standard laparoscopic prostatectomy as alternatives to open radical prostatectomy for treatment of men with localised prostate cancer: a health technology assessment from the perspective of the UK National Health Service. Eur Urol. 2013;pii: S0302-2838:00223-0026. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2013. 02.040.
13. Wright JD, Ananth CV, Lewin SN, et al. Robotically assisted vs laparoscopic hysterectomy among women with benign gynecologic disease. JAMA. 2013;309:689-698.
14. Zureikat AH, Nguyen KT, Bartlett DL, et al. Robotic-assisted major pancreatic resection and reconstruction. Arch Surg. 2011;146:256-261. doi:10.1001/archsurg.2010.246.
15. Zeh HJ, Zureikat AH, Secrest A, et al. Outcomes after robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary lesions. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19:864-870. doi:10.1245/s10434-011-2045-0.
16. Abood GJ, Can MF, Daouadi M, et al. Robotic-assisted minimally invasive central pancreatectomy: technique and outcomes. J Gastrointest Surg. 2013;17:1002-1008. doi:10.1007/s11605-012-2137-6.
17. Daouadi M, Zureikat AH, Zenati MS, et al. Robot-assisted minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy is superior to the laparoscopic technique. Ann Surg. 2013;257:128-132.
18. Winer J, Can MF, Bartlett DL, et al. The current state of roboticassisted pancreatic surgery. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2012;9:468-476.
19. Bassi C, Dervenis C, Butturini G, et al. Postoperative pancreatic fistula: an international study group (ISGPF) definition. Surgery. 2005;138:8-13.
20. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240:205-213.
21. Cameron JL, Riall TS, Coleman J, et al. One thousand consecutive pancreaticoduodenectomies. Ann Surg. 2006;244:10-15.
22. Winter JM, Brennan MF, Tang LH, et al. Survival after resection of pancreatic adenocarcinoma: results from a single institution over three decades. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19:169-175.
23. Venkat R, Puhan MA, Schulick RD, et al. Predicting the risk of perioperative mortality in patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy: a novel scoring system. Arch Surg. 2011;146:1277-1284.
24. Casadei R, Ricci C, Pezzilli R, et al. The usefulness of a grading system for complications resulting from pancreatic resections: a single center experience. Updates Surg. 2011;63:97-102.
25. DeOliveira ML, Winter JM, Schafer M, et al. Assessment of complications after pancreatic surgery: a novel grading system applied to 633 patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy. Ann Surg. 2006;244:931-937; discussion 937-939.
26. Diener MK, Seiler CM, Rossion I, et al. Efficacy of stapler versus handsewn closure after distal pancreatectomy (DISPACT): a randomised, controlled multicentre trial. Lancet. 2011;377:1514-1522.
27. Denbo JW, Orr WS, Zarzaur BL, et al. Toward defining grade C pancreatic fistula following pancreaticoduodenectomy: incidence, risk factors, management and outcome. HPB (Oxford). 2012;14:589-593.
28. Gebauer F, Kloth K, Tachezy M, et al. Options and limitations in applying the fistula classification by the International Study Group for Pancreatic Fistula. Ann Surg. 2012;256:130-138.
29. Addeo P, Delpero JR, Paye F, et al. Pancreatic fistula after a pancreaticoduodenectomy for ductal adenocarcinoma and its association with morbidity: a multicentre study of the French Surgical Association [published online ahead of print]. HPB (Oxford). 2013. doi:10.1111/hpb.12063.
30. Inchauste SM, Lanier BJ, Libutti SK, et al. Rate of clinically significant postoperative pancreatic fistula in pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors.World J Surg 2012;36:1517-1526
31. Dong X, Zhang B, Kang MX, et al. Analysis of pancreatic fistula according to the International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistula classification scheme for 294 patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy in a single center. Pancreas. 2011;40:222-228.
32. Fernandez-del Castillo C, Morales-Oyarvide V, McGrath D, et al. Evolution of the Whipple procedure at the Massachusetts General Hospital. Surgery. 2012;152:S56-S63.
33. Winter JM, Cameron JL, Campbell KA, et al. 1423 pancreaticoduodenectomies for pancreatic cancer: a single-institution experience. J Gastrointest Surg. 2006;10:1199-1210; discussion 1210-1191.
34. Kim SC, Song KB, Jung YS, et al. Short-term clinical outcomes for 100 consecutive cases of laparoscopic pylorus-preserving pancreatoduodenectomy: improvement with surgical experience. Surg Endosc. 2013;27: 95-103.