Open Access

Robotic distal pancreatectomy with or without preservation of spleen: a technical note

  • Amilcare Parisi1,
  • Francesco Coratti2,
  • Roberto Cirocchi3,
  • Veronica Grassi1Email author,
  • Jacopo Desiderio1,
  • Federico Farinacci1,
  • Francesco Ricci1,
  • Olga Adamenko1,
  • Anastasia Iliana Economou3,
  • Alban Cacurri1,
  • Stefano Trastulli1,
  • Claudio Renzi3,
  • Elisa Castellani3,
  • Giorgio Di Rocco4,
  • Adriano Redler4,
  • Alberto Santoro4 and
  • Andrea Coratti2
World Journal of Surgical Oncology201412:295

https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7819-12-295

Received: 13 May 2014

Accepted: 2 September 2014

Published: 23 September 2014

Abstract

Background

Distal pancreatectomy (DP) is a surgical procedure performed to remove the pancreatic tail jointly with a variable part of the pancreatic body and including a spleen resection in the case of conventional distal pancreatectomy or not in the spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy.

Methods

In this article, we describe a standardized operative technique for fully robotic distal pancreatectomy.

Results

In the last decade, the use of robotic systems has become increasingly common as an approach for benign and malignant pancreatic disease treatment. Robotic Distal Pancreatectomy (RDP) is an emerging technology for which sufficient data to draw definitive conclusions in surgical oncology are still not available because the follow-up period after surgery is too short (less than 2 years).

Conclusions

RDP is an emerging technology for which sufficient data to draw definitive conclusions of value in surgical oncology are still not available, however this techniques is safe and reproducible by surgeons that possess adequate skills.

Keywords

pancreatic surgery robotic surgery

Background

Distal pancreatectomy (DP) is a surgical procedure performed to remove the pancreatic tail jointly with a variable part of the pancreatic body and including a spleen resection in the case of conventional distal pancreatectomy or not in the spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy. In this article we describe a technical note on RDP.

Methods

Operative technique

After the induction of general anesthesia, the patient’s arms are abducted and his legs are spread apart in order to allow the placement of the assistant surgeon. A nasogastric tube and urinary catheter are also applied. After preparation of the skin with povidone-iodine is completed, the abdomen is insufflated with CO2 using a veress needle through a one millimeter diameter periumbilical incision. The ınsufflator is set to a constant pressure of 12 mmHg. The trocars are placed following a concave and arcuate line (Figure 1). Usually, the optical trocar is inserted just above and to the left of the umbilicus. In practice, however, its position could vary in relation to the patient’s anatomy and pancreatic lesion localization, which is why a preliminary introduction of an assistant 12-mm extra port on the transverse umbilical line in between the xifopubic and left middle axillary line could be useful in order to check the internal anatomy and evaluate the optimal position of the optical trocar. The first robotic trocar is positioned at the intersection of the left middle axillary line and the transverse umbilical line, the second robotic trocar at the intersection of the right anterior axillary line and the transverse umbilical line, and the third robotic trocar in the right hypochondrium. The assistant surgeon in the various surgical phases will be able to introduce an aspirator, a pair of forceps, a mechanical stapler or a suture thread through the assistant port. The robotic cart is placed between the patient’s head and left shoulder after rotating the operation table to the right and consequently docking the robotic system. The robotic camera is inserted through the periumbilical trocar port, the cautery hook is placed on arm number 1, the fenestrated bipolar forceps is placed on arm number 2, and the double fenestrated grasper on arm number 3. The gastrocolic ligament is cut from the right to the left side with the help of a cautery hook, until complete exposure of the pancreatic isthmus is obtained and the gastrolienal ligament is reached (Figure 2). Subsequently, the short gastric vessels are meticulously identified and dissected by ultrasound dissector or bipolar forceps; when necessary clips and Hem-o-loks could also be applied. The stomach is lifted upward by the third robotic arm, and the transverse colon is moved downwards (Figure 3). In this manner a passage that leads to the lesser sac is obtained, helping us to distinguish and dissect the splenic artery at the superior pancreatic edge. The artery is ligated distally using Hem-o-loks and sectioned (Figures 4 and 5). The colosplenic ligament is sectioned so that the spleen is completely mobilized. The inferior spleen pole is pulled to the right with the help of a pair of fenestrated bipolar forceps, thus allowing the complete section of the splenorenal ligament by the cautery hook (Figure 6). During this procedure, attention must be paid to avoid injury to the left adrenal gland. This moment is particularly important as it identifies the precise level for the forthcoming dissection. Dissection of the lower edge of the pancreas should be performed following a retropancreatic avascular plane of dissection until visualization of the splenic vein on the posterior surface of the gland. Before ligature, the splenic vein should be isolated from the fibrotic lamina surrounding it. The splenic vein could be sectioned using proximal and distal ligatures with a Hem-o-lok or stapler. Two suspension sutures are placed at the lower edge of the pancreas at the expected level of gland resection. The pancreatic section is performed with robotic Ultracision, placed on the arm number 1, gradually reaching the duct of Wirsung, which must be tied before it is sectioned (Figures 7 and 8). Alternatively, this step can be performed using a mechanical stapler. The pancreas is finally isolated from the posterior abdominal wall by dissecting along the soft avascular tissue behind the retropancreatic band and the splenic hilum, until complete mobilization of both the organs (Figure 9). After checking the correct detachment of the surgical specimen, it is extracted with an Endocath through a McBurney or Pfannenstiel abdominal incision (Figure 10). After checking the hemostasis, a Jackson-Pratt drain is placed close to the site of the pancreatic section and incisions are sutured.
Figure 1

The trocars are placed following a concave and arcuated line.

Figure 2

The gastrocolic ligament is cut from the right to the left side with the help of a cautery hook, until complete exposure of the pancreatic isthmus is obtained and the gastrolienal ligament is reached.

Figure 3

The stomach is lifted upward by the third robotic arm and the transverse colon is moved downwards.

Figure 4

Splenic artery dissection.

Figure 5

Splenic artery ligature with Hem-o-loks and sectioning.

Figure 6

Section of the splenorenal ligament by the cautery hook.

Figure 7

Pancreatic section.

Figure 8

The pancreatic section is performed with robotic Ultracision, placed on the arm no 1, gradually reaching Wirsung’s duct.

Figure 9

Pancreas is isolated from the posterior abdominal wall by dissecting along the soft avascular tissue behind the retropancreatic band and the splenic ilum.

Figure 10

Surgical specimen is extracted with an Endocath through a McBurney or Pfannenstiel abdominal incision.

Results and discussion

In 1913, Mayo standardized the surgical procedure for DP [1], after the first described DP was performed by Trendelemburg in a case of pancreatic sarcoma [2]. Currently, there are reports that describe safely performing a spleen preserving pancreatectomy in cases of trauma, benign lesions of the body and tail of the pancreas next to the duct of Wirsung, or chronic pancreatitis. Spleen preservation allows many well-demonstrated advantages in terms of morbidity and mortality, preventing the development of infections and facilitating a faster postoperative recovery [3]. However this type of surgical intervention is rarely performed due to the need to select patients, technical difficulties, and the dependence of these procedures on the experience of the surgeon. Mallet-Guy standardized the technique of DP with spleen preservation in chronic pancreatitis: the splenic vessels are identified and dissected from the posterior portion of the gland, followed by the resection of the body/tail of the pancreas [4]. Quenu and Leger point out a collateral blood circulation that can be used to preserve the spleen through the short gastric vessels and the gastroepiploic vessels. Their technique may also be used in the case of interruption of the blood flow of the splenic vessels caused by their iatrogenic rupture or section. Some authors, Leger among others, underline the risk of developing a segmental portal hypertension and suggest performing splenectomy when it is not possible to preserve the splenic vein [5]. In 1988, Warshaw revised the spleen-preserving DP and showed that the use of the short gastric vessels is not only useful to preserve the spleen in the case of damage to the splenic vessels but can also be exploited as a technique of choice in selected cases [6, 7]. The advent of laparoscopy has led to evaluation of the feasibility of a minimally invasive approach for DP. In 1994 Cuschieri performed the first laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) [8], followed by Gagner et al., who presented their experience on this topic [9]. Thereafter, a large number of studies reported results; nevertheless, all of them are limited by a small sample size [1013]. LDP is a procedure considered technically demanding due to the known limitations of the traditional laparoscopic approach. In the last decade, the use of robotic systems has become increasingly common as an approach for benign and malignant pancreatic disease treatment. The robotic system adds precision to the movements and greatly increases the comfort of the surgeon dealing with a delicate minimally invasive dissection phase. Robotic surgical system instrumentation allows the use of a magnified and three-dimensional viewing field [14, 15], a steady traction, tremor suppression [16], flexibility of the instruments [17], and thus, safe suturing. A recent literature review of robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) shows that RDP is an emergent technology, for which there is, as yet, insufficient data to draw definitive benefit with respect to conventional or laparoscopic surgery. The mean duration of RDP is longer with the Da Vinci robot, but the hospital stay is shorter even if influenced by different hospital protocols [18]. However, we cannot reach a precise conclusion on the indications for the different approaches because the number of patients treated with the robot is low, studies presented in the literature present a small number of patients, and randomized trials are absent. In this article we describe a technical note on RDP.

Conclusions

RDP is an emerging technology for which sufficient data to draw definitive conclusions of value in surgical oncology are still not available and for which the follow-up period after surgery is too short (less than 2 years) [18]; however this techniques is safe and reproducible by experienced surgeons. We performed an update of the literature review from January 2003 to February 2014; we found 31 studies, whose characteristics are reported in Table 1. None of the studies was a randomized clinical trial. The definition of the robotic approach was heterogeneous: the technique was defined as fully robotic, robotic, robotic-assisted, robot-assisted laparoscopic and hybrid robotic [1947]. The dissection and resection were also heterogeneous, sequentially combining different approaches: laparoscopic/robotic and only robotic. In this article we have presented a standardized operative technique for fully robotic distal pancreatectomy.
Table 1

Review of the literature

Study (Author/year/type)

Duration (year)

Setting City Nation

Patients

Author’s definition of Robotic DP

Type of dissection and resection

Han [[19]] 2014 Case report

2013

Seoul South Korea

1

Robotic RAMPS

Robotic

Hanna [[20]] 2013 CCT

2006-2012

Charlotte, NC, USA

39

Robotic-assisted laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy

Robotic-laparoscopic

Zhang [[21]] 2013 Review

 

Beijing, China

 

Robotic-assisted distal pancreatectomy

 

Milone [[22]] 2013 Review

 

Chicago, IL, USA

 

Robotic distal pancreatectomy

 

Benizri [[23]] 2013 CCT

2004-2011

Vandoeuvre-les-Nancy, France

11

Robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy

Robotic

Fernandes [[24]] 2013 Review

 

Chicago, IL, USA

 

RADP

Robotic

Chen [[25]] 2013 Review

 

Shanghai China

 

Robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy

 

Lai [[26]] 2013 Review

2013

Hong Kong China

 

Robot-assisted laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy

 

Wayne [[27]] 2013 Case series

2011-2012

New York, NY, USA

12

Robotic pancreatic distal resection

NR

Jung [[28]] 2013 Review

 

Geneva, Switzerland

 

Robotic distal pancreatectomy

 

Strijker [[29]] 2012 Review

 

Utrecht Netherlands

 

Robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy distal pancreatectomy

 

Winer [[30]] 2012 Review

 

Pittsburgh, PA, USA

 

Minimally Invasive RADP

Robotic-laparoscopic

Hwang [[31]] 2012 CCT

2007- 2011

Seoul South Korea

22

Robot-assisted spleen-preserving DP

Robotic

Daouadi [[32]] 2012 CCT

2004- 2011

Pittsburgh, PA, USA

30

Minimally Invasive RADP

Robotic- laparoscopic

Suman [[33]] 2012 CCT

2006- 2010

Ridgewood, NJ, USA

40

Robot spleen-preserving DP

NR

Buturrini [[34]] 2012 CCT

NR

Verona Italy

5

Hybrid Robotic DP

Robotic-laparoscopic

Fully Robotic DP

Robotic

Choi [[35]] 2012 Case series

NR

Seoul South Korea

4

Robotic RAMPS

Robotic

Kang [[36]] 2011 CCT

2006- 2010

Seoul South Korea

20

RADP

NR

Ntourakis [[37] 2011 Case report

2010

Strasbourg France

1

Robotic Left Pancreatectomy

Robotic

Chan [[38]] 2011 Case series

2009- 2010

Hong Kong China

2

Robotic spleen preserving DP

Robotic

Kim [[39]] 2011 Case report

2009

Seoul South Korea

1

Robot Assisted spleen-preserving laparoscopic DP

Robotic

Yiengpruksawan [[40] 2011 Technical note

2010

Ridgewood, NJ, USA

NR

RADP

Robotic-laparoscopic

Ntourakis [[41] 2010 Case series

NR

Strasbourg France

2

Robotic Distal Splenopancreatectomy

Robotic

Waters [[42]] 2010 CCT

2008- 2009

Indianapolis, IN, USA

17

Robotic DP

Robotic

Giulianotti [[43] 2010 Case series

2000- 2007

Chicago, IL, and Grosseto, Italy

46

RADP

Robotic

Vasilescu [[44] 2009 Case report

2008

Bucharest Romania

1

Robotic spleen-preserving DP

Robotic

Machado [[45] 2009 Case report

NR

Sao Paulo Brazil

1

Robotic resection

Robotic-laparoscopic

D’Annibale [[46] 2006 Case series

2001- 2004

Padova Italy

2

Robotic resection

Robotic

Melvin [[47]] 2003 Case report

NR

Ohio OH, USA

1

Robotic resection

Robotic

DP, distal pancreatectomy; NR, not reported; RADP, robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy; Robotic RAMPS, robotic radical antegrade modular pancreatico-splenectomy.

Consent

Written informed consent was obtained from the patient for the publication of this report and any accompanying images.

Abbreviations

DP: 

distal pancreatectomy

LDP: 

laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy

NR: 

not reported

RADP: 

robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy

RAMPS: 

radical antegrade modular pancreatico-splenectomy

RDP: 

robotic distal pancreatectomy.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge Konstantinos G. Economou for the preparation of the illustrations and Dr. Suzanne K. Polmar for her editorial review of the manuscript.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Digestive and Liver Surgery Unit, St Maria Hospital
(2)
Department of General Surgery, Misericordia Hospital
(3)
Department of General and Oncologic Surgery, University of Perugia, St. Maria Hospital
(4)
Department of Surgical Sciences, ‘Sapienza’ University of Rome

References

  1. Mayo WJ: I. The surgery of the pancreas: I. Injuries to the pancreas in the course of operations on the stomach. II. Injuries to the pancreas in the course of operations on the spleen. III. Resection of half the pancreas for tumor. Ann Surg. 1913, 58: 145-150. 10.1097/00000658-191308000-00001.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Sulkowski U, Meyer J, Reers B, Pinger P, Waldner M: The historical development of resection surgery in pancreatic carcinoma. Zentralbl Chir. 1991, 116: 1325-1332.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Shoup M, Brennan MF, McWhite K, Leung DH, Klimstra D, Conlon KC: The value of splenic preservation with distal pancreatectomy. Arch Surg. 2002, 137: 164-168. 10.1001/archsurg.137.2.164.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Mallet-Guy P, Vachon A: Pancreatites Chroniques Gauches. 1943, Paris: Masson & CieGoogle Scholar
  5. Leger L, Bréhant J: Chirurgie du Pancréas. 1956, Paris: Masson et CieGoogle Scholar
  6. Warshaw AL: Distal pancreatectomy with preservation of the spleen. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2010, 17: 808-812. 10.1007/s00534-009-0226-z.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Warshaw AL: Conservation of the spleen with distal pancreatectomy. Arch Surg. 1988, 123: 550-553. 10.1001/archsurg.1988.01400290032004.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Cuschieri A: Laparoscopic surgery of the pancreas. J R Coll Surg Edinb. 1994, 39: 178-184.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Gagner M, Pomp A, Herrera MF: Early experience with laparoscopic resections of islet cell tumors. Surgery. 1996, 120: 1051-1054. 10.1016/S0039-6060(96)80054-7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Jin T, Altaf K, Xiong JJ, Huang W, Javed MA, Mai G, Liu XB, Hu WM, Xia Q: A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing laparoscopic and open distal pancreatectomy. HPB (Oxford). 2012, 14: 711-724. 10.1111/j.1477-2574.2012.00531.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Sui CJ, Li B, Yang JM, Wang SJ, Zhou YM: Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy: a meta-analysis. Asian J Surg. 2012, 35: 1-8. 10.1016/j.asjsur.2012.04.001.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Venkat R, Edil BH, Schulick RD, Lidor AO, Makary MA, Wolfgang CL: 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. 10.1097/SLA.0b013e318251ee09.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Xie K, Zhu YP, Xu XW, Chen K, Yan JF, Mou YP: Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is as safe and feasible as open procedure: a meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol. 2012, 18: 1959-1967. 10.3748/wjg.v18.i16.1959.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Prasad SM, Maniar HS, Chu C, Schuessler RB, Damiano RJ: Surgical robotics: impact of motion scaling on task performance. J Am Coll Surg. 2004, 199: 863-868. 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2004.08.027.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Byrn JC, Schluender S, Divino CM, Conrad J, Gurland B, Shlasko E, Szold A: Three-dimensional imaging improves surgical performance for both novice and experienced operators using the da Vinci Robot System. Am J Surg. 2007, 193: 519-522. 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2006.06.042.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Veluvolu KC, Ang WT: Estimation and filtering of physiological tremor for real-time compensation in surgical robotics applications. Int J Med Robot. 2010, 6: 334-342. 10.1002/rcs.340.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Chitwood WR, Nifong LW, Chapman WH, Felger JE, Bailey BM, Ballint T, Mendleson KG, Kim VB, Young JA, Albrecht RA: Robotic surgical training in an academic institution. Ann Surg. 2001, 234: 475-484. 10.1097/00000658-200110000-00007.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Cirocchi R, Partelli S, Coratti A, Desiderio J, Parisi A, Falconi M: Current status of robotic distal pancreatectomy: a systematic review. Surg Oncol. 2013, 22: 201-207. 10.1016/j.suronc.2013.07.002.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Han DH, Kang CM, Lee WJ, Chi HS: A five-year survivor without recurrence following robotic anterior radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy for a well-selected left-sided pancreatic cancer. Yonsei Med J. 2014, 55: 276-279. 10.3349/ymj.2014.55.1.276.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Hanna EM, Rozario N, Rupp C, Sindram D, Iannitti DA, Martinie JB: Robotic hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery: lessons learned and predictors for conversion. Int J Med Robot. 2013, 9: 152-159. 10.1002/rcs.1492.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Zhang J, Wu WM, You L, Zhao YP: Robotic versus open pancreatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013, 20: 1774-1780. 10.1245/s10434-012-2823-3.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Milone L, Daskalaki D, Wang X, Giulianotti PC: State of the art of robotic pancreatic surgery. World J Surg. 2013, 37: 2761-2770. 10.1007/s00268-013-2275-3.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Benizri EI, Germain A, Ayav A, Bernard JL, Zarnegar R, Benchimol D, Bresler L, Brunaud L: Short-term perioperative outcomes after robot-assisted and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. J Robot Surg. 2014, 8 (2): 125-132. 10.1007/s11701-013-0438-8. doi:10.1007/s11701-013-0438-8. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11701-013-0438-8View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Fernandes E, Giulianotti PC: Robotic-assisted pancreatic surgery. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2013, [Epub ahead of print]Google Scholar
  25. Chen Y, Yan J, Yuan Z, Yu S, Wang Z, Zheng Q: A meta-analysis of robotic-assisted pancreatectomy versus laparoscopic and open pancreatectomy. Saudi Med J. 2013, 34: 1229-1236.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Lai EC, Tang CN: Current status of robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy: a comprehensive review. Asian J Endosc Surg. 2013, 6: 158-164. 10.1111/ases.12040.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Wayne M, Steele J, Iskandar M, Cooperman A: Robotic pancreatic surgery – no substitute for experience and clinical judgment: an initial experience and literature review. World J Surg Oncol. 2013, 11: 160-10.1186/1477-7819-11-160.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Jung MK, Buchs NC, Azagury DE, Hagen ME, Morel P: Robotic distal pancreatectomy: a valid option?. Minerva Chir. 2013, 68: 489-497.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Strijker M, van Santvoort HC, Besselink MG, van Hillegersberg R, Borel Rinkes IH, Vriens MR, Molenaar IQ: Robot-assisted pancreatic surgery: a systematic review of the literature. HPB (Oxford). 2013, 15: 1-10.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Winer J, Can MF, Bartlett DL, Zeh HJ, Zureikat AH: The current state of robotic-assisted pancreatic surgery. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2012, 9: 468-476. 10.1038/nrgastro.2012.120.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Hwang HK, Kang CM, Chung YE, Kim KA, Choi SH, Lee WJ: Robot-assisted spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy: a single surgeon's experiences and proposal of clinical application. Surg Endosc. 2013, 27: 774-781. 10.1007/s00464-012-2551-6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Daouadi M, Zureikat AH, Zenati MS, Choudry H, Tsung A, Bartlett DL, Hughes SJ, Lee KK, Moser AJ, Zeh HJ: Robot-assisted minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy is superior to the laparoscopic technique. Ann Surg. 2013, [Epub ahead of print]Google Scholar
  33. Suman P, Rutledge J, Yiengpruksawan A: Robotic spleen preserving distal pancreatectomy is safe and feasible. Gastroenterology. 2012, 142: S1060-S1061. 10.1053/j.gastro.2012.03.012.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Butturini G, Damoli I, Esposito A, Daskalaki D, Marchegiani G, Salvia R, Bassi C: Robotic distal pancreatectomy: is hybrid operation a viable approach?. J Pancreas (Online). 2012, 13 (Suppl): 592-Google Scholar
  35. Choi SH, Kang CM, Hwang HK, Lee WJ, Chi HS: Robotic anterior RAMPS in well-selected left-sided pancreatic cancer. J Gastrointest Surg. 2012, 16: 868-869. 10.1007/s11605-012-1825-6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Kang CM, Kim DH, Lee WJ, Chi HS: Conventional laparoscopic and robot-assisted spleen-preserving pancreatectomy: does da Vinci have clinical advantages?. Surg Endosc. 2011, 25: 2004-2009. 10.1007/s00464-010-1504-1.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Ntourakis D, Marzano E, De Blasi V, Oussoultzoglou E, Jaeck D, Pessaux P: Robotic left pancreatectomy for pancreatic solid pseudopapillary tumor. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011, 18: 642-643. 10.1245/s10434-010-1376-6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Chan OC, Tang CN, Lai EC, Yang GP, Li MK: Robotic hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery: a cohort study. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2011, 18: 471-480. 10.1007/s00534-011-0389-2.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Kim DH, Kang CM, Lee WJ, Chi HS: The first experience of robot assisted spleen-preserving laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy in Korea. Yonsei Med J. 2011, 52: 539-542. 10.3349/ymj.2011.52.3.539.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Yiengpruksawan A: Technique for laparobotic distal pancreatectomy with preservation of spleen. J Robotic Surg. 2011, 5: 11-15. 10.1007/s11701-010-0218-7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  41. Ntourakis D, Marzano E, Lopez Penza PA, Bachellier P, Jaeck D, Pessaux P: Robotic distal splenopancreatectomy: bridging the gap between pancreatic and minimal access surgery. J Gastrointest Surg. 2010, 14: 1326-1330. 10.1007/s11605-010-1214-y.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Waters JA, Canal DF, Wiebke EA, Dumas RP, Beane JD, Aguilar-Saavedra JR, Ball CG, House MG, Zyromski NJ, Nakeeb A, Pitt HA, Lillemoe KD, Schmidt CM: Robotic distal pancreatectomy: cost effective?. Surgery. 2010, 148: 814-823. 10.1016/j.surg.2010.07.027.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Giulianotti PC, Sbrana F, Bianco FM, Elli EF, Shah G, Addeo P, Caravaglios G, Coratti A: Robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreatic surgery: single-surgeon experience. Surg Endosc. 2010, 24: 1646-1657. 10.1007/s00464-009-0825-4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Vasilescu C, Sgarbura O, Tudor S, Herlea V, Popescu I: Robotic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy. A case report. Acta Chir Belg. 2009, 109: 396-399.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Machado MA, Makdissi FF, Surjan RC, Abdalla RZ: Robotic resection of intraductal neoplasm of the pancreas. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2009, 19: 771-775. 10.1089/lap.2009.0164.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. D'Annibale A, Orsini C, Morpurgo E, Sovernigo GL: chirurgia robotica. Considerazioni dopo 250 interventi. Chir Ital. 2006, 58: 5-14.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Melvin WS, Needleman BJ, Krause KR, Ellison EC: Robotic resection of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2003, 13: 33-36. 10.1089/109264203321235449.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Parisi et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Advertisement