RESUMO
Robotic central pancreatectomy has not been widely performed because of its rare indications, technical difficulties, and concern about the high complication rate. We reviewed six robotic central pancreatectomy cases between May 2016 and June 2021 at a single institution. This multimedia article aims to introduce our technique of robotic central pancreatectomy with perioperative and follow-up outcomes. All patients experienced biochemical leakage of postoperative pancreatic fistula, except in one with a grade B pancreatic fistula, which resulted in a pseudocyst formation and was successfully managed by endoscopic internal drainage. All patients achieved completely negative resection margins. There was no new-onset diabetes mellitus or recurrence during the median follow-up period of 13.5 months (range, 10–74 months). With an acceptable complication rate and the preservation of pancreatic function, robotic central pancreatectomy could be a good surgical option for patients with benign and borderline malignant tumors of the pancreatic neck or proximal body.
RESUMO
Purpose@#Despite the increasing number of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomies, laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) and LPD with robotic reconstruction (LPD-RR) are still valuable surgical options for minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD). This study introduces the surgical techniques, tips, and outcomes of our experience with LPD and LPD-RR. @*Methods@#Between March 2014 and July 2021, 122 and 48 patients underwent LPD and LPDRR respectively, at CHA Bundang Medical Center in Korea. The operative settings, procedures, and trocar placements were identical in both approaches; however, different trocars were used. We introduced our techniques of retraction methods for Kocherization and uncinate process dissection, pancreatic reconstruction, pancreatic division, and protection using the round ligament. The perioperative surgical outcomes of LPD and LPD-RR were compared. @*Results@#Baseline demographics of patients in the LPD and LPD-RR groups were comparable, but the LPD group had older age (65.5 ± 11.6 years vs. 60.0 ± 14.1 years, p = 0.009) and lesser preoperative chemotherapy (15.6% vs. 35.4%, p = 0.008). The proportion of malignant disease was similar (LPD group, 86.1% vs. LPD-RR group, 83.3%; p = 0.759). Perioperative outcomes were also comparable, including operative time, estimated blood loss, clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (LPD group, 9.0% vs. LPD-RR group, 10.4%; p = 0.684), and major postoperative complication rates (LPD group, 14.8% vs. LPD-RR group, 6.2%; p = 0.082). @*Conclusion@#Both LPD and LPR-RR can be safely performed by experienced surgeons with acceptable surgical outcomes. Further investigations are required to evaluate the objective benefits of robotic surgical systems in MIPD and establish widely acceptable standardized MIPD techniques.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: Longitudinal pancreaticojejunostomy is a treatment option for selected patients with chronic obstructive pancreatitis that is rarely performed laparoscopically. METHODS: A 54-year-old man presented with chronic postprandial abdominal pain. A computed tomography scan revealed multiple calcified stones at the pancreatic head and tail with marked dilation of the pancreatic duct (0.8 cm in diameter). The patient underwent laparoscopic longitudinal pancreticojejunostomy. Impacted stones were removed and Roux-en-Y pancreaticojejunostomy was performed using an intracorporeal suture technique in a longitudinal side-to-side manner. RESULTS: The total operation time and estimated blood loss were 150 min and 50 ml, respectively. The patient tolerated a regular diet without postprandial abdominal pain. Postoperative recovery was uneventful and the patient was discharged on postoperative day 5 in good condition. He returned to work on postoperative day 9. CONCLUSION: Longitudinal pancreaticojejunostomy might be an effective option for relief of chronic pain in treating chronic obstructive pancreatitis.