Distal pancreatectomy with or without radical approach, vascular resections and splenectomy: Easier does not always mean easy.

Because distal pancreatectomy (DP) has no reconstructive steps and less frequent vascular involvement, it is thought to be the easier counterpart of pancreaticoduodenectomy. This procedure has a high surgical risk and the overall incidences of perioperative morbidity (mainly pancreatic fistula), and mortality are still high, in addition to the challenges that accompany delayed access to adjuvant therapies (if any) and prolonged impairment of daily activities. Moreover, surgery to remove malignancy of the body or tail of the pancreas is associated with poor long-term oncological outcomes. From this perspective, new surgical approaches, and aggressive techniques, such as radical antegrade modular pancreato-splenectomy and DP with celiac axis resection, could lead to improved survival in those affected by more locally advanced tumors. Conversely, minimally invasive approaches such as laparoscopic and robotic surgeries and the avoidance of routine concomitant splenectomy have been developed to reduce the burden of surgical stress. The purpose of ongoing surgical research has been to achieve significant reductions in perioperative complications, length of hospital stays and the time between surgery and the beginning of adjuvant chemotherapy. Because a dedicated multidisciplinary team is crucial to pancreatic surgery, hospital and surgeon volumes have been confirmed to be associated with better outcomes in patients affected by benign, borderline, and malignant diseases of the pancreas. The purpose of this review is to examine the state of the art in distal pancreatectomies, with a special focus on minimally invasive approaches and oncological-directed techniques. The widespread reproducibility, cost-effectiveness and long-term results of each oncological procedure are also taken into deep consideration.

Robotic esophagectomy: results from a tertiary care Italian center.

There is growing evidence supporting the use of minimally invasive resection in esophageal surgery, mainly due to reduced postoperative morbidity and faster recovery after surgery. In recent years, robot-assisted surgery has shown some potential benefits over conventional laparo-thoracoscopic esophagectomy. The purpose of this study is to report our experience with different esophageal resections with a full-robotic approach for malignant disease. All consecutive patients with resectable esophageal malignancy undergoing robotic esophagectomy over a 6-year time frame by a single surgical team were included in this analysis. Perioperative and clinicopathological outcomes were assessed. A total of 76 patients received robotic esophagectomy. Surgeries included 45 Lewis procedures, 25 McKeown procedures, and six transhiatal resections. There were no intraoperative complications and no conversions occurred. The rate of postoperative morbidity was 41%, while the rate of anastomotic leak was 13%. Overall, eight patients required reintervention. All patients received R0 resection, with a median of harvested lymph nodes of 35. 30-day and 90-day mortality was 3.9 and 7.9%, respectively. Our findings support the safety and oncological efficiency of full-robotic esophagectomy. All procedures of esophageal resection were associated with the expected perioperative morbidity while providing excellent pathological outcomes for patients with malignancy.

Robotic rectal surgery: State of the art.

Laparoscopic rectal surgery has demonstrated its superiority over the open approach, however it still has some technical limitations that lead to the development of robotic platforms. Nevertheless the literature on this topic is rapidly expanding there is still no consensus about benefits of robotic rectal cancer surgery over the laparoscopic one. For this reason a review of all the literature examining robotic surgery for rectal cancer was performed. Two reviewers independently conducted a search of electronic databases (PubMed and EMBASE) using the key words "rectum", "rectal", "cancer", "laparoscopy", "robot". After the initial screen of 266 articles, 43 papers were selected for review. A total of 3013 patients were included in the review. The most commonly performed intervention was low anterior resection (1450 patients, 48.1%), followed by anterior resections (997 patients, 33%), ultra-low anterior resections (393 patients, 13%) and abdominoperineal resections (173 patients, 5.7%). Robotic rectal surgery seems to offer potential advantages especially in low anterior resections with lower conversions rates and better preservation of the autonomic function. Quality of mesorectum and status of and circumferential resection margins are similar to those obtained with conventional laparoscopy even if robotic rectal surgery is undoubtedly associated with longer operative times. This review demonstrated that robotic rectal surgery is both safe and feasible but there is no evidence of its superiority over laparoscopy in terms of postoperative, clinical outcomes and incidence of complications. In conclusion robotic rectal surgery seems to overcome some of technical limitations of conventional laparoscopic surgery especially for tumors requiring low and ultra-low anterior resections but this technical improvement seems not to provide, until now, any significant clinical advantages to the patients.