4.5 Article

Robotic Dual-Console Distal Pancreatectomy: Could it be Considered a Safe Approach and Surgical Teaching even in Pancreatic Surgery? A Retrospective Observational Study Cohort

Journal

WORLD JOURNAL OF SURGERY
Volume 45, Issue 10, Pages 3191-3197

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00268-021-06216-y

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Universita degli Studi di Verona within the CRUI-CARE Agreement

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study assessed the safety and feasibility of the robotic dual-console during a robotic distal pancreatectomy, showing that this approach is safe, feasible, and comparable to standard robotic procedures in terms of surgical outcomes.
Background The study aims to assess the safety and feasibility of the robotic dual-console during a robotic distal pancreatectomy Methods The data of the consecutive patients submitted to RDP from 2012 to 2019 at the Verona University were retrieved from a prospectively maintained database. The patients submitted to RDP were divided into the dual-console platform group (DG) and compared to the standard robotic procedure group (SG). Results In the study period, 102 robotic distal pancreatectomies were performed, of whom 42 patients (41%) belonged to the DG and 60 patients (59%) to the SG. Higher operation time was recorded in the DG compared to the SG (410 vs. 265 min, p < 0.001). The overall conversion rate of the series was 7% (n 7 patients). All the conversions were observed in the SG (p = 0.021). No differences in morbidity or pancreatic fistula rate were recorded (p > 0.05). No mortality events in the 90th postoperative days were reported in this series. Conclusions The robotic dual-console approach for distal pancreatectomy is safe, feasible, and reproducible. The postoperative surgical outcomes are comparable to the standard RDP with the single-console da Vinci Surgical System (R). This surgical technique can widely and safely improve the robotic surgical training program.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available