Background and Objective: Robotic distal pancreatectomy (DP) is an emerging attractive approach, but its role compared to laparoscopic or open surgery remains unclear. Benchmark values are novel and objective tools for such comparisons. The aim of this study was to identify benchmark cutoffs for many outcome parameters for DP with or without splenectomy beyond the learning curve. Methods: This study analyzed outcomes from international expert centers from patients undergoing robotic DP for malignant or benign lesions. After excluding the first 10 cases in each center to reduce the effect of the learning curve, consecutive patients were included from the start of robotic DP up to June 2020. Benchmark patients had no significant comorbidities. Benchmark cutoff values were derived from the 75^th or the 25^th percentile of the median values of all benchmark centers. Benchmark values were compared to a laparoscopic control group from four high-volume centers and published open DP landmark series. Results: Sixteen centers contributed 755 cases, whereof 345 benchmark patients (46%) were included the analysis. Benchmark cut-offs included: operation time ≤300min, conversion rate ≤3%, clinically relevant POPF ≤32%, 3 months major complication rate ≤26.7% and lymph node retrieval ≥9. The CCI^® at 3 months was ≤8.7 without deterioration thereafter. Compared to robotic DP, laparoscopy had significantly higher conversion rates (5x) and overall complications, while open DP was associated with more blood loss and longer hospital stay. Conclusion: This first benchmark study demonstrates that robotic DP provides superior postoperative outcomes compared to laparoscopic and open DP. Robotic DP may be expected to become the approach of choice in minimally invasive DP.

Background: RPD (Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy) was first performed by P. C. Giulianotti in 2001 (Arch Surg 138(7):777–784, 2003). Since then, the complexity and lack of technique standardization has slowed down its widespread utilization. RPD has been increasingly adopted worldwide and in few centres is the preferred apporached approach by certain surgeons. Some large retrospective series are available and data seem to indicate that RPD is safe/feasible, and a valid alternative to the classic open Whipple. Our group has recently described a standardized 17 steps approach to RPD (Giulianotti et al. Surg Endosc 32(10): 4329–4336, 2018). Herin, we present an educational step-by-step surgical video with short technical/operative description to visually exemplify the RPD 17 steps technique. Methods: The current project has been approved by our local Institutional Review Board (IRB). We edited a step-by-step video guidance of our RPD standardized technique. The data/video images were collected from a retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database (IRB approved). The narration and the images describe hands-on operative “tips and tricks” to facilitate the learning/teaching/evaluation process. Results: Each of the 17 surgical steps is visually represented and explained to help the in-depth understanding of the relevant surgical anatomy and the specific operative technique. Conclusions: Educational videos descriptions like the one herein presented are a valid learning/teaching tool to implement standardized surgical approaches. Standardization is a crucial component of the learning curve. This approach can create more objective and reproducible data which might be more reliably assessed/compared across institutions and by different surgeons. Promising results are arising from several centers about RPD. However, RPD as gold standard-approach is still a matter of debate. Randomized-controlled studies (RCT) are required to better validate the precise role of RPD.

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the different phases of the learning curve for robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) in international expert centers. Background: RDP is an emerging minimally invasive approach; however, only limited, mostly single-center data are available on its safe implementation, including the learning curve. Methods: Consecutive patients undergoing elective RDP from 16 expert centers across 3 continents were included to assess the learning curve. Based on the first 100 RDPs at each center, 3 cutoffs were used to define the learning curve: operative time for competency, major complications (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III) for proficiency, and textbook outcome for mastery. Clinical outcomes before and after the cutoffs were compared. Results: The learning curve analysis was conducted on 1109 of 2403 RDPs. Competency, proficiency, and mastery, respectively, were reached after 46, 63, and 73 RDP procedures. After competency, operative time decreased from 245 to 235 minutes ( P = 0.002). Attaining proficiency was reflected by a reduction in the rate of major complications from 20% to 15% ( P = 0.012), and mastery was associated with a higher proportion of patients with textbook outcomes (71% vs 63%; P = 0.028). The postoperative pancreatic fistula rate remained stable along the learning curve, ranging between 18.5% and 21.5%. Previous laparoscopic experience accelerated the learning process by virtue of reduced operative time and an earlier decrease in major complications. Conclusions: Competency, proficiency, and mastery for RDP were reached after 46, 63, and 73 procedures, respectively, at international expert centers. The findings highlight that the learning curves for intraoperative parameters are completed earlier; however, extensive experience is needed to master RDP.

Background: Although robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) has a lower conversion rate to open surgery and causes less blood loss than laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP), clear evidence on the impact of the surgical approach on morbidity is lacking. Prior studies have shown a higher rate of complications among obese patients undergoing pancreatectomy. The primary aim of this study is to compare short-term outcomes of RDP vs. LDP in patients with a BMI ≥ 30. Methods: In this multicenter study, all obese patients who underwent RDP or LDP for any indication between 2012 and 2022 at 18 international expert centers were included. The baseline characteristics underwent inverse probability treatment weighting to minimize allocation bias. Results: Of 446 patients, 219 (50.2%) patients underwent RDP. The median age was 60 years, the median BMI was 33 (31–36), and the preoperative diagnosis was ductal adenocarcinoma in 21% of cases. The conversion rate was 19.9%, the overall complication rate was 57.8%, and the 90-day mortality rate was 0.7% (3 patients). RDP was associated with a lower complication rate (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.52–0.89; p = 0.005), less blood loss (150 vs. 200 ml; p < 0.001), fewer blood transfusion requirements (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.15–0.50; p < 0.001) and a lower Comprehensive Complications Index (8.7 vs. 8.9, p < 0.001) than LPD. RPD had a lower conversion rate (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.19–0.39; p < 0.001) and achieved better spleen preservation rate (OR 1.96, 95% CI 1.13–3.39; p = 0.016) than LPD. Conclusions: In obese patients, RDP is associated with a lower conversion rate, fewer complications and better short-term outcomes than LPD.