Background: One critical step in the therapy of patients with localized pancreatic cancer is the determination of local resectability. The decision between primary surgery versus upfront local or systemic cancer therapy seems especially to differ between pancreatic cancer centers. In our cohort study, we analyzed the independent judgement of resectability of five experienced high volume pancreatic surgeons in 200 consecutive patients with borderline resectable or locally advanced pancreatic cancer. Methods: Pretherapeutic CT or MRI scans of 200 consecutive patients with borderline resectable or locally advanced pancreatic cancer were evaluated by 5 independent pancreatic surgeons. Resectability and the degree of abutment of the tumor to the venous and arterial structures adjacent to the pancreas were reported. Interrater reliability and dispersion indices were compared. Results: One hundred ninety-four CT scans and 6 MRI scans were evaluated and all parameters were evaluated by all surgeons in 133 (66.5%) cases. Low agreement was observed for tumor infiltration of venous structures (κ = 0.265 and κ = 0.285) while good agreement was achieved for the abutment of the tumor to arterial structures (interrater reliability celiac trunk κ = 0.708 P < 0.001). In patients with vascular tumor contact indicating locally advanced disease, surgeons highly agreed on unresectability, but in patients with vascular tumor abutment consistent with borderline resectable disease, the judgement of resectability was less uniform (dispersion index locally advanced vs. borderline resectable p < 0.05). Conclusion: Excellent agreement between surgeons exists in determining the presence of arterial abutment and locally advanced pancreatic cancer. The determination of resectability in borderline resectable patients is influenced by additional subjective factors. Trial registration: EudraCT:2009-014476-21 (2013-02-22) and NCT01827553 (2013-04-09).

Background: Total pancreatectomy (TP) eliminates the risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) and its associated secondary complications. Hence, it may theoretically offer advantages over pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) regarding early postoperative outcome of patients with high-risk pancreatic remnant. Methods: Ninety-day mortality and morbidity of 100 TP vs. 100 PD for pancreatic head lesions were retrospectively compared. Groups were matched for pancreatic texture, pancreatic duct size, final histology, age, gender and surgeon. Only patients at high risk for POPF due to soft pancreatic texture and small pancreatic duct <3 mm were included. Results: Preoperatively, the TP-group was characterized by poorer general condition, more comorbidities and more pronounced obesity than the PD-group. Postoperatively, overall morbidity was lower after TP (63% vs. 88%, P<0.001) due to less mild complications. Postpancreatectomy hemorrhage rate was lower after TP than after PD (2% vs. 12%, P=0.014). Duration of surgery, hospital stay, major morbidity (30%) and mortality (7% vs. 5%) were the same. POPF was the most common complication after PD with 32%. Emergency completion pancreatectomy was necessary in 10% of PD with a significantly higher mortality compared to elective TP (50% vs. 7%, P=0.001). Conclusions: TP may reduce severe POPF-associated complications and prevent mortality related to emergency completion pancreatectomy in some elderly, obese and polymorbid patients with high-risk pancreatic remnant. Careful individual selection by an experienced pancreatic surgeon is mandatory.

Introduction: The versatile open modular design of the newly introduced robotic platform Hugo^TM RAS is expected to allow its rapid spread in general surgery. However, the system is not yet approved for use in oesophageal and HPB-surgery and is not licensed worldwide. The aim of this work was to review the current spectrum of general surgical procedures that may be feasibly and safely performed with Hugo. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed our own series and performed a systematic review of all the published reports of general surgical procedures performed with this system in the literature. Results: Seventy patients underwent general surgery with Hugo at our institution, and another 99 patients were reported in the literature. The most common procedures were colorectal (n = 55); cholecystectomy (n = 44); repair of groin, ventral and hiatal hernias (n = 34); upper GI (n = 28); adrenalectomy (n = 6); and spleen cyst deroofing (n = 2). No device-related complications were reported. Arm collisions and technical problems were rare. The docking and console times improved in all series. The port positions and robotic arm configurations varied among authors and depended on the surgical indication, patient characteristics and surgeon’s preference. Conclusions: A wide spectrum of general surgical procedures has been safely and effectively performed with the Hugo RAS, even by robotically inexperienced teams with a limited choice of instruments. Technical improvements to the system and the introduction of robotic energy devices may help Hugo evolve to a vital alternative to established robotic systems.