Explore the vast range of titles available.

BackgroundPancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic head and periampullary cancers is still associated with high perioperative morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study was to compare the short-term outcomes of robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy (RAPD) and open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) performed in a high-volume centre.MethodsA single-centre, prospective database was used to retrospectively compare the early outcomes of RAPD procedures to standard OPD procedures completed between January 2014 and December 2018. Of the 121 included patients, 78 underwent RAPD and 43 underwent OPD. After propensity score matching (PSM), 35 RAPD patients were matched with 35 OPD patients with similar preoperative characteristics.ResultsThere were no statistically significant differences in most of the baseline demographics and perioperative outcomes in the two groups after PSM optimization with the exception of the operative time (530 min (RAPD) versus 335 min (OPD) post-match, p < 0.000). No differences were found between the two groups in terms of complications (including pancreatic leaks, 11.4% in both OPD and RAPD), perioperative mortality, reoperations or readmissions. Earlier refeeding was obtained in the RAPD group vs. the OPD group (3 vs. 4 days, p = 0.002). Although the differences in the length of the hospital stay and blood transfusions were not statistically significant, both parameters showed a positive trend in favour of RAPD. The number of harvested lymph nodes was similar and oncologically adequate.ConclusionsRAPD is a safe and oncologically adequate technique to treat malignancies arising from the pancreatic head and periampullary region. Several perioperative parameters resulted in trends favouring RAPD over OPD, at the price of longer operating time. Data should be reinforced with a larger sample to guarantee statistical significance.

In the Abstract, in the Methods section the sentence “Of the 121 included patients, 78 underwent RAPD and 43 underwent OPD.” Should read: Of the 121 included patients, 77 underwent OPD and 44 underwent RAPD.”

Background Growing evidence suggests that the intracorporeal fashioning of an anastomosis after a laparoscopic right colectomy may offer several advantages. However, due to the difficulty of the intracorporeal technique, laparoscopic extracorporeal confectioning of the anastomosis remains the most widely adopted technique. Although the purpose of the robotic approach was to overcome the limitations of the laparoscopic technique and to simplify the most demanding surgical procedures, such as performing an intracorporeal anastomosis, evidence is lacking that compares the robotic right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis (RRCIA) technique with both the conventional laparoscopic right colectomy with extracorporeal anastomosis (LRCEA) and the laparoscopic right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis confectioning (LRCIA) techniques. This study aims to compare the intraoperative and postoperative outcomes of the RRCIA to those of both the LRCEA and the LRCIA. Methods A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database of two Italian centres was performed on the data on patients undergoing an RRCIA, LRCEA or LRCIA for cancer or adenomas. Results Two hundred and thirty-six patients (RRCIA = 102, LRCEA = 94, LRCIA = 40) met the criteria for inclusion in the study. The three groups were comparable in their demographic and baseline characteristics. No significant differences were found in the conversion to open rates, intraoperative blood loss, 30-day morbidity and mortality, number of lymphnodes harvested and other pathological characteristics. Compared with the LRCEA, the RRCIA required a longer operative time ( P  < 0.0001) but had better recovery outcomes, such as a shorter length of hospital stay ( P  < 0.0001). Compared with the LRCIA, the RRCIA had a shorter time to first flatus ( P  < 0.0001) but offered no advantages in terms of the length of the hospital stay. Conclusion Performing the RRCIA offers significantly better perioperative recovery outcomes compared with the LRCEA, with a substantial reduction in the length of the hospital stay. The RRCIA does not offer the same advantages compared with the LRCIA.

Background Robot-assisted gastrectomy has been reported as a safe alternative to the conventional laparoscopy or open approach for treating early gastric carcinoma. To date, however, there are a limited number of published reports available in the literature. Methods We assess the current status of robotic surgery in the treatment of gastric cancer, focusing on the technical details and oncological considerations. Results In gastric surgery, the biggest advantage of robotic surgery is the ease and reproducibility of D2-lymphadenectomy. Reports show that even the intracorporeal digestive restoration is facilitated by use of the robotic approach, particularly following total gastrectomy. Additionally, the accuracy of robotic dissection is confirmed by decreased blood loss, as reported in series comparing robot-assisted with laparoscopic gastrectomy. The learning curve and technical reproducibility also appear to be shorter with robotic surgery and, consequently, robotics can help to standardize and diffuse minimally invasive surgery in the treatment of gastric cancer, even in the later stages. This is important because the application of minimally invasive surgery is limited by the complexity of performing a D2-lymphadenectomy. The potential to reproduce D2-lymphadenectomy, enlarged resections, and complex reconstructions provides robotic surgery with an important role in the therapeutic strategy of advanced gastric cancer. Conclusions While published reports have shown no significant differences in surgical morbidity, mortality, or oncological adequacy between robot-assisted and conventional laparoscopic gastrectomy, more studies are needed to assess the indications and oncological effectiveness of robotic use in the treatment of gastric carcinoma. Herein, the authors assess the current status of robotic surgery in the treatment of gastric cancer, focusing on the technical details and oncological considerations.

BackgroundThe incidental detection of benign to low-grade malignant small pancreatic neoplasms increased in the last decades. The surgical management of these patients is still under debate. The aim of this paper is to evaluate the safety and feasibility of robotic enucleations and to compare the outcomes with non-parenchymal sparing robotic resections.MethodsThe study included a total of 25 patients. Nine of them underwent a robotic enucleation (EN Group) and 16 patients received a robotic demolitive resection (DR Group). Perioperative and medium-term outcomes were compared between the two groups.ResultsPatients’ baseline characteristics were similar in the two groups except for presence of symptoms and tumor size, due to the inclusion criteria. Operative time was significantly shorter and postoperative results were better for EN group, including a significant shorter hospitalization (5 vs. 8 days, p = 0.027), reduced pancreatic leaks (22% vs. 50%, p = 0.287) and a better preservation of glandular function (100% vs. 62.5%, p = 0.066). Mortality rate was zero in both groups, with all patients free from disease at a median follow-up of 18 months.ConclusionsThe risks of under/overtreatment remain still unavoidable for benign to low-grade malignant small pancreatic neoplasms. Simple enucleation should be performed whenever oncological appropriate, to achieve the best postoperative outcomes. The adoption of robotic technique might widen the indications for parenchymal sparing, minimally invasive surgery.

Minimally invasive pancreas-preserving duodenal resection (MIPPDR) encompasses laparoscopic, robotic, and intentionally hybrid duodenal resections performed without pancreatic parenchymal excision, ranging from transduodenal local excision or ampullectomy to sleeve, segmental, subtotal, near-total, and total duodenectomy. This targeted narrative review was designed to provide a clinically oriented synthesis of the available literature on indications, operative strategies, platform selection, reconstruction, perioperative outcomes, oncological adequacy, and functional considerations. A structured literature search was performed in PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science up to March 2026. The review focused on minimally invasive or intentionally hybrid pancreas-preserving duodenal resections reporting operative technique, perioperative outcomes, oncological outcomes, or functional sequelae. The minimally invasive literature consisted predominantly of case reports, technical notes, video articles, and small retrospective series, with substantial heterogeneity in lesion type, anatomical location, procedure extent, reconstruction, and outcome reporting. Laparoscopy appeared most reproducible for distal, infra-papillary, and limited resections with relatively low reconstructive burden, whereas robotics appeared to offer specific technical advantages for periampullary dissection, ductal identification, and intracorporeal reconstruction. However, the available evidence was insufficient to define firm comparative indications between platforms or to demonstrate superiority of one minimally invasive approach over another. Functional outcomes, despite their central relevance to the rationale of pancreas preservation, were poorly standardized and inconsistently reported. MIPPDR was therefore interpreted as a selective pancreas-preserving strategy positioned between advanced endoscopic therapy and pancreaticoduodenectomy. Future studies should adopt anatomy-based reporting, distinguish ampullary, periampullary, and distal duodenal disease, and include standardized functional endpoints.

Background Renal artery aneurysms (RAA) treatment includes both surgical repair and endovascular techniques, mostly depending on the location of aneurysm [ 1 ]. For complex RAA located at renal artery bifurcation or distally, open surgical repair represents the gold standard of treatment [ 2 ]. However, the transperitoneal open access to the renal artery requires a wide laparotomy—hence the attempt to be minimally invasive with the first reports of laparoscopic approach [ 3 , 4 ]. Even if it represents a possibility, laparoscopy has not yet gained widespread acceptance for the technical difficulties in performing vascular anastomosis. We herein describe the repair of a complex RAA using the Da Vinci Surgical System. Methods A 41-year-old woman had an accidentally discovered saccular aneurysm of the right renal artery with a maximum diameter of 20 mm, with one in and four out. A laparoscopic robot-assisted approach was planned. Intraoperatively, we confirm the strategy to group the four output branches in two different patches. Thus, a Y-shaped autologous saphenous graft was prepared and introduced through a trocar. For the three anastomoses, a polytetrafluoroethylene running suture was preferred. Results The total operation time was 350 min, and the estimated surgical blood loss was about 200 ml. Warm ischemia time was 58 min for the posterior branch and 24 min for the second declamping. The patient resumed a regular diet on postoperative day 2, and the hospital stay lasted 4 days. No intraoperative or postoperative morbidity was noted. A CT scan performed 2 months later revealed the patency of all the reconstructed branches. Conclusions The experience of our group counts five other renal aneurysm repair performed with a robot-assisted technique [ 5 ]. The presence of five different arterial branches involved in the reconstruction makes this procedure difficult. Robot-assisted laparoscopic technique represents a valid alternative to open surgery in complex cases.

IntroductionGastric cancer represents a great challenge for healthcare providers and requires a multidisciplinary treatment approach in which surgery plays a major role. Minimally invasive surgery has been progressively developed, first with the advent of laparoscopy and recently with the spread of robotic surgery, but a number of issues are currently being debated, including the limitations in performing an effective extended lymph node dissection, the real advantages of robotic systems, the role of laparoscopy for Advanced Gastric Cancer, the reproducibility of a total intracorporeal technique and the oncological results achievable during long-term follow-up.Methods and analysisA multi-institutional international database will be established to evaluate the role of robotic, laparoscopic and open approaches in gastric cancer, comprising of information regarding surgical, clinical and oncological features. A chart review will be conducted to enter data of participants with gastric cancer, previously treated at the participating institutions. The database is the first of its kind, through an international electronic submission system and a HIPPA protected real time data repository from high volume gastric cancer centres.Ethics and disseminationThis study is conducted in compliance with ethical principles originating from the Helsinki Declaration, within the guidelines of Good Clinical Practice and relevant laws/regulations. A multicentre study with a large number of patients will permit further investigation of the safety and efficacy as well as the long-term outcomes of robotic, laparoscopic and open approaches for the management of gastric cancer.Trial registration numberNCT02325453; Pre-results.

The rapid diffusion of new technologies in surgery, together with high expectations of both patients and the mass media, has led to many gastrointestinal procedures being approached using robots. Robotic technology seems to resolve many of the drawbacks of laparoscopic advanced procedures, such as anastomotic reconstructions, accurate lymphadenectomy, and vascular sutures. In addition, a deeper tridimensional steady vision with excellent high definition, the EndoWrist technology offering seven degrees of freedom, tremor filtration, scaled motion, optimal working ergonomics, and avoidance of the ‘fulcrum effect’, are the main strengths of the da Vinci® system. The use of near-infrared technology and the possibility of tutoring through a double-console will most likely add many more advantages of this technology over laparoscopy alone. However, none of the gastrointestinal robotic interventions has reached a level of evidence-based efficacy that enables it to be routinely applied. The main limitations of robotic gastrointestinal procedures are represented by the learning curve, the higher costs of robotic surgery compared to traditional and laparoscopic surgery, and the longer operation times, including setup and organizational troubles. Moreover, while the limits of robotics for benign diseases are mainly represented by technical issues, oncologic outcomes remain the foundation of any procedures to cure malignancies, and long-term follow-up is still lacking. On the other hand, a word of caution should be presented on the adoption of robotics in too many surgical units without the correct and formal technical background and third-party control to guarantee the best outcomes for patients at minimum risk. Therefore, the robotic treatment of gastrointestinal diseases requires a thorough analysis of the published evidence, in order to determine the correct indications and patient selection. This review aims to examine the evidence for the use of robotic surgery in both malignancies and benign disease arising from the gastrointestinal area. Future developments in robotics and ongoing areas of research are also analyzed.

Background: In our study, an Italian version of the PMOS-30 questionnaire was used to evaluate its feasibility and to improve health care quality in an Italian hospital. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted with 435 inpatients at a hospital in the Campania Region of Southern Italy using the PMOS-30 questionnaire and two other questions to assess patient feedback about the overall perception of safety. Results: The item “I was always treated with dignity and respect” showed the greatest percentage of agreement (agree/strongly agree = 89.2%; mean = 4.24). The least agreement was associated with the four “Staff Roles and Responsibilities” items (agree/strongly agree ranged from 31.5 to 40.0%; weighted mean = 2.84). All other 25 items had over 55.0% agreement, with 19 items over 70%. Moreover, 94.5% of the patients considered the safety of the ward sufficient/good/very good, and 92.8% did not notice situations that could cause harm to patients. Conclusion: Patient perception of safety was found to be satisfactory. The results were presented to the hospital decision makers for suggesting appropriate interventions. Our experience showed that the use of the PMOS-30 questionnaire may improve safety and health care quality in hospital settings through patient feedback.