Background: s/Aims: This study aimed to compare the minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy with venous vascular resection (MI-PDVR) and open pancreatoduodenectomy with venous vascular resection (O-PDVR) for periampullary cancer. Methods: Data of 124 patients who underwent PDVR (45 MI-PDVR, 79 O-PDVR) between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2023, was retrospectively reviewed. Results: MI-PDVR is significantly better than O-PDVR in terms of perioperative outcomes (median operation time [452.69 minutes vs. 543.91 minutes; p = 0.004], estimated blood loss [410.44 mL vs. 747.59 mL; p < 0.01], intraoperative transfusion rate [2 cases vs. 18 cases; p = 0.01], and hospital stay [18.16 days vs. 23.91 days; p = 0.008]). The complications until the discharge day showed no significant difference between the two groups (Clavien–Dindo < 3, 84.4% vs. 82.3%; Clavien–Dindo ≥ 3, 15.6% vs. 17.7%; p = 0.809). In terms of long-term oncological outcomes, there was no statistical difference in overall survival (OS, 51.55 months [95% CI: 35.95–67.14] vs.median 49.92 months [95% CI: 40.97–58.87]; p = 0.340) and disease-free survival (DFS, median 35.06 months [95% CI: 21.47–48.65] vs.median 38.77 months [95% CI: 29.80–47.75]; p = 0.585), between the two groups. Long-term oncological outcomes for subgroup analysis focusing on pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma also showed no statistical differences in OS (40.86 months [95% CI: 34.45–47.27] vs.48.48 months [95% CI: 38.16–58.59]; p = 0.270) and DFS (24.42 months [95% CI: 17.03–31.85] vs. 34.35 months, [95% CI: 25.44–43.27]; p = 0.740). Conclusions MI-PDVR can provide better perioperative outcomes than O-PDVR, and has similar oncological impact.

Background: s/Aims: This study aimed to compare the minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy with venous vascular resection (MI-PDVR) and open pancreatoduodenectomy with venous vascular resection (O-PDVR) for periampullary cancer. Methods: Data of 124 patients who underwent PDVR (45 MI-PDVR, 79 O-PDVR) between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2023, was retrospectively reviewed. Results: MI-PDVR is significantly better than O-PDVR in terms of perioperative outcomes (median operation time [452.69 minutes vs. 543.91 minutes; p = 0.004], estimated blood loss [410.44 mL vs. 747.59 mL; p < 0.01], intraoperative transfusion rate [2 cases vs. 18 cases; p = 0.01], and hospital stay [18.16 days vs. 23.91 days; p = 0.008]). The complications until the discharge day showed no significant difference between the two groups (Clavien–Dindo < 3, 84.4% vs. 82.3%; Clavien–Dindo ≥ 3, 15.6% vs. 17.7%; p = 0.809). In terms of long-term oncological outcomes, there was no statistical difference in overall survival (OS, 51.55 months [95% CI: 35.95–67.14] vs.median 49.92 months [95% CI: 40.97–58.87]; p = 0.340) and disease-free survival (DFS, median 35.06 months [95% CI: 21.47–48.65] vs.median 38.77 months [95% CI: 29.80–47.75]; p = 0.585), between the two groups. Long-term oncological outcomes for subgroup analysis focusing on pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma also showed no statistical differences in OS (40.86 months [95% CI: 34.45–47.27] vs.48.48 months [95% CI: 38.16–58.59]; p = 0.270) and DFS (24.42 months [95% CI: 17.03–31.85] vs. 34.35 months, [95% CI: 25.44–43.27]; p = 0.740). Conclusions MI-PDVR can provide better perioperative outcomes than O-PDVR, and has similar oncological impact.

Background: s/Aims: This study aimed to compare the minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy with venous vascular resection (MI-PDVR) and open pancreatoduodenectomy with venous vascular resection (O-PDVR) for periampullary cancer. Methods: Data of 124 patients who underwent PDVR (45 MI-PDVR, 79 O-PDVR) between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2023, was retrospectively reviewed. Results: MI-PDVR is significantly better than O-PDVR in terms of perioperative outcomes (median operation time [452.69 minutes vs. 543.91 minutes; p = 0.004], estimated blood loss [410.44 mL vs. 747.59 mL; p < 0.01], intraoperative transfusion rate [2 cases vs. 18 cases; p = 0.01], and hospital stay [18.16 days vs. 23.91 days; p = 0.008]). The complications until the discharge day showed no significant difference between the two groups (Clavien–Dindo < 3, 84.4% vs. 82.3%; Clavien–Dindo ≥ 3, 15.6% vs. 17.7%; p = 0.809). In terms of long-term oncological outcomes, there was no statistical difference in overall survival (OS, 51.55 months [95% CI: 35.95–67.14] vs.median 49.92 months [95% CI: 40.97–58.87]; p = 0.340) and disease-free survival (DFS, median 35.06 months [95% CI: 21.47–48.65] vs.median 38.77 months [95% CI: 29.80–47.75]; p = 0.585), between the two groups. Long-term oncological outcomes for subgroup analysis focusing on pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma also showed no statistical differences in OS (40.86 months [95% CI: 34.45–47.27] vs.48.48 months [95% CI: 38.16–58.59]; p = 0.270) and DFS (24.42 months [95% CI: 17.03–31.85] vs. 34.35 months, [95% CI: 25.44–43.27]; p = 0.740). Conclusions MI-PDVR can provide better perioperative outcomes than O-PDVR, and has similar oncological impact.

Purpose: Numerous robot-assisted pancreatic surgery are being performed worldwide. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of the Revo-i robot system (Meerecompany, Seoul, Republic of Korea) for advanced pancreatic surgery, and also compare this new system with the existing da Vinci TM robot system (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) in the context of robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD). Materials and Methods: This study was a one-armed prospective clinical trial that assessed the Revo-i robot system for advanced pancreatic surgery. Ten patients aged 30 to 73 years were enrolled between December 2019 and August 2020. Postoperative outcomes were retrospectively compared with those of the da VinciTM surgical system. From March 2017 to August 2020, a total of 47 patients who underwent RPD were analyzed retrospectively. Results: In the prospective clinical trial, pancreaticoduodenectomy was performed in nine patients and one patient underwent central pancreatectomy. Among the 10 study participants, the incidence of major complications was 0% in hospital stay. There were eight postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) biochemical leaks (80%). In the retrospective analysis that compared the Revo-i and da VinciTM robotic systems, 10 patients underwent Revo-i RPD and 37 patients underwent da VinciTM RPD, with no significant differences in complication or POPF incidence rates between the two groups (p=0.695, p=0.317). Conclusion In this single-arm prospective study with short-term follow-up at a single institution, the Revo-i robotic surgical system was safe and effective for advanced pancreatic surgery. Revo-i RPD is comparable to the da VinciTM RPD and is expected to have wide clinical application.

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy has proven to be a safe and effective alternative to open pancreati coduodenectomy with similar oncologic outcomes. Cases including excision of the hepatic artery with or without reconstruction during pancreaticoduodenectomy have been reported for periampullary cancer. Here we present a case of an 82-year-old patient who underwent laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy following preoperative arterial embolization of an aberrant right hepatic artery arising from the superior mesenteric artery.

Laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) in pancreatic cancer is primarily criticized for its technical and oncological safety. Although solid evidence has not yet been established, many institutions are performing LPD for pancreatic cancer patients, with continuous efforts to ensure oncologic safety. In this video, we demonstrated a case of standard LPD combined with vascular resection in pancreatic cancer.

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy has proven to be a safe and effective alternative to open pancreati coduodenectomy with similar oncologic outcomes. Cases including excision of the hepatic artery with or without reconstruction during pancreaticoduodenectomy have been reported for periampullary cancer. Here we present a case of an 82-year-old patient who underwent laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy following preoperative arterial embolization of an aberrant right hepatic artery arising from the superior mesenteric artery.

Laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) in pancreatic cancer is primarily criticized for its technical and oncological safety. Although solid evidence has not yet been established, many institutions are performing LPD for pancreatic cancer patients, with continuous efforts to ensure oncologic safety. In this video, we demonstrated a case of standard LPD combined with vascular resection in pancreatic cancer.

Background: s/Aims: In recent years, many minimally invasive techniques have been introduced to reduce the number of ports in laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC), offering benefits such as reduced postoperative pain and improved cosmetic outcomes. ArtiSential®is a new multi-degree-of-freedom articulating laparoscopic instrument that incorporates the ergonomic features of robotic surgery, potentially overcoming the spatial limitations of laparoscopic surgery. ArtiSential® LC can be performed using only two ports. This study aims to compare the surgical outcomes of ArtiSential® LC with those of single-fulcrum LC. Methods: This retrospective study compared ArtiSential® LC and single-fulcrum LC among LCs performed for gallbladder (GB) stones at the same center, analyzing the basic characteristics of patients; intraoperative outcomes, such as operative time, estimated blood loss, and intraoperative GB rupture; and postoperative outcomes, such as length of hospital stay, incidence of postoperative complications, and postoperative pain. Results: A total of 88 and 63 patients underwent ArtiSential® LC and single-fulcrum LC for GB stones, respectively. Analysis showed that ArtiSential® LC resulted in significantly fewer cases of surgeries longer than 60 minutes (30 vs. 35 min, p = 0.009) and intraoperative GB ruptures (2 vs. 10, p = 0.007). In terms of postoperative outcomes, ArtiSential® LC showed better results in the respective visual analog scale (VAS) scores immediately after surgery (2.59 vs. 3.73, p < 0.001), and before discharge (1.44 vs. 2.02, p = 0.01). Conclusions ArtiSential® LC showed better results in terms of surgical outcomes, especially postoperative pain. Thus, ArtiSential®LC is considered the better option for patients, compared to single-fulcrum LC.

Purpose: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the gold standard procedure for benign gallbladder disease. However, reducing ports still causes frustration when using various instruments. We investigated early perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic single site + 1 cholecystectomy using ArtiSential instruments (ArtiSential laparoscopic cholecystectomy [ALC], LIVSMED). Methods: From July 2022 to December 2022, 116 patients underwent ALC in Severance Hospital and Yongin Severance Hospital. From May 2019 to December 2022, 210 patients underwent robotic single-port cholecystectomy (RSPC). We compared clinical characteristics, perioperative outcomes, and postoperative pain scores between the ALC and RSPC groups. Results: Patients in the ALC group were significantly older than those in the RSPC group (51.9 years vs. 43.9 years, P < 0.001), and the ALC group had a larger proportion of male patients (50.9% vs. 24.8%, P < 0.001) and cases of acute cholecystitis with stones (21.6% vs. 0.5%, P < 0.001) than the RSPC group. The groups did not differ in their estimated blood loss, postoperative complications, or hospital stays. The mean operation time of the ALC group was shorter than that of the RSPC group (56.5 minutes vs. 94.8 minutes, P < 0.001). Although the pain scores reported on discharge day did not differ, the ALC group reported significantly lower immediate postoperative pain scores than the RSPC group (2.7 vs. 5.4, P < 0.001). Conclusions ALC is a safe and feasible procedure. ALC patients reported markedly lower immediate postoperative pain scores than RSPC patients, with comparable operative outcomes for estimated blood loss, hospital stay, and postoperative complication rates.