Objective To analyze the clinical feasibility and effectiveness of the "G"-shaped surgical approach in robotic pancreatoduodenectomy. Methods The clinical data of 17 patients who were undergoing robotic pancreatoduodenectomy at the First Hospital of Shanxi Medical University from June 2017 to March 2018 was analyzed. Results All the 17 robotic pancreatoduodenectomy operations via the "G"-shaped surgical approach were successful. The operationtime was (499 ±146) min (350-825 min), and the blood loss was (119±38) ml (20-500 ml). All surgical margins were negative. All patients recovered well after surgeries, and the postoperative hospital stay was (21 ±6) (14-36 days). However, one patient experienced secondary surgery due to bilioenteric anastomosis fistula, fortunately the surgical process went successfully. This patient had pancreatic leakage (class B) after surgery and was discharged with tubes after a conservative treatment, another patient had gastroplegia and recovered completely after conservative treatment. Conclusion It is a safe and feasible procedure to use the robotic pancreatoduodenectomy with the"G"-shaped surgical approach.

Objective:To explore the short-term efficacy of totally laparoscopy pancreatoduodenectomy (TLPD) and open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) in the treatment of periampullary carcinoma.Methods:The clinical data of 50 patients with periampullary carcinoma in the First Hospital of Shanxi Medical University from June 2016 to March 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. According to the different surgical methods, the patients were divided into TLPD group (22 cases) and OPD group (28 cases). The perioperative and postoperative related indicators between the two groups were compared.Results:Both groups had successfully received the operation. The operating time in TLPD group was longer than that in OPD group, and the difference between the two groups was statistically significant [(665±213) min vs. (447±215) min, t = -0.356, P = 0.001]. The amount of intraoperative bleeding in TLPD group was less than that in OPD group, and the difference between the two groups was statistically significant [100 ml (50-325 ml) vs. 300 ml (100-500 ml), Z = -2.230, P = 0.026]. There were no significant differences in the proportion of intraoperative blood transfusion, lymph node dissection number, resected tumor diameter, postoperative diet restriction time, postoperative extubation time, postoperative hospital stay and the incidence of postoperative complication between TLPD group and OPD group (all P > 0.05). Conclusions:TLPD and OPD has a similar short-term efficacy in the treatment of periampullary carcinoma. The operating time of TLPD is longer than that of OPD, but TLPD can effectively control the intraoperative bleeding.

Objective: To compare the short-term efficacy of robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) in treatment of pancreatic body and tail cancer, and to explore the feasibility of RDP. Methods: The clinical data of 11 patients who received RDP and 26 patients who received LDP from January 2014 to May 2018 in the First Hospital of Shanxi Medical University were retrospectively analyzed. The operation indexes and the hospitalized cost of both groups were compared. Results: There were no significant differences in spleen-preserving rate, postoperative hospital stay, postoperative pain, intraoperative or postoperative blood transfusion, postoperative bleeding and pancreatic fistula between the two groups (all P > 0.05), but the amount of intraoperative bleeding in RDP group was less than that in LDP group, and the difference was statistically significant [(144±51) vs. (199±65) ml, t = -2.530, P = 0.016]. Compared with LDP group, the total hospitalization cost and operation cost of RDP group was increased [(75 000±14 000) yuan vs. (107 000±12 000) yuan; (21 000±9 000) yuan vs. (39 000±16 000) yuan; both P < 0.01]. Conclusion Both RDP and LDP are safe and feasible. LDP has the advantages of relative low cost and wide range of operations. RDP has obvious advantages in controlling intraoperative bleeding, but the high cost limits its further clinical promotion.