Download PDF
Review  |  Open Access  |  19 Apr 2023

Advances in pancreas surgery: robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy

Views: 723 |  Downloads: 597 |  Cited:  0
Mini-invasive Surg 2023;7:14.
10.20517/2574-1225.2022.120 |  © The Author(s) 2023.
Author Information
Article Notes
Cite This Article


Surgeon technical improvements made in the 1980s significantly decreased the morbidity and mortality associated with pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). While minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is now the standard surgical approach for many benign and malignant pathologies, the technical complexity associated with PD presents many challenges to MIS adoption. However, advancements in robotic technology have done much to ameliorate mechanical impediments. Compared to laparoscopic surgery, the robotic platform provides surgeons with enhanced visualization, greater degrees of freedom and range of motion, tremor elimination, and superior ergonomic positioning. Although cost and availability concerns persist, training programs have increasingly incorporated robotic curricula, boosting the prevalence of robotic procedures, including robotic PD (RPD). While prospective data are limited, studies evaluating RPD demonstrate safety, equivalent short-term oncological outcomes, and longer operating times compared to open PD. Furthermore, exciting avenues exist for the future of RPD, ranging from continued instrument innovations to AI-enhanced adjuncts. Robotics has the potential to improve PD for patients and surgeons alike; however, further evaluation of oncologic and surgical outcomes requires well-powered, randomized, prospective trials to confirm the results of earlier retrospective studies, given the significant biases present. In this article, we review the progression of minimally invasive PD, present outcomes from studies evaluating RPD, and discuss areas of innovation for RPD.


Pancreaticoduodenectomy, whipple, robotic surgery, robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy


Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains one of the most lethal malignancies, with a 5-year overall survival rate of 11%[1,2]. By 2030, PDAC is expected to be the second leading cause of cancer-related mortality in the United States[3]. For patients with PDAC, complete surgical resection provides the only opportunity for long-term survival. Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD), commonly referred to as the Whipple procedure, is the surgical procedure of choice for tumors in the head and/or uncinate process of the pancreas[4]. PD has undergone significant modification and refinement over the decades but remains a technically demanding procedure associated with significant morbidity.

In 1898, the first documented PD was performed by Dr. Alessandro Codivilla in Italy, and a successful resection of ampullary cancer was performed by his contemporary Dr. William Stewart Halsted in Baltimore[5]. The procedure was later modified by Dr. Walter Kausch to include en bloc resection of parts of the pancreas and duodenum in 1912[6]. The procedure was further developed by its namesake, Dr. Alan Oldfather Whipple, into a two-stage procedure in 1935 and finally into a one-stage procedure in 1940[6].

For much of the 20th century, PD-associated mortality prohibited wider adoption due to mortality rates of up to 25%. However, in the 1980s, advances in surgical technique and perioperative management led to a dramatic decrease in perioperative mortality and improved outcomes[7]. Today, patients treated at high-volume centers by experienced surgeons can expect post-operative mortality rates of less than 5%[8]. Despite improvements in mortality, PD is associated with post-operative morbidity rates of 30%-60%. Complications include delayed gastric emptying, pancreatic fistula (POPF), chyle leaks, anastomotic leaks, hemorrhage, surgical site infections, and intra-abdominal abscesses[9,10].

Minimally invasive techniques were first utilized in the approach to PD in 1994 when Ganger and Pomp reported the first totally laparoscopic PD (LPD)[11]. Less than a decade later, the first robotic PD (RPD) was performed by Giulianotti in Italy[12]. Today, due to the development and implementation of robotic training curricula in residency and fellowship programs, the prevalence of RPDs has significantly increased. While prospective randomized trials comparing the different approaches to PD are lacking, recent retrospective studies demonstrate that RPD can be performed safely with comparable outcomes in appropriately selected patients. In this article, we discuss the progression of minimally invasive PD, the available data on the different approaches to PD, and, finally, active areas of innovation involving RPD.


Compared to open surgery, minimally invasive surgery (MIS) results in less post-operative pain, shorter length of stay, improved cosmetic results, and faster return to activities of daily life[13]. However, to access these benefits for patients, surgeons must develop entirely new skill sets to perfect laparoscopic techniques. Challenges include optimizing a 2-dimensional screen in a 3-dimensional field, using visual cues to overcome reduced tactile sensation, and suturing and dissecting with fewer degrees of freedom[14]. However, due to the integration of laparoscopic training curricula into residency and fellowship education, the innovation of more efficacious MIS instruments, and the refinement of MIS technique, the laparoscopic approach has become the standard of care for many surgical procedures including oncologic resections[15-19].

Unlike laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy, the standard of care approach for distal pancreatectomy in most patients, LPD has failed to gain similar traction among surgeons that perform PD aside from a few select institutions[20,21]. Two potential reasons to explain the lack of broader adoption of LPD include the challenging learning curve and unclear association with improved outcomes compared with open PD. First, the reported threshold for proficiency in LPD varies between studies, with some reports suggesting improved outcomes after 10 LPD cases; however, outcomes may not plateau until 50 cases[22,23]. In 2010, of the institutions with surgeons that actively performed LPD, only 8% performed at least 10 LPDs per year[24]. Therefore, even when a surgeon achieves proficiency with LPD, there may not be a sufficient case volume to maintain said proficiency. Second, the outcomes data are equivocal regarding the superiority of LPD compared to open PD. Early retrospective studies demonstrated shorter lengths of stay, decreased rates of complications, and oncologically safe outcomes[25,26]. Conversely, other studies suggested increased morbidity and mortality after LPD[24,27]. Recently, three randomized controlled trials published data comparing perioperative outcomes between open PD and LPD[28-30]. The first two published trials (PLOT and PADULAP) were single-institution studies, each involving two surgeons, that randomized 64 patients (32 LPD and 32 open PD) and 66 patients (34 LPD and 32 open PD), respectively[28,29]. Both studies demonstrated shorter lengths of hospital stay and longer operating times with LPD. While both studies showed equivalent oncologic outcomes between the two approaches, the PADULAP trial also showed better post-operative morbidity outcomes with LPD. Of note, only one patient required conversion to open in the PLOT trial, whereas eight patients (23.5%) were converted to an open approach in the PADULAP trial. The LEOPARD-2 trial was a multicenter, patient-blinded, randomized phase 2/3 trial involving four high-volume centers in the Netherlands[30]. After 99 patients underwent surgery, the study was terminated early due to higher 90-day complication-related mortality in the LPD group (five [10%] vs. 1 [2%]; P = 0.20), and no clear demonstrated advantage. There were no significant differences in time to functional recovery, Clavien-Dindo grade III or higher complications, or grade B/C POPF between the two approaches. Lower annual volume of LPDs at participating institutions during LEOPARD-2 (median 11) may partially explain the conflicting results compared to PLOT and PADULAP trials. While these studies provided prospective data, the generalizability of the results is limited by low enrollment, varying experience, or high approach conversion rates. A 2020 systematic review and meta-analysis of these randomized controlled trials revealed no statistically significant differences between either PD approach regarding the length of stay, post-operative complications, and mortality[31]. As it stands, LPD remains the dominant minimally invasive approach in areas where cost and availability limit alternative minimally invasive approaches.


Dr. Kwoh performed the first robotic/computer-assisted surgery, a brain biopsy, with the PUMA 560 in 1985[32]. Private and government collaborations over the next decade led to many advances in robotic technology, culminating in Mona (Intuitive®), the first robotic surgical system to move to human trials. In 1997, Dr. Himpens, with Dr. Cardiere at the bedside operating the endoscopic camera, performed a cholecystectomy using the Mona robotic surgical system[33]. Despite the early success of the Mona system, certain limitations prohibited further implementation, which then informed the development of the da Vinci robotic system. Since receiving FDA approval for abdominal surgeries in July 2000, da Vinci iterations have expanded across the globe[34]. Their global reach even includes real-time tele-surgery, as was demonstrated in 2001 when a New York-based surgeon performed a tele-robotic cholecystectomy on a patient in Strasbourg, France[35].

Robotic surgery has multiple advantages compared to laparoscopic surgery. First, the instruments move in the same direction as the surgeon’s hand, providing strong hand-eye coordination. As a result, the instruments more accurately function as an extension of the surgeon’s hands rather than a device needing counterintuitive movements to get the desired effect. Second, the robotic platform eliminates physiologic tremors, both for the instruments and the camera, and provides greater degrees of freedom than the human hand. This allows for fine, precise movements performed with a greater range of motion. Third, the surgeon can have immediate control of up to three instruments. The surgeon also maintains control of the camera throughout the operation. Furthermore, the robotic camera uses a 3D high-definition camera with superior spatial awareness and visualization compared to laparoscopic cameras[36]. Fourth, dual console robotic platforms offer educational training advantages over other forms of MIS, such as expeditious instrument exchange between the primary surgeon and assistant, as well as an interactive screen to guide tissue plane and target identification. Finally, operating on the robotic console provides an ergonomically superior experience to both open and laparoscopic surgery for the surgeon[37].

However, robotic surgery has some notable hurdles to broader adoption. Significant upfront costs and maintenance fees are prohibitive for many institutions. Moving forward, device competition may drive down costs over the next decade as multiple robotic platforms enter the market[38]. Second, the absence of tactile sensation can lead to unintended instrument action and accidental patient injury, especially when the instrument is not within view[39]. Furthermore, despite technological advancements in the field, the sterilization of robotic tools with sodium hydroxide or sodium hypochlorite poses a challenge in the development of sensors able to withstand these corrosive chemicals[40]. Soon, emerging haptic innovations may provide solutions to resolve these force feedback issues[40]. Finally, the need for an accompanying legal framework for the robotic platform provides another logistical hurdle for any prospective institution looking to incorporate robotic surgery[41].

Despite these challenges, robotic surgery offers a novel evolution in MIS, providing many mechanical advantages over laparoscopic and even open surgery, expanding the indications for MIS, and improving patient outcomes for a variety of conditions. In healthcare settings with sufficient expertise and resources, robotic approaches have achieved broad adoption for many procedures in urology, colorectal surgery, cardiothoracic surgery, otolaryngology, and gynecology. As such, robotic surgery utilization is growing, while rates of laparoscopic procedures have stalled and, in some cases, decreased[42,43].


In 2010, Giulianotti et al. published an early multi-institutional study of RPDs showing R0 resection rates and mortality rates comparable to open PD and LPD[44]. Despite these promising results, the rate of POPF was 31.3%, highlighting a clear area for improvement. Several other retrospective studies of RPD have been published since, demonstrating acceptable rates of POPF while achieving an adequate lymphadenectomy and acceptable mortality, morbidity, and margin-negative resection rates [Table 1][45-54]. A study by Nguyen et al. revealed that RPD was safe for patients with aberrant artery anatomy, such as a replaced or accessory left hepatic, right hepatic, or common hepatic artery[55]. Jin et al. reviewed PDs with venous resection and reconstruction (VR) in a single high-volume institution and found that RPD-VR had lower lymph node resections but no difference in 3-year survival rates, reconstructed venous patency, or post-operative mortality when compared to open PD-VR[56].

Table 1

Surgical and oncologic outcomes of RPD

AuthorNEBL (mean in ml)OR time (mean in minutes)Con. (%)LN (mean)R0RR (%)POPF (%)CS-POPF (%)Morb. (%)CDS ≥ III (%)Mort. (%)LOS (days)
Giulianotti et al.[44]6039442118.318.791.731.3NRNRNR3.322
Boggi et al.[48]34220597032100%38.211.755.811.72.923
Zureikat et al.[45]13230052781987.7177.462.7211.510
Boone et al.[46]2002504836.52292178.567.5263.39
Boggi et al.[49]83NR5271.53787.5362873.591.517
Takahashi et al.[50]6515049831798.511.69.230.810.707
Guerra et al.[51]5915051518.6269616.911.837.335.439
Rosemurgy et al.[52]15520042317NRNR51.252613*65
Valle et al.[53]39**20047715.2**23907.67.638.417.82.510
Zureikat et al.[47]5003634155.22887.820.87.868.824.838

In general, retrospective studies comparing RPD to open PD demonstrate shorter length of hospital stay, less estimated blood loss, and longer mean operating times for RPD with comparable mortality, morbidity, POPF, and margin-negative resection rates[54,57-60]. Multiple studies using propensity score matching confirm these results for patients that underwent RPD[61-63]. Additional retrospective and non-randomized prospective studies have demonstrated comparable and even favorable outcomes with RPD compared to open PD [Table 2][64-72]. A recent meta-analysis by Fu et al. evaluated 21 studies comparing RPD to open PD, five of which contained patients with pancreatic cancer[73]. Their analysis demonstrated significantly longer operative times in RPD as well as less estimated blood loss, fewer overall complications, including POPF, shorter length of hospital stay, and lower 90-day mortality. While subgroup analysis was not performed due to the clumping of patients with multiple diseases in each study, the results suggest that RPD has a favorable short-term outcome profile compared to open PD in appropriately selected patients. Another recent meta-analysis by Dong et al. focused on oncological outcomes in comparing RPD with open PD and found that R0 resection rates were significantly higher in RPD with non-inferior overall survival outcomes. In addition, RPD demonstrated lower wound infection rates, higher lymphadenectomy rates, and less estimated blood loss[74]. Furthermore, a review by Mantzavinou et al. showed that, compared to open PD, RPD had a higher therapeutic index, a calculated measure that includes lymphadenectomy rate, R0 resection rate, and 30-day mortality where higher values are associated with improved outcomes[75].

Table 2

Studies comparing RPD to Open PD

AuthorN RPD vs. N OPDEBL RPD vs. OPD (mean in ml) (P-value)OR time RPD vs. OPD (mean in minutes) (P-value)LN RPD vs. OPD (mean) (P-value)R0RR RPD vs. OPD (%) (P-value)POPF RPD vs. OPD (%) (P-value)CS-POPF RPD vs. OPD (%) (P-value)Morb. RPD vs. OPD (%) (P-value)CDS ≥ III RPD vs. OPD (%) (P-value)Mort. RPD vs. OPD (%) (P-value)LOS RPD vs. OPD (days) (P-value)
Zhou et al.[57]8 vs. 8153 vs. 210
(P = 0.045)
718 vs. 420
(P = 0.011)
NR87.5 vs. 100
(P = 0.05)
50 vs. 37.5
(P = 0.05)
0 vs. 12.5 (NR)25 vs. 75
(P = 0.05)
NR0 vs. 12.5
(P = 0.05)
16.4 vs. 24.3
(P = 0.04)
Buchs et al.[58]44 vs. 39387 vs. 827
(P < 0.01)
444 vs. 559
(P < 0.01)
16.8 vs. 11
(P = 0.02)
90.9 vs. 81.5
(P = 0.45)
18 vs. 20.5
(P = 1.00)
50 vs. 37.5 (NR)36.4 vs. 48.7 (0.27)NR4.5 vs. 2.6
(P = 1.00)
13 vs. 14.6
(P = 0.4)
Chalikonda et al.[64]30 vs. 30485 vs. 775
(P = 0.13)
476 vs. 366.4
(P < 0.01)
NR0 vs. 13
(P = 0.02)
6.7 vs. 16.7 (NR)6.7 vs. 16.7 (NR)30 vs. 44
(P = 0.14)
NR1 vs. 0
(P = 0.09)
9.8 vs. 13.3
(P = 0.043)
Lai et al.[59]20 vs. 67247 vs. 775
(P = 0.03)
492 vs. 265
(P = 0.01)
10 vs. 10
(P = 0.99)
73.3 vs. 64.1
(P = 0.92)
35 vs. 17.9
(P = 0.11)
NR50 vs. 49.3
(P = 0.95)
NR0 vs. 3
(P = 0.43)
13.7 vs. 25.8
Chen et al.[65]60 vs. 120*400 vs. 500
(P < 0.01)
*410 vs. 323
(P < 0.01)
13.6 vs. 12.5
(P = 0.350)
**94.7 vs. 92.1
(P = 1.00)
13.3 vs. 24.2
(P = 0.09)
8.3 vs. 15.0 (NR)35 vs. 40
(P = 0.515)
11.7 vs. 13.3
(P = 0.752)
1.7 vs. 2.5
(P = 1.00)
20 vs. 25
(P < 0.01)
Zureikat et al.[54]211 vs. 817200 vs. 300
(P < 0.01)
402 vs. 300
(P < 0.01)
27.5 vs. 19
(P < 0.01)
R1RR: 50 vs. 31
(P < 0.01)***
NR13.74 vs. 9.04
(P = 0.04)
NR23.7 vs. 23.9
(P = 0.96)
1.9 vs. 2.89
(P = 0.46)
8 vs. 8
(P = 0.98)
Boggi et al.[49]83 vs. 36NR527 vs. 425
(P < 0.01)
37 vs. 36
(P = 0.51)
87.5 vs. 54.5
(P = 0.08)
33.8 vs. 16.7
(P = 0.06)
18.1 vs. 5.6 (NR)73.5 vs. 77.9
(P = 0.62)
18.1 vs. 11.2 (NR)2.4 vs. 0
(P = 1.00)
17 vs. 14
(P = 0.06)
Wang et al.[63]87 vs. 87^202 vs. 298
(P < 0.01)
455 vs. 375
(P < 0.01)
15 vs. 13
(P < 0.01)
96.6 vs. 94.3
(P = 0.363)
NR8 vs. 12.6
(P = 0.456)
43.7 vs. 53.2
(P =0.612)
9.1 vs. 8.0 (NR)0 vs. 024 vs. 24
(P = 0.884)
Varley et al.[66]133 vs. 149200 vs. 500
(P < 0.01)
393 vs. 432
(P < 0.01)
NR82% vs. 81%
(P = 0.851)
12 vs. 24
(P = 0.013)
5 vs. 18
(P < 0.01)
NR24 vs. 28
(P = 0.464)
3.8 vs. 5.4
(P = 0.52)
8 vs. 10
(P < 0.01)
Girgis et al.[67]163 vs. 198250 vs. 500
(P < 0.01)
402 vs. 421
(P = 0.081)
31.9 vs. 25.9
(P < 0.01)
82.5 vs. 82.3
(P = 0/055)
NRNRNR24.5 vs. 29.8
(P = 0.265)
4.29 vs. 4.55
(P = 0.908)
7 vs. 9
(P < 0.01)
Jin et al.[62]22 vs. 22^75 vs. 300
(P < 0.01)
225 vs. 275
(P = 0.294)
3.5 vs. 1
(P = 0.205)
100 vs. 100 (NR)68.2 vs. 68.2 (NR)9.1 vs. 18.2
(P = 0.0664)
NR9 vs. 4.5
(P = 1.00)
NR15 vs. 19
(P = 0.493)
Mejia et al.[68]102 vs. 54321 vs. 378
(P = 0.121)
353 vs. 212
(P < 0.01)
24.2 vs. 23.7
(P = 780)
66.7 vs. 70
(P = 0.663)
4 vs. 0 (NR)4 vs. 0 (NR)14.7 vs. 37.0 (NR)9.3 vs. 5.9 (NR)3 vs. 2 (NR)7 vs. 11.8
(P < 0.01)
Shi et al.[61]187 vs. 187^297 vs. 415
(P < 0.01)
279 vs. 298
(P = 0.02)
16.6 vs. 15.8
(P = 0.495)
94.7 vs. 93
(P -0.68)
NR10.2 vs. 14.4
(P = 0.09)
NRNR2.1 vs. 3.7
(P = 0.47)
22.4 vs. 26.1
(P = 0.03)
Nassour et al.[70]626 vs. 17,205NRNR22 vs. 17
(P < 0.01)
77 vs. 78 (NR)NRNRNRNR4 vs. 6
(P = 0.061)
10 vs. 11
(P < 0.01)
Nassour et al.[69]155 vs. 3,329NRNR30 vs. 18
(P < 0.01)
79 vs. 84 (NR)NRNRNRNR3.4 vs. 2.6
(P = 0.570)
8 vs. 10
(P < 0.01)
Shyr et al.[60]304 vs. 172197 vs. 531
(P < 0.01)
468 vs. 438
(P = 0.015)
18 vs. 18
(P = 0.652)
NRNR13 vs. 11.2
(P = 0.659)
48.2 vs. 56.8
(P = 0.040)
12.3 vs. 8.3 (NR)2.1 vs. 1.8
(P = 1.00)
20 vs. 24
(P = 0.014)
Weng et al.[71]105 vs. 210300 vs. 300
(P = 0.567)
300 vs. 300
(P = 0.365)
11 vs. 11
(P = 0.622)
88.6 vs. 89
(P = 0.899)
13.3 vs. 16.7
(P = 0.442)
5.7 vs. 6.4
(P = 0.744)
NR29.5 vs. 27.6
(P = 0.723)
1 vs. 1
(P = 1.00)
17 vs. 17
(P = 0.716)
Meyyappan et al.[72]116 vs. 7417.2% vs. 34.3%
(P < 0.01)****
386 vs. 388
(P = 0.896)
NR93.1 vs. 93.2 (NR)25.9 vs. 39.2
(P = 0.053)
8.6 vs. 25.7
(P < -0.01)
NR28.3 vs. 40.5
(P = 0.011)

While the available evidence supports RPD utilization, challenges persist, limiting the widespread implementation of RPD. First, no appropriately powered randomized controlled trial exists directly comparing RPD to open PD. In 2020, the International Study Group on Minimally Invasive Pancreas Surgery published the first evidence-based guidelines on minimally invasive pancreas resection. In their publication, The Miami International Evidence-Based Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreas Resection, the authors cite insufficient level 1 data to recommend minimally invasive PD over open PD[76]. However, the PORTAL trial, an active multicenter non-inferiority randomized controlled phase III trial in China, will compare open PD and RPD in over 225 patients with benign, premalignant, and malignant disease, with patient recruitment expected to have ended in December 2022[77]. The primary outcome is time to functional recovery with secondary outcomes of recurrence-free survival and overall survival. Second, despite the increasing presence of robotic surgery over the last two decades, costs remain high. Recurring maintenance fees and instrument costs add to the initial expenses associated with implementing a robotic surgery program[78]. Furthermore, generally longer operating times with RPD compared to open PD also drive up intraoperative costs[79,80]. However, after factoring in costs across a patient’s totality of care, including post-operative care, net costs are not significantly different[79,81]. Third, the threshold of procedures needed to develop and maintain proficiency in RPD is not attainable at many centers since 82% of centers average less than 1 case per year[82]. Proposed thresholds for RPD proficiency vary significantly between studies, with some studies recognizing notable improvements even after 200 cases[47,83]. Over the last decade, academic and high-volume centers have integrated robotic pancreas training programs into their training curriculum[84]. These efforts have helped strengthen the RPD technique in new surgeon graduates and overcome some initial trepidation towards minimally invasive pancreatic surgery. This is a contributing factor to the steady increase in the number of RPDs performed each year[85].


The future for RPD, and for robotic surgery as a whole, is bright. Technological advancements have greatly advanced the field of robotic surgery, with many exciting innovations currently in development. One such area involves haptic technology. Initial iterations of robotic platforms contained varying degrees of haptic feedback. Unfortunately, the haptic technology at the time inadequately detected contact with soft tissue and hindered surgeon performance[86]. Surgeons reported that visual cues more aptly assisted them in determining tissue tension and pressure than haptic feedback. As a result, haptic technology was largely abandoned. Recently, advances in tactile sensors may help overcome prior haptic limitations. Emerging microfluidic-based sensors may improve tissue grasping and manipulation tasks by conforming to the surface of the instrument, thus increasing contract friction allowing for stable grasping with a smaller exertional force and detection of mechanical properties[40].

While fully autonomous surgery is not currently possible, areas of active investigation have demonstrated significant progress toward this goal using artificial intelligence (AI)-based technology such as machine learning (ML), computer vision, and natural language processing[87,88]. Current applications of AI in MIS include surgical phase recognition, instrument recognition, gesture and error recognition, and autonomic landmark recognition[89]. The Smart Tissue Autonomous Robot (STAR) incorporates many of these AI-based technologies and has demonstrated some of the most autonomous robotic surgical skills to date[90,91]. In a porcine model, STAR performed a minimally invasive small bowel anastomosis completing 83% of the suturing tasks autonomously while outperforming surgeons in consistency of suture spacing, bite depth, and hesitancy events[90].

Finally, by superimposing images onto organs during surgery, augmented reality (AR) has demonstrated feasibility in the operating room. In liver surgery, AR allows the surgeon to see the tumor and the relationships to major intra-parenchymal vasculature in real time[92]. In PD cases, AR can assist with margin-negative resection during superior mesenteric vein resection and reconstruction, as well as identification of the inferior pancreaticoduodenal artery in an artery-first approach for PD[93,94].


In conclusion, through the development of more efficient and advanced technology, RPD continues to surmount the technical challenges that previously limited the progression of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery. Active prospective randomized control trials will help elucidate the relationship between RPD and surgical outcomes. Continued development and implementation of educational curricula for residency and fellowship training programs is critical to the expansion and improvement of robotic surgery. Finally, advancements in AI offer innovative solutions to reduce errors and improve outcomes.


Authors’ contributions

Design, literature research and review, critical review of the manuscript, final approval: Riachi ME, Hewitt DB

Drafted the manuscript: Riachi ME

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Financial support and sponsorship


Conflicts of interest

All authors declared that there are no conflicts of interest

Ethical approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.


© The Author(s) 2023.


1. Puckett Y, Garfield K. Pancreatic cancer. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2022.

2. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Fuchs HE, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2022. CA Cancer J Clin 2022;72:7-33.

3. Rahib L, Smith BD, Aizenberg R, Rosenzweig AB, Fleshman JM, Matrisian LM. Projecting cancer incidence and deaths to 2030: the unexpected burden of thyroid, liver, and pancreas cancers in the United States. Cancer Res 2014;74:2913-21.

4. Brown ZJ, Cloyd JM. Trends in the utilization of neoadjuvant therapy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. J Surg Oncol 2021;123:1432-40.

5. Halsted WS. Contributions to the surgery of the bile passages, especially of the common bile-duct. Boston Med Surg J 1899;141:645-54.

6. Whipple AO. Observations on radical surgery for lesions of the pancreas. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1946;82:623-31.

7. Cameron JL, Riall TS, Coleman J, Belcher KA. One thousand consecutive pancreaticoduodenectomies. Ann Surg 2006;244:10-5.

8. Cameron JL, He J. Two thousand consecutive pancreaticoduodenectomies. J Am Coll Surg 2015;220:530-6.

9. Simon R. Complications after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Surg Clin North Am 2021;101:865-74.

10. Kang CM, Lee JH. Pathophysiology after pancreaticoduodenectomy. World J Gastroenterol 2015;21:5794-804.

11. Gagner M, Pomp A. Laparoscopic pylorus-preserving pancreatoduodenectomy. Surg Endosc 1994;8:408-10.

12. Giulianotti PC, Coratti A, Angelini M, et al. Robotics in general surgery: personal experience in a large community hospital. Arch Surg 2003;138:777-84.

13. Robinson TN, Stiegmann GV. Minimally invasive surgery. Endoscopy 2004;36:48-51.

14. Hamad GG, Curet M. Minimally invasive surgery. Am J Surg 2010;199:263-5.

15. Jaschinski T, Mosch CG, Eikermann M, Neugebauer EA, Sauerland S. Laparoscopic versus open surgery for suspected appendicitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018;11:CD001546.

16. Keus F, de Jong JA, Gooszen HG, van Laarhoven CJ. Laparoscopic versus open cholecystectomy for patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev ;2006:CD006231.

17. Ohtani H, Tamamori Y, Arimoto Y, Nishiguchi Y, Maeda K, Hirakawa K. A meta-analysis of the short- and long-term results of randomized controlled trials that compared laparoscopy-assisted and conventional open surgery for colorectal cancer. J Cancer 2011;2:425-34.

18. Biere SS, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Maas KW, et al. Minimally invasive versus open oesophagectomy for patients with oesophageal cancer: a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2012;379:1887-92.

19. Mariette C, Markar SR, Dabakuyo-Yonli TS, et al. Hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. N Engl J Med 2019;380:152-62.

20. Cuschieri A. Laparoscopic surgery of the pancreas. J R Coll Surg Edinb 1994;39:178-84.

21. Liang S, Hameed U, Jayaraman S. Laparoscopic pancreatectomy: indications and outcomes. World J Gastroenterol 2014;20:14246-54.

22. Speicher PJ, Nussbaum DP, White RR, et al. Defining the learning curve for team-based laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy. Ann Surg Oncol 2014;21:4014-9.

23. Fong ZV, Chang DC, Ferrone CR, Lillemoe KD, Fernandez Del Castillo C. Early national experience with laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for ductal adenocarcinoma: is this really a short learning curve? J Am Coll Surg 2016;222:209.

24. Adam MA, Choudhury K, Dinan MA, et al. Minimally invasive versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for cancer: practice patterns and short-term outcomes among 7061 patients. Ann Surg 2015;262:372-7.

25. Croome KP, Farnell MB, Que FG, et al. Total laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: oncologic advantages over open approaches? Ann Surg 2014;260:633-8; discussion 638.

26. Asbun HJ, Stauffer JA. Laparoscopic vs open pancreaticoduodenectomy: overall outcomes and severity of complications using the Accordion Severity Grading System. J Am Coll Surg 2012;215:810-9.

27. Dokmak S, Ftériche FS, Aussilhou B, et al. Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy should not be routine for resection of periampullary tumors. J Am Coll Surg 2015;220:831-8.

28. Palanivelu C, Senthilnathan P, Sabnis SC, et al. Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for periampullary tumours. Br J Surg 2017;104:1443-50.

29. Poves I, Burdío F, Morató O, et al. Comparison of perioperative outcomes between laparoscopic and open approach for pancreatoduodenectomy: the PADULAP randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 2018;268:731-9.

30. van Hilst J, de Rooij T, Bosscha K, et al. Laparoscopic versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic or periampullary tumours (LEOPARD-2): a multicentre, patient-blinded, randomised controlled phase 2/3 trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019;4:199-207.

31. Nickel F, Haney CM, Kowalewski KF, et al. Laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Ann Surg 2020;271:54-66.

32. Kwoh YS, Hou J, Jonckheere EA, Hayati S. A robot with improved absolute positioning accuracy for CT guided stereotactic brain surgery. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 1988;35:153-60.

33. Himpens J, Leman G, Cadiere GB. Telesurgical laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 1998;12:1091.

34. Ballantyne GH, Moll F. The da Vinci telerobotic surgical system: the virtual operative field and telepresence surgery. Surg Clin North Am 2003;83:1293-304, vii.

35. Larkin M. Transatlantic, robot-assisted telesurgery deemed a success. Lancet 2001;358:1074.

36. Herron DM, Marohn M. SAGES-MIRA Robotic Surgery Consensus Group. A consensus document on robotic surgery. Surg Endosc 2008;22:313-25; discussion 311.

37. Wee IJY, Kuo LJ, Ngu JC. A systematic review of the true benefit of robotic surgery: Ergonomics. Int J Med Robot 2020;16:e2113.

38. Mayor N, Coppola AS, Challacombe B. Past, present and future of surgical robotics. Trends Urol & Men's Health 2022;13:7-10.

39. Alemzadeh H, Raman J, Leveson N, Kalbarczyk Z, Iyer RK. Adverse events in robotic surgery: a retrospective study of 14 years of FDA data. PLoS One 2016;11:e0151470.

40. Othman W, Lai ZA, Abril C, et al. Tactile sensing for minimally invasive surgery: conventional methods and potential emerging tactile technologies. Front Robot AI 2021;8:705662.

41. Díaz CE, Fernández R, Armada M, García F. A research review on clinical needs, technical requirements, and normativity in the design of surgical robots. Int J Med Robot 2017;13:e1801.

42. Sheetz KH, Claflin J, Dimick JB. Trends in the adoption of robotic surgery for common surgical procedures. JAMA Netw Open 2020;3:e1918911.

43. Keller DS, de Paula TR, Qiu J, Kiran RP. The trends in adoption, outcomes, and costs of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer in the elderly population. J Gastrointest Surg 2021;25:766-74.

44. Giulianotti PC, Sbrana F, Bianco FM, et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreatic surgery: single-surgeon experience. Surg Endosc 2010;24:1646-57.

45. Zureikat AH, Moser AJ, Boone BA, Bartlett DL, Zenati M, Zeh HJ 3rd. 250 robotic pancreatic resections: safety and feasibility. Ann Surg 2013;258:554-9; discussion 559.

46. Boone BA, Zenati M, Hogg ME, et al. Assessment of quality outcomes for robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy: identification of the learning curve. JAMA Surg 2015;150:416-22.

47. Zureikat AH, Beane JD, Zenati MS, et al. 500 minimally invasive robotic pancreatoduodenectomies: one decade of optimizing performance. Ann Surg 2021;273:966-72.

48. Boggi U, Signori S, De Lio N, et al. Feasibility of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. Br J Surg 2013;100:917-25.

49. Boggi U, Napoli N, Costa F, et al. Robotic-assisted pancreatic resections. World J Surg 2016;40:2497-506.

50. Takahashi C, Shridhar R, Huston J, Meredith K. Outcomes associated with robotic approach to pancreatic resections. J Gastrointest Oncol 2018;9:936-41.

51. Guerra F, Checcacci P, Vegni A, et al. Surgical and oncological outcomes of our first 59 cases of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. J Visc Surg 2019;156:185-90.

52. Rosemurgy A, Ross S, Bourdeau T, et al. Robotic Pancreaticoduodenectomy Is the Future: Here and Now. J Am Coll Surg 2019;228:613-24.

53. Valle V, Fernandes E, Mangano A, et al. Robotic Whipple for pancreatic ductal and ampullary adenocarcinoma: 10 years experience of a US single-center. Int J Med Robot 2020;16:1-7.

54. Zureikat AH, Postlewait LM, Liu Y, et al. A multi-institutional comparison of perioperative outcomes of robotic and open pancreaticoduodenectomy. Ann Surg 2016;264:640-9.

55. Nguyen TK, Zenati MS, Boone BA, et al. Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy in the presence of aberrant or anomalous hepatic arterial anatomy: safety and oncologic outcomes. HPB 2015;17:594-9.

56. Jin J, Yin SM, Weng Y, et al. Robotic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy with vascular resection for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: surgical and oncological outcomes from pilot experience. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2022;407:1489-97.

57. Zhou NX, Chen JZ, Liu Q, et al. Outcomes of pancreatoduodenectomy with robotic surgery versus open surgery. Int J Med Robot 2011;7:131-7.

58. Buchs NC, Addeo P, Bianco FM, Ayloo S, Benedetti E, Giulianotti PC. Robotic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: a comparative study at a single institution. World J Surg 2011;35:2739-46.

59. Lai EC, Yang GP, Tang CN. Robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy - a comparative study. Int J Surg 2012;10:475-9.

60. Shyr BU, Shyr BS, Chen SC, Shyr YM, Wang SE. Robotic and open pancreaticoduodenectomy: results from Taipei Veterans General Hospital in Taiwan. Updates Surg 2021;73:939-46.

61. Shi Y, Jin J, Qiu W, et al. Short-term outcomes after robot-assisted vs open pancreaticoduodenectomy after the learning curve. JAMA Surg 2020;155:389-94.

62. Jin JB, Qin K, Yang Y, et al. Robotic pancreatectomy for solid pseudopapillary tumors in the pancreatic head: a propensity score-matched comparison and analysis from a single center. Asian J Surg 2020;43:354-61.

63. Wang SE, Shyr BU, Chen SC, Shyr YM. Comparison between robotic and open pancreaticoduodenectomy with modified Blumgart pancreaticojejunostomy: a propensity score-matched study. Surgery 2018;164:1162-7.

64. Chalikonda S, Aguilar-Saavedra JR, Walsh RM. Laparoscopic robotic-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy: a case-matched comparison with open resection. Surg Endosc 2012;26:2397-402.

65. Chen S, Chen JZ, Zhan Q, et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: a prospective, matched, mid-term follow-up study. Surg Endosc 2015;29:3698-711.

66. Varley PR, Zenati MS, Klobuka A, et al. Does robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy improve outcomes in patients with high risk morphometric features compared to the open approach. HPB 2019;21:695-701.

67. Girgis MD, Zenati MS, King JC, et al. Oncologic outcomes after robotic pancreatic resections are not inferior to open surgery. Ann Surg 2021;274:e262-8.

68. Mejia A, Shah J, Vivian E, Acharya P. Analysis of 102 fully robotic pancreaticoduodenectomies: clinical and financial outcomes. Pancreas 2020;49:668-74.

69. Nassour I, Tohme S, Hoehn R, Adam MA, Zureikat AH, Alessandro P. Safety and oncologic efficacy of robotic compared to open pancreaticoduodenectomy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for pancreatic cancer. Surg Endosc 2021;35:2248-54.

70. Nassour I, Winters SB, Hoehn R, et al. Long-term oncologic outcomes of robotic and open pancreatectomy in a national cohort of pancreatic adenocarcinoma. J Surg Oncol 2020;122:234-42.

71. Weng Y, Jiang Y, Fu N, et al. Oncological outcomes of robotic-assisted versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a propensity score-matched analysis. Surg Endosc 2021;35:3437-48.

72. Meyyappan T, Wilson GC, Zeh HJ, et al. Robotic approach mitigates the effect of major complications on survival after pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary cancer. Surg Endosc 2023;37:1181-7.

73. Fu Y, Qiu J, Yu Y, Wu D, Zhang T. Meta-analysis of robotic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy in all patients and pancreatic cancer patients. Front Surg 2022;9:989065.

74. Da Dong X, Felsenreich DM, Gogna S, et al. Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy provides better histopathological outcomes as compared to its open counterpart: a meta-analysis. Sci Rep 2021;11:3774.

75. Mantzavinou A, Uppara M, Chan J, Patel B. Robotic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy, comparing therapeutic indexes; a systematic review. Int J Surg 2022;101:106633.

76. Asbun HJ, Moekotte AL, Vissers FL, et al. The miami international evidence-based guidelines on minimally invasive pancreas resection. Ann Surg 2020;271:1-14.

77. Jin J, Shi Y, Chen M, et al. Robotic versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic and periampullary tumors (PORTAL): a study protocol for a multicenter phase III non-inferiority randomized controlled trial. Trials 2021;22:954.

78. Turchetti G, Palla I, Pierotti F, Cuschieri A. Economic evaluation of da Vinci-assisted robotic surgery: a systematic review. Surg Endosc 2012;26:598-606.

79. Baker EH, Ross SW, Seshadri R, et al. Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy: comparison of complications and cost to the open approach. Int J Med Robot 2016;12:554-60.

80. Rosemurgy A, Ross S, Bourdeau T, et al. Cost analysis of pancreaticoduodenectomy at a high-volume robotic hepatopancreaticobiliary surgery program. J Am Coll Surg 2021;232:461-9.

81. Benzing C, Timmermann L, Winklmann T, et al. Robotic versus open pancreatic surgery: a propensity score-matched cost-effectiveness analysis. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2022;407:1923-33.

82. Hoehn RS, Nassour I, Adam MA, Winters S, Paniccia A, Zureikat AH. National trends in robotic pancreas surgery. J Gastrointest Surg 2021;25:983-90.

83. Shi Y, Wang W, Qiu W, et al. Learning curve from 450 cases of robot-assisted pancreaticoduocectomy in a high-volume pancreatic center: optimization of operative procedure and a retrospective study. Ann Surg 2021;274:e1277-83.

84. Mark Knab L, Zenati MS, Khodakov A, et al. Evolution of a novel robotic training curriculum in a complex general surgical oncology fellowship. Ann Surg Oncol 2018;25:3445-52.

85. Kaltenmeier C, Nassour I, Hoehn RS, et al. Impact of resection margin status in patients with pancreatic cancer: a national cohort study. J Gastrointest Surg 2021;25:2307-16.

86. George EI, Brand TC, LaPorta A, Marescaux J, Satava RM. Origins of robotic surgery: from skepticism to standard of care. JSLS 2018:22.

87. Hashimoto DA, Ward TM, Meireles OR. The role of artificial intelligence in surgery. Adv Surg 2020;54:89-101.

88. Rimmer L, Howard C, Picca L, Bashir M. The automaton as a surgeon: the future of artificial intelligence in emergency and general surgery. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg 2021;47:757-62.

89. Kawka M, Gall TM, Fang C, Liu R, Jiao LR. Intraoperative video analysis and machine learning models will change the future of surgical training. Intell Surg 2022;1:13-5.

90. Saeidi H, Opfermann JD, Kam M, et al. Autonomous robotic laparoscopic surgery for intestinal anastomosis. Sci Robot 2022;7:eabj2908.

91. Opfermann JD, Leonard S, Decker RS, et al. Semi-autonomous electrosurgery for tumor resection using a multi-degree of freedom electrosurgical tool and visual servoing. In: 2017 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS); 2017 Sep 24-28. Vancouver, BC, Canada. p. 3653-60.

92. Phutane P, Buc E, Poirot K, et al. Preliminary trial of augmented reality performed on a laparoscopic left hepatectomy. Surg Endosc 2018;32:514-5.

93. Onda S, Okamoto T, Kanehira M, et al. Identification of inferior pancreaticoduodenal artery during pancreaticoduodenectomy using augmented reality-based navigation system. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 2014;21:281-7.

94. Tang R, Yang W, Hou Y, et al. Augmented reality-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy with superior mesenteric vein resection and reconstruction. Gastroenterol Res Pract 2021;2021:9621323.

Cite This Article

Export citation file: BibTeX | EndNote | RIS

OAE Style

Riachi ME, Hewitt DB. Advances in pancreas surgery: robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. Mini-invasive Surg 2023;7:14.

AMA Style

Riachi ME, Hewitt DB. Advances in pancreas surgery: robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. Mini-invasive Surgery. 2023; 7: 14.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mansour E. Riachi, D. Brock Hewitt. 2023. "Advances in pancreas surgery: robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy" Mini-invasive Surgery. 7: 14.

ACS Style

Riachi, ME.; Hewitt DB. Advances in pancreas surgery: robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. Mini-invasive. Surg. 2023, 7, 14.

About This Article

Special Issue

© The Author(s) 2023. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (, which permits unrestricted use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, for any purpose, even commercially, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Data & Comments




Comments must be written in English. Spam, offensive content, impersonation, and private information will not be permitted. If any comment is reported and identified as inappropriate content by OAE staff, the comment will be removed without notice. If you have any queries or need any help, please contact us at

Download PDF
Share This Article
Scan the QR code for reading!
See Updates
Mini-invasive Surgery
ISSN 2574-1225 (Online)
Follow Us


All published articles are preserved here permanently:


All published articles are preserved here permanently: