Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy: Technical details and results of 178 operations

Introduction. Pancreatoduodenectomy remains one of the most challenging procedures in abdominal surgery due to its technical complexity and high complication rate. Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) is a minimally invasive approach that provides enhanced precision and visualization. This study describes the surgical technique and evaluates outcomes of RPD performed at the S.P. Botkin Moscow Multidisciplinary Scientific and Clinical Center.

The aim of the study is to evaluate safety of RPD in treatment of tumors of the head of the pancreas, major duodenal papilla, and distal part of the common bile duct, and to provide detailed description of the technique.

Materials and methods. A retrospective analysis of 178 RPDs performed between January 2013 and October 2025 at the S.P. Botkin Moscow Multidisciplinary Scientific and Clinical Center of the Moscow Healthcare Department was conducted. All procedures were performed using the da Vinci Si/Xi robotic surgical systems. Complications were graded according to the Clavien—Dindo classification, and pancreas-specific complications were assessed using the International Study Group on Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) definitions.

Results. Mean operative time was 357 ± 7.1 min; mean blood loss was 174 ± 55 mL; conversion rate was 2.8 % (n = 5). Major complications (Clavien—Dindo grades III-V) occurred in 19.7 % (n = 35) of patients. Postoperative pancreatic fistula developed in 66.8 % of patients, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage in 7.3 %, and gastroparesis in 6.2 %. Mortality was 2.8 % (n = 5).

Conclusion. RPD is feasible and safe in experienced hands, with an acceptable complication profile comparable to open and laparoscopic techniques. It is associated with reduced blood loss and has potential to improve oncological outcomes. Further randomized studies are needed to confirm its long-term benefits.

1. Gagner M., Pomp A. Laparoscopic pylorus-preserving pancreatoduodenectomy. Surg Endosc 1994;8(5):408-10. DOI: 10.1007/BF00642443

2. Kabir T., Tan H.L., Syn N.L. et al. Outcomes of laparoscopic, robotic, and open pancreatoduodenectomy: A network metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials and propensity-score matched studies. Surgery 2022;171(2):476-89. DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2021.07.020

3. 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(3):199-207. DOI: 10.1016/S2468-1253(19)30004-4

4. Giulianotti P.C., Mangano A., Bustos R.E. et al. Operative technique in robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) at University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC): 17 steps standardized technique: Lessons learned since the first worldwide RPD performed in the year 2001. Surg Endosc 2018;32(10):4329-36. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-018-6228-7

5. Khatkov I.E., Tsvirkun V.V., Izrailov R.E. et al. Laparoscopic interventions in the pancreas: an 11-year experience of a specialized center. Almanakh klinicheskoy meditsiny = Almanac of Clinical Medicine 2018;46(6):640-7. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.18786/2072-0505-2018-466-640-647

6. Kriger A.G., Berelavichus S.V., Gorin D.S. et al. Robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy. Khirurgiya. Zhurnal im. N.I. Pirogova = Pirogov Russian Journal of Surgery 2015;(9):50-6. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.17116/hirurgia2015950-56

7. Napoli N., Cacace C., Kauffmann E.F. et al. The PD-ROBOSCORE: A difficulty score for robotic pancreatoduodenectomy. Surgery 2023;173(6):1438-46. DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2023.02.020

8. Dindo D., Demartines N., Clavien P.A. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 2004;240(2):205-13. DOI: 10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae

9. Bassi C., Marchegiani G., Dervenis C. et al. The 2016 update of the International Study Group (ISGPS) definition and grading of postoperative pancreatic fistula: 11 Years After. Surgery 2017;161(3):584-591. DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2016.11.014. Erratum in: Surgery 2024;176(3):988-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2024.05.043

10. De Graaf N., Emmen A.M.L.H., Ramera M. et al. Minimally invasive versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic and peri-ampullary neoplasm (DIPLOMA-2): study protocol for an international multicenter patient-blinded randomized controlled trial. Trials 2023;24(1):665. DOI: 10.1186/s13063-023-07657-7

11. De Graaf N., Hilal M.A., Besselink M.G. Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy: an ongoing exploration. Lancet Reg Health Eur 2024;39:100880. DOI: 10.1016/j.lanepe.2024.100880

12. Sattari S.A., Sattari A.R., Makary M.A. et al. Laparoscopic versus open pancreatoduodenectomy in patients with periampullary tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg 2023;277(5):742-55. DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000005785

13. Wehrle C.J., Chang J.H., Gross A.R. et al. Comparing oncologic and surgical outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy in patients with pancreatic cancer: a propensity-matched analysis. Surg Endosc 2024;38(5):2602-10. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-024-10783-1

14. Klotz R., Mihaljevic A.L., Kulu Y. et al. Robotic versus open partial pancreatoduodenectomy (EUROPA): a randomised controlled stage 2b trial. Lancet Reg Health Eur 2024;39:100864. DOI: 10.1016/j.lanepe.2024.100864

15. Zureikat A.H., Beane J.D., Zenati M.S. et al. 500 Minimally Invasive Robotic Pancreatoduodenectomies: One Decade of Optimizing Performance. Ann Surg 2021;273(5):966-72. DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000003550

16. Joseph N., Varghese C., Lucocq J. et al. Network meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomised controlled trials comparing robotic, laparoscopic, and open pancreatoduodenectomy. Ann Surg Open 2024;5(4):e507. DOI: 10.1097/AS9.0000000000000507

17. Zwart M.J.W., van den Broek B., de Graaf N. et al. The feasibility, proficiency, and mastery learning curves in 635 robotic pancreatoduodenectomies following a multicenter training program: “standing on the shoulders of giants”. Ann Surg 2023;278(6):e1232-41.