Updates in Surgery

, Volume 71, Issue 1, pp 97–103 | Cite as

Application of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery: an Italian survey

  • Giovanni Capretti
  • Ugo Boggi
  • Roberto Salvia
  • Giulio Belli
  • Roberto Coppola
  • Massimo Falconi
  • Andrea Valeri
  • Alessandro ZerbiEmail author
Original Article


The value of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery (MIPS) is still debated. To assess the diffusion of MIPS in Italy and identify the barriers preventing wider implementation, a questionnaire was developed under the auspices of three Scientific Societies (AISP, It-IHPBA, SICE) and was sent to the largest possible number of Italian surgeons also using the mailing list of the two main Italian Surgical Societies (SIC and ACOI). The questionnaire consisted of 25 questions assessing: centre characteristics, facilities and technologies, type of MIPS performed, surgical techniques employed and opinions on the present and future value of MIPS. Only one reply per unit was considered. Fifty-five units answered the questionnaire. While 54 units (98.2%) declared to perform MIPS, the majority of responders were not dedicated to pancreatic surgery. Twenty-five units (45.5%) performed < 20 pancreatic resections/year and 39 (70.9%) < 10 MIPS per year. Forty-nine units (89.1%) performed at least one minimally invasive (MI) distal pancreatectomy (DP), and 10 (18.2%) at least one MI pancreatoduodenectomy (PD). Robotic assistance was used in 18 units (31.7%) (14 DP, 7 PD). The major constraints limiting the diffusion of MIPS were the intrinsic difficulty of the technique and the lack of specific training. The overall value of MIPS was highly rated. Our survey illustrates the current diffusion of MIPS in Italy and underlines the great interest for this approach. Further diffusion of MIPS requires the implementation of standardized protocols of training. Creation of a prospective National Registry should also be considered.


Minimally invasive surgery Laparoscopy Robotic surgery Pancreatic surgery Survey Italy 



We thank the “Associazione Italiana Studio Pancreas” (AISP), the “Italy National Chapter of International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association” (It-IHPBA), and the “Società Italiana di Chirurgia Endoscopica” (SICE) for the creation, patronage and active support of this survey. We also thank the “Società Italiana di Chirurgia” (SIC) and the “Associazione Chirurghi Ospedalieri Italiani” (ACOI) for their endorsement and logistical support for this survey.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Research involving human participants and/or animals

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

For this type of study formal consent is not required.

Supplementary material

13304_2018_535_MOESM1_ESM.docx (36 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 36 kb)


  1. 1.
    Gagner M, Pomp A (1994) Laparoscopic pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy. Surg Endosc 8(5):408–410CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cuschieri A (1994) Laparoscopic surgery of the pancreas. J R Coll Surg Edinb 39(3):178–184PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Van Hilst J, de Rooij T, Abu Hilal M, Asbun HJ, Barkun J, Boggi U et al (2017) Worldwide survey on opinions and use of minimally invasive pancreatic resection. HPB 19:190–204CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rogers EM (1995) Diffusion of innovations, 4th edn. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bachmann MO, Alderson D, Peters TJ, Bedford C, Edwards D, Wotton S, Harvey IM (2003) Influence of specialization on the management and outcome of patients with pancreatic cancer. Br J Surg 90:171–177CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Parks RW, Bettschart V, Frame S, Stockton DL, Brewster DH, Garden OJ (2004) Benefits of specialisation in the management of pancreatic cancer: results of a Scottish population-based study. Br J Cancer 91:459–465CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Adam MA, Choudhury K, Dinan MA, Reed SD, Scheri RP, Blazer DG 3rd, Roman SA, Sosa JA (2015) Minimally invasive versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for cancer: practice patterns and short-term outcomes among 7061 patients. Ann Surg 262:372–377CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Croome KP, Farnell MB, Que FG, Reid-Lombardo KM, Truty MJ, Nagorney DM, Kendrick ML (2014) Total laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: oncologic advantages over open approaches? Ann Surg 260:633–638CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Asbun HJ, Stauffer JA (2012) Laparoscopic vs open pancreaticoduodenectomy: overall outcomes and severity of complications using the Accordion Severity Grading System. J Am Coll Surg 215:810–819CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Boggi U, Signori S, De Lio N, Perrone VG, Vistoli F, Belluomini M, Cappelli C, Amorese G, Mosca F (2013) Feasibility of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. Br J Surg 100:917–925CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zureikat AH, Moser AJ, Boone BA, Bartlett DL, Zenati M, Zeh HJ 3rd (2013) 250 robotic pancreatic resections: safety and feasibility. Ann Surg 258(4):554–559CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vollmer CM, Asbun HJ, Barkun J, Besselink MG, Boggi U, Conlon KC, Han HS, Hansen PD, Kendrick ML, Montagnini AL, Palanivelu C, Røsok BI, Shrikhande SV, Wakabayashi G, Zeh HJ, Kooby DA (2017) Proceedings of the first international state-of-the-art conference on minimally-invasive pancreatic resection (MIPR). HPB (Oxford) 19:171–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kooby DA, Vollmer CM (2017) State of the art on minimally invasive pancreatic resections: IHPBA 2016 conference. In: Boggi U (ed) Minimally invasive surgery of the pancreas. Springer, Italy, pp 1–13Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gould D (2001) Visual analogue scale (VAS). J Clin Nurs 10:697–706CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Casistica Posti Letto per Struttura Ospedaliera (2015) Accessed 16 Jan 2018
  16. 16.
    De Rooij T, Lu MZ, Steen MW, Gerhards MF, Dijkgraaf MG, Busch OR, Lips DJ, Festen S, Besselink MG, Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group (2016) Minimally invasive versus open pancreatoduodenectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative cohort and registry studies. Ann Surg 264:257–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Adam MA, Thomas S, Youngwirth L, Pappas T, Roman SA, Sosa JA (2017) Defining a hospital volume threshold for minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy in the United States. JAMA Surg 152:336–342CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Speicher PJ, Nussbaum DP, White RR, Zani S, Mosca PJ, Blazer DG 3rd, Clary BM, Pappas TN, Tyler DS, Perez A (2014) Defining the learning curve for team-based laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy. Ann Surg Oncol 21(12):4014–4019CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Napoli N, Kauffmann EF, Palmeri M, Miccoli M, Costa F, Vistoli F, Amorese G, Boggi U (2016) The learning curve in robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. Dig Surg 33:299–307CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Boone BA, Zenati M, Hogg ME, Steve J, Moser AJ, Bartlett DL, Zeh HJ, Zureikat AH (2015) Assessment of quality outcomes for robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy: identification of the learning curve. JAMA Surg 150:416–422CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hogg ME, Besselink MG, Clavien PA, Fingerhut A, Jeyarajah DR, Kooby DA, Moser AJ, Pitt HA, Varban OA, Vollmer CM, Zeh HJ 3rd, Hansen P (2017) Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Resection Organizing Committee. Training in minimally invasive pancreatic resections: a paradigm shift away from “See one, Do one, Teach one”. HPB (Oxford) 19:234–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    De Rooij T, van Hilst J, Topal B, Bosscha K, Brinkman DJ, Gerhards MF, de Hingh IH, Karsten TM, Lips DJ, Luyer MD, Marsman HA, van Rijssen LB, Steen MW, Busch OR, Festen S, Besselink MG; Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group (2017) Outcomes of a multicenter training program in laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LAELAPS-2). Ann Surg. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hua Y, Javed AA, Burkhart RA, Makary MA, Weiss MJ, Wolfgang CL, He J (2017) Preoperative risk factors for conversion and learning curve of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy. Surgery 162(5):1040–1047. (epub 2017 Sep 1) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Braga M, Ridolfi C, Balzano G, Castoldi R, Pecorelli N, Di Carlo V (2012) Learning curve for laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy in a high-volume hospital. Updates Surg 64:179–183CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Goldfarb MA, Protyniak B, Schultheis M (2014) Hostile abdomen index risk stratification and laparoscopic complications. JSLS 18:14–19CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Melotti G, Butturini G, Piccoli M, Casetti L, Bassi C, Mullineris B, Lazzaretti MG, Pederzoli P (2007) Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: results on a consecutive series of 58 patients. Ann Surg. 246(1):77–82CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ravaioli M, Pinna AD, Francioni G, Montorsi M, Veneroni L, Grazi GL, Palini GM, Gavazzi F, Stacchini G, Ridolfi C, Serenari M, Zerbi A (2014) A partnership model between high- and low-volume hospitals to improve results in hepatobiliary pancreatic surgery. Ann Surg 260(5):871–875. (discussion 875–7) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Aldrighetti L, Ratti F, Cillo U, Ferrero A, Ettorre GM, Guglielmi A, Giuliante F, Calise F (2017) Italian Group of Minimally Invasive Liver Surgery (I GO MILS). Diffusion, outcomes and implementation of minimally invasive liver surgery: a snapshot from the I Go MILS (Italian Group of Minimally Invasive Liver Surgery) Registry. Updates Surg 69(3):271–283CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Italian Society of Surgery (SIC) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Giovanni Capretti
    • 1
  • Ugo Boggi
    • 2
  • Roberto Salvia
    • 3
  • Giulio Belli
    • 4
  • Roberto Coppola
    • 5
  • Massimo Falconi
    • 6
  • Andrea Valeri
    • 7
  • Alessandro Zerbi
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Humanitas UniversityRozzanoItaly
  2. 2.Università di PisaPisaItaly
  3. 3.Università di VeronaVeronaItaly
  4. 4.Ospedale Loreto MareNaplesItaly
  5. 5.Campus BiomedicoRomeItaly
  6. 6.Università Vita Salute San RaffaeleMilanItaly
  7. 7.Ospedale CareggiFlorenceItaly

Personalised recommendations