Giulianotti, Pier Cristoforo

ABSTRACT Background Implementation of remote robotic‐assisted surgery (rRAS) has the potential to significantly improve access to high‐quality surgical care for patients worldwide. Advances in robotic systems and telecommunications now enable highly reliable, low latency, and cybersecure connectivity. These technological developments, together with the broader adoption of telemedicine, have driven an increasing interest in the implementation of rRAS. Methods The Clinical Robotic Surgery Association (CRSA) convened a conference to develop international clinical recommendations for rRAS using the Danish Model of Consensus. The society identified five key issue categories and invited a panel of experts to address specific questions for each. Panel members and a jury of 10 unbiased, non‐expert in rRAS professionals participated in a day‐long conference on November 19, 2025 (Los Angeles, USA). During the conference, participants presented, discussed, and reached consensus on specific guidelines relevant to each category. Immediately after the conference, the jury reviewed and approved the recommended guidelines. Results Multiple recommendations were approved for each of the following categories: Operating Models, Roles and Responsibilities (2 recommendations), Clinical Pathway (2 recommendations), Emergency Management (8 recommendations), Technical Considerations (5 recommendations), and Medico‐legal and Ethical Considerations (4 recommendations). Conclusions There was consensus that with recent advances in telecommunication and robotic technologies, rRAS can be offered safely and effectively if the identified safeguards are realized. Adoption of rRAS is expected to continue advancing rapidly.

Importance Adjuvant chemotherapy regimens may be administered after pancreatic resection for adenocarcinoma arising from intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (A-IPMNs), although the evidence supporting their use is limited. Objective To evaluate the survival benefit associated with contemporary adjuvant chemotherapy regimens after resection in A-IPMNs between 2017 and 2023. Design, Setting, and Participants This retrospective cohort study was an international, multicenter study with 69 participating centers across Europe, North America, South America, and the Asia-Pacific region. Patients undergoing resection for A-IPMNs were included. Data were analyzed from May to August 2025. Intervention Contemporary adjuvant chemotherapy regimens, such as gemcitabine-capecitabine (GemCap); 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRINOX), modified FOLFIRINOX (mFOLFIRINOX), and S-1. Main Outcome and Measure Overall survival (months). Results Among 1321 patients (median [IQR] age 70 [63 to 76] years; 713 males [54.0%] and 608 females [46.0%]), 781 patients (59.1%) received adjuvant chemotherapy, while in 181 patients (13.7%) it was omitted due to poor patient fitness. Of patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy, 568 patients (72.6%) received contemporary regimens, including GemCap (232 patients [29.7%]), FOLFIRINOX (176 patients [22.5%]), mFOLFIRINOX (71 patients [9.1%]), and S-1 (70 patients [9.0%]). The median (IQR) follow-up for the cohort was 64.2 (40.4 to 85.0) months, and the median overall survival was 73.8 months (95% CI, 66.4 to 81.9 months). After 90-day landmark analysis and exclusion of patients ineligible for chemotherapy, adjuvant chemotherapy vs no adjuvant chemotherapy (propensity score–matched populations, 243:243 patients) was not associated with improved overall survival (median, 82.3 months; 95% CI, 78.2 months to not applicable [NA] vs not reached; 95% CI, 75.3 months to NA; P = .58). Contemporary regimens vs no adjuvant chemotherapy (propensity score–matched populations, 309:309 patients) was not associated with longer survival, and a mean survival benefit greater than 4.2 months over 5 years was excluded (difference in restricted mean survival, 1.26 months; 95%, −1.72 to 4.24 months). Treatment outcomes did not vary by chemotherapy regimen or disease characteristic (eg, N stage or carbohydrate antigen 19-9 level). Conclusions and Relevance In this study, contemporary adjuvant chemotherapy was not associated with improved overall survival in A-IPMNs, and a randomized clinical trial is indicated.

Importance Total pancreatectomy (TP) is indicated for advanced pancreatic cancer or multifocal tumors. Furthermore, TP may be performed to avoid the risk of pancreatic fistula in selected patients to improve the perioperative risk profile. Objective To define reference values for TP based on a low-risk cohort treated at expert centers. Design, Setting, and Participants This multicenter study analyzed outcomes from patients undergoing primary TP for malignant or benign lesions from 25 international expert centers from January 2017 to November 2023. Low-risk patients undergoing TP (LR-TP) were without vascular resections or significant comorbidities. Exposures TP. Main Outcomes and Measures Twenty reference values were derived from the 75th or the 25th percentile of the median values of all centers. Outcomes of LR-TP were compared with a cohort of TP with vascular resection, TP due to high-risk pancreatic anastomosis, and the benchmark values for low-risk pancreatoduodenectomy. Results Of 994 patients, 333 (33.5%; median [IQR] age, 66 [58-72] years; 171 male [51.4%]) qualified as the LR-TP cohort. Reference values included blood loss (≤1000 mL), major complications (≤37%), 3-month postoperative mortality (<6%), and retrieved lymph nodes (≥29). Compared with TP with vascular resections, reference cutoffs were not met for major complications (51% vs LR-TP ≤37%) and 90-day mortality (11% vs LR-TP ≤6%). For TP due to high-risk anastomosis, failure to rescue rate (38% vs ≤6%) and 90-day mortality (11% vs LR-TP ≤6%) were not met. Compared with pancreatoduodenectomy, reference values for postoperative mortality were 3 times higher for LR-TP (≤2% vs ≤6%) and less for resected lymph nodes (≥16 vs ≥29). Conclusions and Relevance This case-control study provided global reference values for TP, indicating significantly higher postoperative morbidity and mortality compared with pancreatoduodenectomy. Perioperative morbidity of TP was especially increased in patients with vascular resections. These reference values can serve for quality control of pancreatic surgery.

Objective: The aim of this study was to develop and externally validate the first evidence-based guidelines on minimally invasive pancreas resection (MIPR) before and during the International Evidence-based Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreas Resection (IG-MIPR) meeting in Miami (March 2019). Summary Background Data: MIPR has seen rapid development in the past decade. Promising outcomes have been reported by early adopters from high-volume centers. Subsequently, multicenter series as well as randomized controlled trials were reported; however, guidelines for clinical practice were lacking. Methods: The Scottisch Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) methodology was used, incorporating these 4 items: systematic reviews using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases to answer clinical questions, whenever possible in PICO style, the GRADE approach for assessment of the quality of evidence, the Delphi method for establishing consensus on the developed recommendations, and the AGREE-II instrument for the assessment of guideline quality and external validation. The current guidelines are cosponsored by the International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the Americas Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the Asian-Pacific Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the European-African Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery, Pancreas Club, the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgery, the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, and the Society of Surgical Oncology. Results: After screening 16,069 titles, 694 studies were reviewed, and 291 were included. The final 28 recommendations covered 6 topics; laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomy, central pancreatectomy, pancreatoduodenectomy, as well as patient selection, training, learning curve, and minimal annual center volume required to obtain optimal outcomes and patient safety. Conclusion: The IG-MIPR using SIGN methodology give guidance to surgeons, hospital administrators, patients, and medical societies on the use and outcome of MIPR as well as the approach to be taken regarding this challenging type of surgery.