Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Surgical Endoscopy 6/2011

01-06-2011

Conventional laparoscopic and robot-assisted spleen-preserving pancreatectomy: does da Vinci have clinical advantages?

Authors: Chang Moo Kang, Dong Hyun Kim, Woo Jung Lee, Hoon Sang Chi

Published in: Surgical Endoscopy | Issue 6/2011

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Function-preserving minimally invasive pancreatectomy is thought to be an ideal approach for pancreatic benign and borderline malignant lesions requiring pancreatectomy. However, it is not that easy to accomplish this goal with the conventional laparoscopic approach. It requires extensive surgeon experience and learned techniques. A robot surgical system was recently introduced to overcome these limitations and it may potentially provide precise and safe laparoscopic surgery.

Methods

Between March 2006 and July 2010, a total of 45 patients underwent laparoscopic or robot-assisted pancreatectomy performed by a single pancreatic surgeon to preserve the spleen. Twenty-five patients underwent the conventional laparoscopic approach (Lap group) and the other 20 patients underwent robot-assisted surgery (Robot group). The perioperative clinicopathologic variables (age, gender, length of resected pancreas, tumor size, tumor location, amount of bleeding, operation time, length of hospital stay, complications, mortality, and cost) were compared between the two groups, as well as the spleen preservation rate.

Results

Younger patients preferred robot-assisted surgery to conventional laparoscopic surgery (44.5 ± 15.9 vs. 56.7 ± 13.9 years, p = 0.010), and the mean operation time was longer in the Robot group (258.2 ± 118.6 vs. 348.7 ± 121.8 min, p = 0.016). The spleen-preserving rate of the Robot group was considerably superior to that of the Lap group (fail/success, 9/16 vs. 1/19, p = 0.027). However, robot surgery cost the patients about USD 8,300 (USD 8,304.8 ± 870.0), which was more than twice the amount for the Lap group (USD 3,861.7 ± 1,724.3). There were no significant differences in other clinicopathologic variables.

Conclusion

Robot-assisted pancreatic surgery could provide an increased chance for spleen preservation in spite of higher cost and longer operation time. More experiences are needed to specifically address the role of robot surgery in the advanced laparoscopic era.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Kim SC, Park KT, Hwang JW, Shin HC, Lee SS, Seo DW, Lee SK, Kim MH, Han DJ (2008) Comparative analysis of clinical outcomes for laparoscopic distal pancreatic resection and open distal pancreatic resection at a single institution. Surg Endosc 22:2261–2268PubMedCrossRef Kim SC, Park KT, Hwang JW, Shin HC, Lee SS, Seo DW, Lee SK, Kim MH, Han DJ (2008) Comparative analysis of clinical outcomes for laparoscopic distal pancreatic resection and open distal pancreatic resection at a single institution. Surg Endosc 22:2261–2268PubMedCrossRef
2.
go back to reference Mabrut JY, Fernandez-Cruz L, Azagra JS, Bassi C, Delvaux G, Weerts J, Fabre JM, Boulez J, Baulieux J, Peix JL, Gigot JF (2005) Laparoscopic pancreatic resection: results of a multicenter European study of 127 patients. Surgery 137:597–605PubMedCrossRef Mabrut JY, Fernandez-Cruz L, Azagra JS, Bassi C, Delvaux G, Weerts J, Fabre JM, Boulez J, Baulieux J, Peix JL, Gigot JF (2005) Laparoscopic pancreatic resection: results of a multicenter European study of 127 patients. Surgery 137:597–605PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Palanivelu C, Shetty R, Jani K, Sendhilkumar K, Rajan PS, Maheshkumar GS (2007) Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: results of a prospective non-randomized study from a tertiary center. Surg Endosc 21:373–377PubMedCrossRef Palanivelu C, Shetty R, Jani K, Sendhilkumar K, Rajan PS, Maheshkumar GS (2007) Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: results of a prospective non-randomized study from a tertiary center. Surg Endosc 21:373–377PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Teh SH, Tseng D, Sheppard BC (2007) Laparoscopic and open distal pancreatic resection for benign pancreatic disease. J Gastrointest Surg 11:1120–1125PubMedCrossRef Teh SH, Tseng D, Sheppard BC (2007) Laparoscopic and open distal pancreatic resection for benign pancreatic disease. J Gastrointest Surg 11:1120–1125PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference 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 246:77–82PubMedCrossRef 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 246:77–82PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Shoup M, Brennan MF, McWhite K, Leung DH, Klimstra D, Conlon KC (2002) The value of splenic preservation with distal pancreatectomy. Arch Surg 137:164–168PubMedCrossRef Shoup M, Brennan MF, McWhite K, Leung DH, Klimstra D, Conlon KC (2002) The value of splenic preservation with distal pancreatectomy. Arch Surg 137:164–168PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Cullingford GL, Watkins DN, Watts AD, Mallon DF (1991) Severe late postsplenectomy infection. Br J Surg 78:716–721PubMedCrossRef Cullingford GL, Watkins DN, Watts AD, Mallon DF (1991) Severe late postsplenectomy infection. Br J Surg 78:716–721PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Davidson RN, Wall RA (2001) Prevention and management of infections in patients without a spleen. Clin Microbiol Infect 7:657–660PubMedCrossRef Davidson RN, Wall RA (2001) Prevention and management of infections in patients without a spleen. Clin Microbiol Infect 7:657–660PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Mellemkjoer L, Olsen JH, Linet MS, Gridley G, McLaughlin JK (1995) Cancer risk after splenectomy. Cancer 75:577–583PubMedCrossRef Mellemkjoer L, Olsen JH, Linet MS, Gridley G, McLaughlin JK (1995) Cancer risk after splenectomy. Cancer 75:577–583PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Warshaw AL (1988) Conservation of the spleen with distal pancreatectomy. Arch Surg 123:550–553PubMed Warshaw AL (1988) Conservation of the spleen with distal pancreatectomy. Arch Surg 123:550–553PubMed
11.
go back to reference Yoon YS, Lee KH, Han HS, Cho JY, Ahn KS (2009) Patency of splenic vessels after laparoscopic spleen and splenic vessel-preserving distal pancreatectomy. Br J Surg 96:633–640PubMedCrossRef Yoon YS, Lee KH, Han HS, Cho JY, Ahn KS (2009) Patency of splenic vessels after laparoscopic spleen and splenic vessel-preserving distal pancreatectomy. Br J Surg 96:633–640PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Fernandez-Cruz L, Martinez I, Gilabert R, Cesar-Borges G, Astudillo E, Navarro S (2004) Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy combined with preservation of the spleen for cystic neoplasms of the pancreas. J Gastrointest Surg 8:493–501PubMedCrossRef Fernandez-Cruz L, Martinez I, Gilabert R, Cesar-Borges G, Astudillo E, Navarro S (2004) Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy combined with preservation of the spleen for cystic neoplasms of the pancreas. J Gastrointest Surg 8:493–501PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Dulucq JL, Wintringer P, Stabilini C, Feryn T, Perissat J, Mahajna A (2005) Are major laparoscopic pancreatic resections worthwhile? A prospective study of 32 patients in a single institution. Surg Endosc 19:1028–1034PubMedCrossRef Dulucq JL, Wintringer P, Stabilini C, Feryn T, Perissat J, Mahajna A (2005) Are major laparoscopic pancreatic resections worthwhile? A prospective study of 32 patients in a single institution. Surg Endosc 19:1028–1034PubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Ballantyne GH (2007) Telerobotic gastrointestinal surgery: phase 2—safety and efficacy. Surg Endosc 21:1054–1062PubMedCrossRef Ballantyne GH (2007) Telerobotic gastrointestinal surgery: phase 2—safety and efficacy. Surg Endosc 21:1054–1062PubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference Talamini MA, Chapman S, Horgan S, Melvin WS (2003) A prospective analysis of 211 robotic-assisted surgical procedures. Surg Endosc 17:1521–1524PubMedCrossRef Talamini MA, Chapman S, Horgan S, Melvin WS (2003) A prospective analysis of 211 robotic-assisted surgical procedures. Surg Endosc 17:1521–1524PubMedCrossRef
16.
go back to reference Ballentyne GH, Marescaux J, Giulianotti PC (2004) Primer of robotic and telerobotic surgery, Chap. 22. Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, pp 155–164 Ballentyne GH, Marescaux J, Giulianotti PC (2004) Primer of robotic and telerobotic surgery, Chap. 22. Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, pp 155–164
17.
go back to reference Kang CM, Chi HS, Hyeung WJ, Kim KS, Choi JS, Lee WJ, Kim BR (2007) The first Korean experience of telemanipulative robot-assisted laparoscopic cholecystectomy using the da Vinci system. Yonsei Med J 48:540–545PubMedCrossRef Kang CM, Chi HS, Hyeung WJ, Kim KS, Choi JS, Lee WJ, Kim BR (2007) The first Korean experience of telemanipulative robot-assisted laparoscopic cholecystectomy using the da Vinci system. Yonsei Med J 48:540–545PubMedCrossRef
18.
go back to reference Gagner M, Pomp A, Herrera MF (1996) Early experience with laparoscopic resections of islet cell tumors. Surgery 120:1051–1054PubMedCrossRef Gagner M, Pomp A, Herrera MF (1996) Early experience with laparoscopic resections of islet cell tumors. Surgery 120:1051–1054PubMedCrossRef
19.
go back to reference Sa Cunha A, Rault A, Beau C, Collet D, Masson B (2007) Laparoscopic central pancreatectomy: single institution experience of 6 patients. Surgery 142:405–409PubMedCrossRef Sa Cunha A, Rault A, Beau C, Collet D, Masson B (2007) Laparoscopic central pancreatectomy: single institution experience of 6 patients. Surgery 142:405–409PubMedCrossRef
20.
go back to reference Palanivelu C, Rajan PS, Rangarajan M, Vaithiswaran V, Senthilnathan P, Parthasarathi R, Praveen Raj P (2009) Evolution in techniques of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a decade-long experience from a tertiary center. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 16:731–740PubMedCrossRef Palanivelu C, Rajan PS, Rangarajan M, Vaithiswaran V, Senthilnathan P, Parthasarathi R, Praveen Raj P (2009) Evolution in techniques of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a decade-long experience from a tertiary center. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 16:731–740PubMedCrossRef
21.
go back to reference Melvin WS, Needleman BJ, Krause KR, Schneider C, Wolf RK, Michler RE, Ellison EC (2002) Computer-enhanced robotic telesurgery. Initial experience in foregut surgery. Surg Endosc 16:1790–1792PubMedCrossRef Melvin WS, Needleman BJ, Krause KR, Schneider C, Wolf RK, Michler RE, Ellison EC (2002) Computer-enhanced robotic telesurgery. Initial experience in foregut surgery. Surg Endosc 16:1790–1792PubMedCrossRef
22.
go back to reference Lanfranco AR, Castellanos AE, Desai JP, Meyers WC (2004) Robotic surgery: a current perspective. Ann Surg 239:14–21PubMedCrossRef Lanfranco AR, Castellanos AE, Desai JP, Meyers WC (2004) Robotic surgery: a current perspective. Ann Surg 239:14–21PubMedCrossRef
23.
go back to reference Kang CM, Kim HG, Kim KS, Choi JS, Lee WJ, Kim BR (2007) Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for solid pseudopapillary neoplasm of the pancreas-report of two cases. Hepatogastroenterology 54:1053–1056PubMed Kang CM, Kim HG, Kim KS, Choi JS, Lee WJ, Kim BR (2007) Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for solid pseudopapillary neoplasm of the pancreas-report of two cases. Hepatogastroenterology 54:1053–1056PubMed
Metadata
Title
Conventional laparoscopic and robot-assisted spleen-preserving pancreatectomy: does da Vinci have clinical advantages?
Authors
Chang Moo Kang
Dong Hyun Kim
Woo Jung Lee
Hoon Sang Chi
Publication date
01-06-2011
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy / Issue 6/2011
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-010-1504-1

Other articles of this Issue 6/2011

Surgical Endoscopy 6/2011 Go to the issue