Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Surgical Endoscopy
Published in: Surgical Endoscopy 12/2015

01-12-2015

Robotic approach improves spleen-preserving rate and shortens postoperative hospital stay of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a matched cohort study

Authors: Shi Chen, Qian Zhan, Jiang-zhi Chen, Jia-bin Jin, Xia-xing Deng, Hao Chen, Bai-yong Shen, Cheng-hong Peng, Hong-wei Li

Published in: Surgical Endoscopy | Issue 12/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Spleen preservation (SP) is beneficial for patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy of benign and borderline tumors; however, the conventional laparoscopy approach (C-LDP) is less effective in controlling splenic vessel bleeding. The benefits of the robotic-assisted approach (RA-LDP) in SP have not been clearly described. This study aimed to evaluate whether a robotic approach could improve SP rate and effectiveness/safety profile of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP).

Methods

Matched for scheduled SP, age, sex, ASA classification, tumor size, tumor location, and pathological type, 69 patients undergoing RA-LDP and 50 undergoing C-LDP between January 2005 and May 2014 were included. Main outcome measures included SP rate, operative time (OT), blood loss, transfusion frequency, morbidity, postoperative hospital stay (PHS), and oncologic safety.

Results

Among matched patients scheduled for SP, RA-LDP was associated with significantly higher overall (95.7 vs. 39.4 %) and Kimura SP rates (72.3 vs. 21.2 %), shorter OT (median 120 vs. 200 min), less blood loss (median 100 vs. 300 mL), lower transfusion frequency (2.1 vs. 18.2 %), and shorter mean PHS (10.2 vs. 14.5 days). Among matched patients scheduled for splenectomy, RA-LDP was associated with similar OT, blood loss, transfusion frequency, and PHS. The two approaches were similar in overall morbidity, frequency of pancreatic fistula, and oncologic outcome among patients undergoing splenectomy for malignant tumors.

Conclusions

RA-LDP was associated with a significantly better SP rate and reduced OT, blood loss, transfusion requirement, and PHS for patients undergoing SP compared to C-LDP, but offered less benefits for patients undergoing splenectomy.
Literature
1.
Cuschieri A, Jakimowicz JJ, van Spreeuwel J (1996) Laparoscopic distal 70% pancreatectomy and splenectomy for chronic pancreatitis. Ann Surg 223:280–285PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
2.
Venkat R, Edil BH, Schulick RD et al (2012) Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is associated with significantly less overall morbidity compared to the open technique: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg 255:1048–1059CrossRefPubMed
3.
Kooby DA, Gillespie T, Bentrem D et al (2008) Left-sided pancreatectomy: a multicenter comparison of laparoscopic and open approaches. Ann Surg 248:438–446PubMed
4.
Waghorn DJ (2001) Overwhelming infection in asplenic patients: current best practice preventive measures are not being followed. J Clin Pathol 54:214–218PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
5.
Hansen K, Singer DB (2001) Asplenic–hyposplenic overwhelming sepsis: post-splenectomy sepsis revisited. Pediatr Dev Pathol 4:105–121CrossRefPubMed
6.
Shoup M, Brennan MF, McWhite K et al (2002) The value of splenic preservation with distal pancreatectomy. Arch Surg 137:164–168CrossRefPubMed
7.
Warshaw AL (2010) Distal pancreatectomy with preservation of the spleen. J Hepato-Biliary-Pancreat Sci 17:808–812CrossRef
8.
Giulianotti PC, Coratti A, Angelini M et al (2003) Robotics in general surgery: personal experience in a large community hospital. Arch Surg 138:777–784CrossRefPubMed
9.
Winer J, Can MF, Bartlett DL et al (2012) The current state of robotic-assisted pancreatic surgery. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 9:468–476CrossRefPubMed
10.
Daouadi M, Zureikat AH, Zenati MS et al (2013) Robot-assisted minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy is superior to the laparoscopic technique. Ann Surg 257:128–132CrossRefPubMed
11.
Kang CM, Kim DH, Lee WJ et al (2011) Conventional laparoscopic and robot-assisted spleen-preserving pancreatectomy: does da Vinci have clinical advantages? Surg Endosc 25:2004–2009CrossRefPubMed
12.
Lai ECH, Tang CN (2013) Current status of robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy: a comprehensive review. Asian J Endosc Surg 6:158–164CrossRefPubMed
13.
Waters JA, Canal DF, Wiebke EA et al (2010) Robotic distal pancreatectomy: cost effective? Surgery 148:814–823CrossRefPubMed
14.
Kimura W, Inoue T, Futakawa N et al (1996) Spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy with conservation of the splenic artery and vein. Surgery 120:885–890CrossRefPubMed
15.
16.
Bassi C, Dervenis C, Butturini G et al (2005) Postoperative pancreatic fistula: an international study group (ISGPF) definition. Surgery 138:8–13CrossRefPubMed
17.
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
18.
Benoist S, Dugué L, Sauvanet A et al (1999) Is there a role of preservation of the spleen in distal pancreatectomy? J Am Coll Surg 188:255–260CrossRefPubMed
19.
Dalton R, Sarr M, Van Heerden J et al (1992) Carcinoma of the body and tail of the pancreas: is curative resection justified? Surgery 111:489–494PubMed
20.
Aldridge M, Williamson R (1991) Distal pancreatectomy with and without splenectomy. Br J Surg 78:976–979CrossRefPubMed
21.
Koukoutsis I, Tamijmarane A, Bellagamba R et al (2007) The impact of splenectomy on outcomes after distal and total pancreatectomy. World J Surg Oncol 5:61PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
22.
Jusoh AC, Ammori BJ (2012) Laparoscopic vs open distal pancreatectomy: a systematic review of comparative studies. Surg Endosc 26:904–913CrossRefPubMed
23.
Hwang HK, Kang CM, Chung YE et al (2013) Robot-assisted spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy: a single surgeon’s experiences and proposal of clinical application. Surg Endosc 27:774–781CrossRefPubMed
24.
Giulianotti PC, Sbrana F, Bianco FM et al (2010) Robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreatic surgery: single-surgeon experience. Surg Endosc 24:1646–1657CrossRefPubMed
25.
Ferrone CR, Konstantinidis IT, Sahani DV et al (2011) Twenty-three years of the Warshaw operation for distal pancreatectomy with preservation of the spleen. Ann Surg 253:1136–1139CrossRefPubMed
26.
Carrère N, Abid S, Julio CH et al (2007) Spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy with excision of splenic artery and vein: a case-matched comparison with conventional distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy. World J Surg 31:375–382CrossRefPubMed
27.
Fernández-Cruz L, Cosa R, Blanco L et al (2007) Curative laparoscopic resection for pancreatic neoplasms: a critical analysis from a single institution. J Gastrointest Surg 11:1607–1622CrossRefPubMed
28.
Tien YW, Liu KL, Hu RH et al (2010) Risk of varices bleeding after spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy with excision of splenic artery and vein. Ann Surg Oncol 17:2193–2198CrossRefPubMed
29.
Miura F, Takada T, Asano T et al (2005) Hemodynamic changes of splenogastric circulation after spleen-preserving pancreatectomy with excision of splenic artery and vein. Surgery 138:518–522CrossRefPubMed
30.
Cirocchi R, Partelli S, Coratti A et al (2013) Current status of robotic distal pancreatectomy: a systematic review. Surg Oncol 22:201–207CrossRefPubMed
31.
Choi SH, Seo MA, Hwang HK et al (2012) Is it worthwhile to preserve adult spleen in laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy? Perioperative and patient-reported outcome analysis. Surg Endosc 26:3149–3156CrossRefPubMed
32.
Kooby DA, Hawkins WG, Schmidt CM et al (2010) A multicenter analysis of distal pancreatectomy for adenocarcinoma: is laparoscopic resection appropriate? J Am Coll Surg 210:779–785CrossRefPubMed
33.
Metadata
Title
Robotic approach improves spleen-preserving rate and shortens postoperative hospital stay of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a matched cohort study
Authors
Shi Chen
Qian Zhan
Jiang-zhi Chen
Jia-bin Jin
Xia-xing Deng
Hao Chen
Bai-yong Shen
Cheng-hong Peng
Hong-wei Li
Publication date
01-12-2015
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy / Issue 12/2015
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4101-5

Other articles of this Issue 12/2015

Surgical Endoscopy 12/2015 Go to the issue

OriginalPaper

Novel strategy for laparoscopic treatment of pT2 gallbladder carcinoma

OriginalPaper

Influence of body mass index on postoperative outcomes after laparoscopic liver resection

OriginalPaper

Colonic perforation either during or after stent insertion as a bridge to surgery for malignant colorectal obstruction increases the risk of peritoneal seeding

OriginalPaper

Robot-assisted laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: a prospective, matched, mid-term follow-up study

OriginalPaper

TEP versus TAPP: comparison of the perioperative outcome in 17,587 patients with a primary unilateral inguinal hernia

Video

Anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic single-port sigmoid resection: combined transanal and transabdominal minimal invasive management