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 6/2017

01-06-2017

The surgical outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy versus laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary neoplasms: a comparative study of a single center

Authors: Rong Liu, Tao Zhang, Zhi-Ming Zhao, Xiang-Long Tan, Guo-Dong Zhao, Xuan Zhang, Yong Xu

Published in: Surgical Endoscopy | Issue 6/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is a difficult and complex operation. The introduction of robotics has opened up new angles in pancreatic surgery. This study aims to assess the surgical outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy relative to its laparoscopic counterpart.

Methods

A retrospective study was designed to compare the surgical outcomes of 27 robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) and 25 laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD). Perioperative data, including operating time, complication, morbidity and mortality, estimated blood loss, and postoperative length of stay, were analyzed.

Results

The robotic group exhibited significantly shorter operative time (mean 387 vs. 442 min), shorter hospital stay (mean 17 vs. 24 days), and less blood loss (mean 219 vs. 334 ml) than those in the LPD group. No statistical difference was observed between the two groups in terms of complication rate, mortality rate, R0 resection rate, and number of harvested lymph node.

Conclusions

RPD is more efficient and secure process than LPD among properly selected patients. RPD is therefore a feasible alternative to the laparoscopic procedure. Further studies are needed to evaluate the cost effectiveness of the robotic approach for PD.
Literature
1.
2.
Gagner M, Pomp A (1994) Laparoscopic pylorus-preserving pancreatoduodenectomy. Surg Endosc 8:408–410CrossRefPubMed
3.
4.
Keck T, Wellner U, Kusters S, Makowiec F, Sick O, Hopt UT, Karcz K (2011) Laparoscopic resection of the pancreatic head. Feasibility and perioperative result. Chirurg 82:691–697CrossRefPubMed
5.
Sanchez-Cabus S, Pittau G, Gelli M, Memeo R, Schwarz L, Sa Cunha A (2015) Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: hybrid surgical technique. J Am Coll Surg 220:e7–11CrossRefPubMed
6.
Honda G, Kurata M, Okuda Y, Kobayashi S, Sakamoto K, Takahashi K (2013) Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: taking advantage of the unique view from the caudal side. J Am Coll Surg 217:e45–e49CrossRefPubMed
7.
Bencini L, Annecchiarico M, Farsi M, Bartolini I, Mirasolo V, Guerra F, Coratti A (2015) Minimally invasive surgical approach to pancreatic malignancies. World J Gastrointest Oncol 7:411–421PubMedPubMedCentral
8.
Damoli I, Butturini G, Ramera M, Paiella S, Marchegiani G, Bassi C (2015) Minimally invasive pancreatic surgery. A review. Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne 2:141–149
9.
Stafford AT, Walsh RM (2015) Robotic surgery of the pancreas: the current state of the art. J Surg Oncol 112:289–294CrossRefPubMed
10.
Baker EH, Ross SW, Seshadri R, Swan RZ, Iannitti DA, Vrochides D, Martinie JB (2015) Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma: role in 2014 and beyond. J Gastrointest Oncol 6:396–405PubMedPubMedCentral
11.
Strijker M, van Santvoort HC, Besselink MG, van Hillegersberg R, Borel Rinkes IH, Vriens MR, Molenaar IQ (2013) Robot-assisted pancreatic surgery: a systematic review of the literature. HPB 15:1–10CrossRefPubMed
12.
13.
Boggi U, Signori S, De Lio N, Perrone VG, Vistoli F, Belluomini M, Cappelli C, Amprese G, Mosca F (2013) Feasibility of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. Br J Surg 100:917–925CrossRefPubMed
14.
Cirocchi R, Partelli S, Trastulli S, Coratti A, Parisi A, Falconi M (2013) A systematic review on robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. Surg Oncol 22:238–246CrossRefPubMed
15.
Boggi U, Amorese G, Vistoli F, Caniglia F, De Lio N, Perrone V, Barbarello L, Belluomini M, Signori S, Mosca F (2015) Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a systematic literature review. Surg Endosc 29:9–23CrossRefPubMed
16.
17.
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 260:638–640CrossRef
18.
Lai EC, Yang GP, Tang CN (2012) Robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy–a comparative study. Int J Surg 10:475–479CrossRefPubMed
19.
Zeh HJ, Zureikat AH, Secrest A, Dauoudi M, Bartlett D, Moser AJ (2012) Outcomes after robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary lesions. Ann Surg Oncol 19:864–870CrossRefPubMed
20.
Zhang J, Wu WM, You L, Zhao YP (2013) Robotic versus open pancreatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 20:1774–1780CrossRefPubMed
21.
Gong W, Cai J, Wang Z, Chen A, Ye X, Li H, Zhao Q (2016) Robot-assisted coronary artery bypass grafting improves short-term outcomes compared with minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass grafting. J Thorac Dis 8:459–468CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
22.
Elli E, Gonzalez-Heredia R, Sarvepalli S, Masrur M (2015) Laparoscopic and robotic sleeve gastrectomy: short- and long-term results. Obes Surg 25:967–974CrossRefPubMed
23.
Kim JC, Yu CS, Lim SB, Park IJ, Kim CW, Yoon YS (2016) Comparative analysis focusing on surgical and early oncological outcomes of open, laparoscopy-assisted, and robot-assisted approaches in rectal cancer patients. Int J Colorectal Dis 31:1179–1187CrossRefPubMed
24.
Smeenk RM, van ‘t Hof G, Elsten E, Feskens PG (2015) The results of 100 robotic versus 100 laparoscopic gastric bypass procedures: a single high volume centre experience. Obes Surg 26:1266–1273CrossRef
25.
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 33:299–307CrossRefPubMed
26.
Wang M, Meng L, Cai Y, Li Y, Wang X, Zhang Z, Peng B (2016) Learning curve for laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a CUSUM analysis. J Gastrointest Surg 20:924–935CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
The surgical outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy versus laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary neoplasms: a comparative study of a single center
Authors
Rong Liu
Tao Zhang
Zhi-Ming Zhao
Xiang-Long Tan
Guo-Dong Zhao
Xuan Zhang
Yong Xu
Publication date
01-06-2017
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy / Issue 6/2017
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-5238-6

Other articles of this Issue 6/2017

Surgical Endoscopy 6/2017 Go to the issue

OriginalPaper

A 5-item frailty index based on NSQIP data correlates with outcomes following paraesophageal hernia repair

Erratum

Erratum to: Laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer in the elderly patients

OriginalPaper

Mortality after esophagectomy is heavily impacted by center volume: retrospective analysis of the Nationwide Inpatient Sample

OriginalPaper

Laparoscopic versus robotic colectomy: a national surgical quality improvement project analysis

OriginalPaper

Annual colonoscopy volume and maintenance of competency for surgeons

OriginalPaper

Less pain after transvaginal cholecystectomy: single-center pooled analysis