Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery 11/2017

01-11-2017 | Original Article

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy: a NSQIP Analysis

Authors: Ibrahim Nassour, Sam C. Wang, Matthew R. Porembka, Adam C. Yopp, Michael A. Choti, Mathew M. Augustine, Patricio M. Polanco, John C. Mansour, Rebecca M. Minter

Published in: Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery | Issue 11/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

An increasing body of literature is supporting the safety of minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy compared to open pancreaticoduodenectomy, but there are limited comparative studies between laparoscopic and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy.
The aim of this study was to compare the rate of postoperative 30-day overall complications between laparoscopic and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Methods

Patients who underwent laparoscopic and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy were abstracted from the 2014–2015 pancreas-targeted American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. A multivariable logistic regression model was developed to determine if the type of minimally invasive approach was associated with 30-day overall complications.

Results

We identified 428 minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy cases, of which 235 (55%) were performed laparoscopically and 193 (45%) robotically. Patients who underwent the robotic approach were more likely to be white compared to those who underwent the laparoscopic approach and were less likely to have pulmonary disease, undergo preoperative radiotherapy, and have vascular and multivisceral resection. On multivariable analysis, we found that the type of minimally invasive approach, whether laparoscopic or robotic, was not associated with overall complications. The predictors of 30-day overall complications were higher body mass index (odds ratio [OR], 1.05; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02–1.09), vascular resection (OR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.23–3.58), and longer operative time (OR, 1.002; 95% CI, 1.001–1.004).

Conclusions

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy was associated with a similar 30-day overall complication rate to laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy. Further studies are needed to corroborate these findings and to establish the best approach to perform this complex operation.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
2.
go back to reference Dokmak S, Ftériche FS, Aussilhou B, Bensafta Y, Lévy P, Ruszniewski P, Belghiti J, Sauvanet A. Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy should not be routine for resection of periampullary tumors. J Am Coll Surg. 2015;220:831–838.CrossRefPubMed Dokmak S, Ftériche FS, Aussilhou B, Bensafta Y, Lévy P, Ruszniewski P, Belghiti J, Sauvanet A. Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy should not be routine for resection of periampullary tumors. J Am Coll Surg. 2015;220:831–838.CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Song KB, Kim SC, Hwang DW, Lee JH, Lee DJ, Lee JW, Park KM, Lee YJ. Matched case-control analysis comparing laparoscopic and open pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy in patients with periampullary tumors. Ann Surg. 2015;262:146–155.CrossRefPubMed Song KB, Kim SC, Hwang DW, Lee JH, Lee DJ, Lee JW, Park KM, Lee YJ. Matched case-control analysis comparing laparoscopic and open pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy in patients with periampullary tumors. Ann Surg. 2015;262:146–155.CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Tran TB, Dua MM, Worhunsky DJ, Poultsides GA, Norton JA, Visser BC. The first decade of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy in the United States: costs and outcomes using the nationwide inpatient sample. Surg Endosc. 2016;30:1778–1783.CrossRefPubMed Tran TB, Dua MM, Worhunsky DJ, Poultsides GA, Norton JA, Visser BC. The first decade of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy in the United States: costs and outcomes using the nationwide inpatient sample. Surg Endosc. 2016;30:1778–1783.CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Adam MA, Choudhury K, Dinan MA, Reed SD, Scheri RP, Blazer DG 3rd, Roman SA, Sosa JA. Minimally invasive versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for cancer: practice patterns and short-term outcomes among 7061 patients. Ann Surg. 2015;262:372–377.CrossRefPubMed Adam MA, Choudhury K, Dinan MA, Reed SD, Scheri RP, Blazer DG 3rd, Roman SA, Sosa JA. Minimally invasive versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for cancer: practice patterns and short-term outcomes among 7061 patients. Ann Surg. 2015;262:372–377.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Croome KP, Farnell MB, Que FG, Reid-Lombardo KM, Truty MJ, Nagorney DM, Kendrick ML. Total laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Ann Surg. 2014;260:633–640.CrossRefPubMed Croome KP, Farnell MB, Que FG, Reid-Lombardo KM, Truty MJ, Nagorney DM, Kendrick ML. Total laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Ann Surg. 2014;260:633–640.CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Sharpe SM, Talamonti MS, Wang CE, Prinz RA, Roggin KK, Bentrem DJ, Winchester DJ, Marsh RD, Stocker SJ, Baker MS. Early national experience with laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for ductal adenocarcinoma: a comparison of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy and open pancreaticoduodenectomy from the National Cancer Data Base. J Am Coll Surg. 2015;221:175–184.CrossRefPubMed Sharpe SM, Talamonti MS, Wang CE, Prinz RA, Roggin KK, Bentrem DJ, Winchester DJ, Marsh RD, Stocker SJ, Baker MS. Early national experience with laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for ductal adenocarcinoma: a comparison of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy and open pancreaticoduodenectomy from the National Cancer Data Base. J Am Coll Surg. 2015;221:175–184.CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Baker EH, Ross SW, Seshadri R, Swan RZ, Iannitti DA, Vrochides D, Martinie JB. Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy: comparison of complications and cost to the open approach. Int J Med Robot. 2016;12:554–560.CrossRefPubMed Baker EH, Ross SW, Seshadri R, Swan RZ, Iannitti DA, Vrochides D, Martinie JB. Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy: comparison of complications and cost to the open approach. Int J Med Robot. 2016;12:554–560.CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Stauffer JA, Coppola A, Villacreses D, Mody K, Johnson E, Li Z, Asbun HJ. Laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma: long-term results at a single institution. Surg Endosc. 2016;31:1–9. Stauffer JA, Coppola A, Villacreses D, Mody K, Johnson E, Li Z, Asbun HJ. Laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma: long-term results at a single institution. Surg Endosc. 2016;31:1–9.
10.
go back to reference Zureikat AH, Postlewait LM, Liu Y, Gillespie TW, Weber SM, Abbott DE, Ahmad, SA, Maithel SK, Hogg ME, Zenati M, Cho CS, Salem A, Xia B, Steve J, Nguyen TK, Keshava HB, Chalikonda S, Walsh RM, Talamonti MS, Stocker SJ, Bentrem DJ, Lumpkin S, Kim HJ, Zeh HJ 3rd, Kooby DA. A multi-institutional comparison of perioperative outcomes of robotic and open pancreaticoduodenectomy. Ann Surg. 2016;264:640–649.CrossRefPubMed Zureikat AH, Postlewait LM, Liu Y, Gillespie TW, Weber SM, Abbott DE, Ahmad, SA, Maithel SK, Hogg ME, Zenati M, Cho CS, Salem A, Xia B, Steve J, Nguyen TK, Keshava HB, Chalikonda S, Walsh RM, Talamonti MS, Stocker SJ, Bentrem DJ, Lumpkin S, Kim HJ, Zeh HJ 3rd, Kooby DA. A multi-institutional comparison of perioperative outcomes of robotic and open pancreaticoduodenectomy. Ann Surg. 2016;264:640–649.CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Tee MC, Croome KP, Shubert CR, Farnell MB, Truty MJ, Que FG, Reid-Lombardo KM, Smoot RL, Nagorney DM, Kendrick ML. Laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy does not completely mitigate increased perioperative risks in elderly patients. HPB (Oxford). 2015;17:909–918.CrossRef Tee MC, Croome KP, Shubert CR, Farnell MB, Truty MJ, Que FG, Reid-Lombardo KM, Smoot RL, Nagorney DM, Kendrick ML. Laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy does not completely mitigate increased perioperative risks in elderly patients. HPB (Oxford). 2015;17:909–918.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference McMillan MT, Zureikat AH, Hogg ME, Kowalsky SJ, Zeh HJ, Sprys MH, Vollmer CM, Jr. A propensity score-matched analysis of robotic vs open pancreatoduodenectomy on incidence of pancreatic fistula. JAMA Surg. 2017;152(4):327–335.CrossRefPubMed McMillan MT, Zureikat AH, Hogg ME, Kowalsky SJ, Zeh HJ, Sprys MH, Vollmer CM, Jr. A propensity score-matched analysis of robotic vs open pancreatoduodenectomy on incidence of pancreatic fistula. JAMA Surg. 2017;152(4):327–335.CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Asbun HJ, Stauffer JA. Laparoscopic vs open pancreaticoduodenectomy: overall outcomes and severity of complications using the Accordion Severity Grading System. J Am Coll Surg. 2012;215:810–819.CrossRefPubMed Asbun HJ, Stauffer JA. Laparoscopic vs open pancreaticoduodenectomy: overall outcomes and severity of complications using the Accordion Severity Grading System. J Am Coll Surg. 2012;215:810–819.CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Nassour I, Wang SC, Christie A, Augustine MM, Porembka MR, Yopp AC, Choti MA, Mansour JC, Xie XJ, Polanco PM, Minter RM. Minimally invasive versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: a propensity-matched study from a national cohort of patients. Ann Surg. 2017. [Epub ahead of print] Nassour I, Wang SC, Christie A, Augustine MM, Porembka MR, Yopp AC, Choti MA, Mansour JC, Xie XJ, Polanco PM, Minter RM. Minimally invasive versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: a propensity-matched study from a national cohort of patients. Ann Surg. 2017. [Epub ahead of print]
15.
go back to reference Zhang H, Wu X, Zhu F, Shen M, Tian R, Shi C, Wang X, Xiao G, Guo X, Wang M, Qin R. Systematic review and meta-analysis of minimally invasive versus open approach for pancreaticoduodenectomy. Surg Endosc. 2016;30:5173–5184.CrossRefPubMed Zhang H, Wu X, Zhu F, Shen M, Tian R, Shi C, Wang X, Xiao G, Guo X, Wang M, Qin R. Systematic review and meta-analysis of minimally invasive versus open approach for pancreaticoduodenectomy. Surg Endosc. 2016;30:5173–5184.CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Wang M, Cai H, Meng L, Cai Y, Wang X, Li Y, Peng B. Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy: a comprehensive review. Int J Surg. 2016;35:139–146.CrossRefPubMed Wang M, Cai H, Meng L, Cai Y, Wang X, Li Y, Peng B. Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy: a comprehensive review. Int J Surg. 2016;35:139–146.CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Doula C, Kostakis ID, Damaskos C, Machairas N, Vardakostas DV, Feretis T, Felekouras E. Comparison between minimally invasive and open pancreaticoduodenectomy: a systematic review. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2016;26:6–16.CrossRefPubMed Doula C, Kostakis ID, Damaskos C, Machairas N, Vardakostas DV, Feretis T, Felekouras E. Comparison between minimally invasive and open pancreaticoduodenectomy: a systematic review. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2016;26:6–16.CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Correa-Gallego C, Dinkelspiel HE, Sulimanoff I, Fisher S, Viñuela EF, Kingham, TP, Fong Y, DeMatteo RP, D'Angelica MI, Jarnagin WR, Allen PJ. Minimally-invasive vs open pancreaticoduodenectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Coll Surg. 2014;218:129–139.CrossRefPubMed Correa-Gallego C, Dinkelspiel HE, Sulimanoff I, Fisher S, Viñuela EF, Kingham, TP, Fong Y, DeMatteo RP, D'Angelica MI, Jarnagin WR, Allen PJ. Minimally-invasive vs open pancreaticoduodenectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Coll Surg. 2014;218:129–139.CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Liu R, Zhang T, Zhao ZM, Tan XL, Zhao GD, Zhang X, Xu Y. The surgical outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy versus laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary neoplasms: a comparative study of a single center. Surg Endosc. 2017;31:2380–2386.CrossRefPubMed Liu R, Zhang T, Zhao ZM, Tan XL, Zhao GD, Zhang X, Xu Y. The surgical outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy versus laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary neoplasms: a comparative study of a single center. Surg Endosc. 2017;31:2380–2386.CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Wright GP, Zureikat AH. Development of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery: an evidence-based systematic review of laparoscopic versus robotic approaches. J Gastrointest Surg. 2016;20:1658–1665.CrossRefPubMed Wright GP, Zureikat AH. Development of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery: an evidence-based systematic review of laparoscopic versus robotic approaches. J Gastrointest Surg. 2016;20:1658–1665.CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference Leow JJ, Heah NH, Chang SL, Chong YL, Png KS. Outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: an updated meta-analysis of 4,919 Patients. J Urol. 2016;196:1371–1377.CrossRefPubMed Leow JJ, Heah NH, Chang SL, Chong YL, Png KS. Outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: an updated meta-analysis of 4,919 Patients. J Urol. 2016;196:1371–1377.CrossRefPubMed
23.
go back to reference Xie W, Cao D, Yang J, Shen K, Zhao L. Robot-assisted surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for endometrial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2016;142:2173–2183.CrossRefPubMed Xie W, Cao D, Yang J, Shen K, Zhao L. Robot-assisted surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for endometrial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2016;142:2173–2183.CrossRefPubMed
24.
go back to reference Kim CW, Kim CH, Baik SH. Outcomes of robotic-assisted colorectal surgery compared with laparoscopic and open surgery: a systematic review. J Gastrointest Surg. 2014;18:816–830.CrossRefPubMed Kim CW, Kim CH, Baik SH. Outcomes of robotic-assisted colorectal surgery compared with laparoscopic and open surgery: a systematic review. J Gastrointest Surg. 2014;18:816–830.CrossRefPubMed
25.
go back to reference Park JM, Kim HI, Han SU, Yang HK, Kim YW, Lee HJ, An JY, Kim MC, Park S, Song KY, Oh SJ, Kong SH, Suh BJ, Yang DH, Ha TK, Hyung WJ, Ryu KW. Who may benefit from robotic gastrectomy? A subgroup analysis of multicenter prospective comparative study data on robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2016;42:1944–1949.CrossRefPubMed Park JM, Kim HI, Han SU, Yang HK, Kim YW, Lee HJ, An JY, Kim MC, Park S, Song KY, Oh SJ, Kong SH, Suh BJ, Yang DH, Ha TK, Hyung WJ, Ryu KW. Who may benefit from robotic gastrectomy? A subgroup analysis of multicenter prospective comparative study data on robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2016;42:1944–1949.CrossRefPubMed
26.
go back to reference Daouadi M, Zureikat AH, Zenati MS, Choudry H, Tsung A, Bartlett DL, Hughes SJ, Lee KK, Moser AJ, Zeh HJ. Robot-assisted minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy is superior to the laparoscopic technique. Ann Surg. 2013;257:128–132.CrossRefPubMed Daouadi M, Zureikat AH, Zenati MS, Choudry H, Tsung A, Bartlett DL, Hughes SJ, Lee KK, Moser AJ, Zeh HJ. Robot-assisted minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy is superior to the laparoscopic technique. Ann Surg. 2013;257:128–132.CrossRefPubMed
27.
go back to reference Zureikat AH, Borrebach J, Pitt HA, Mcgill D, Hogg ME, Thompson V, Bentrem DJ, Hall BL, Zeh HJ. Minimally invasive hepatopancreatobiliary surgery in North America: an ACS-NSQIP analysis of predictors of conversion for laparoscopic and robotic pancreatectomy and hepatectomy. HPB (Oxford). 2017;19(7):595–602.CrossRefPubMed Zureikat AH, Borrebach J, Pitt HA, Mcgill D, Hogg ME, Thompson V, Bentrem DJ, Hall BL, Zeh HJ. Minimally invasive hepatopancreatobiliary surgery in North America: an ACS-NSQIP analysis of predictors of conversion for laparoscopic and robotic pancreatectomy and hepatectomy. HPB (Oxford). 2017;19(7):595–602.CrossRefPubMed
28.
go back to reference Sippey M, Grzybowski M, Manwaring ML, Kasten KR, Chapman WH, Pofahl WE, Pories WJ, Spaniolas K. Acute cholecystitis: risk factors for conversion to an open procedure. J Surg Res. 2015;199:357–361.CrossRefPubMed Sippey M, Grzybowski M, Manwaring ML, Kasten KR, Chapman WH, Pofahl WE, Pories WJ, Spaniolas K. Acute cholecystitis: risk factors for conversion to an open procedure. J Surg Res. 2015;199:357–361.CrossRefPubMed
29.
go back to reference Bhama AR, Charlton ME, Schmitt MB, Cromwell JW, Byrn JC. Factors associated with conversion from laparoscopic to open colectomy using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database. Colorectal Dis. 2015;17:257–264.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Bhama AR, Charlton ME, Schmitt MB, Cromwell JW, Byrn JC. Factors associated with conversion from laparoscopic to open colectomy using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database. Colorectal Dis. 2015;17:257–264.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
30.
go back to reference Boone BA, Zenati M, Hogg ME, Steve J, Moser AJ, Bartlett DL, Zeh HJ, Zureikat AH. Assessment of quality outcomes for robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy: identification of the learning curve. JAMA Surg. 2015;150:416–422.CrossRefPubMed Boone BA, Zenati M, Hogg ME, Steve J, Moser AJ, Bartlett DL, Zeh HJ, Zureikat AH. Assessment of quality outcomes for robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy: identification of the learning curve. JAMA Surg. 2015;150:416–422.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy: a NSQIP Analysis
Authors
Ibrahim Nassour
Sam C. Wang
Matthew R. Porembka
Adam C. Yopp
Michael A. Choti
Mathew M. Augustine
Patricio M. Polanco
John C. Mansour
Rebecca M. Minter
Publication date
01-11-2017
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery / Issue 11/2017
Print ISSN: 1091-255X
Electronic ISSN: 1873-4626
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-017-3543-6

Other articles of this Issue 11/2017

Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery 11/2017 Go to the issue