Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology 6/2013

01-06-2013 | Healthcare Policy and Outcomes

Robotic versus Open Pancreatectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Authors: Jie Zhang, MD, Wen-Ming Wu, MD, Lei You, MD, Yu-Pei Zhao, MD

Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology | Issue 6/2013

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Robotic surgery is gaining momentum with advantages for minimally invasive management of pancreatic diseases. The objective of this meta-analysis is to compare the clinical and oncologic safety and efficacy of robotic versus open pancreatectomy.

Methods

A systematic review of the literature was performed to identify studies comparing robotic pancreatectomy and open pancreatectomy. Postoperative outcomes, intraoperative outcomes, and oncologic safety were evaluated. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effect model.

Results

Seven studies matched the selection criteria, including 137 (40 %) cases of robotic pancreatectomy and 203 (60 %) cases of open pancreatectomy. None of the included studies were randomized. Overall complication rate was significantly lower in robotic group [risk difference (RD) = −0.12, 95 % confidence interval (CI) −0.22 to −0.01, P = 0.03], as well as reoperation rate (RD = −0.12; CI −0.2 to −0.03, P = 0.006) and margin positivity (RD = −0.18; 95 % CI −0.3 to −0.06, P = 0.003). There was no significant difference in postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) incidence and mortality. The median (range) conversion rate was 10 % (0–12 %).

Conclusions

The results of this meta-analysis suggest that robotic pancreatectomy is as safe and efficient as, if not superior to, open surgery for patients with benign or malignant pancreatic diseases. However, the evidence is limited and more randomized controlled trials are needed to further clearly define this role.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Jusoh AC, Ammori BJ. Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy: a systematic review of comparative studies. Surg Endosc. 2012;26:904–13.PubMedCrossRef Jusoh AC, Ammori BJ. Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy: a systematic review of comparative studies. Surg Endosc. 2012;26:904–13.PubMedCrossRef
2.
go back to reference Scott DJ, Young WN, Tesfay ST, Frawley WH, Rege RV, Jones DB. Laparoscopic skills training. Am J Surg. 2001;182:137–42.PubMedCrossRef Scott DJ, Young WN, Tesfay ST, Frawley WH, Rege RV, Jones DB. Laparoscopic skills training. Am J Surg. 2001;182:137–42.PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Smith CD, Farrell TM, McNatt SS, Metreveli RE. Assessing laparoscopic manipulative skills. Am J Surg. 2001;181:547–50.PubMedCrossRef Smith CD, Farrell TM, McNatt SS, Metreveli RE. Assessing laparoscopic manipulative skills. Am J Surg. 2001;181:547–50.PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Melvin WS, Needleman BJ, Krause KR, Ellison EC. Robotic resection of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2003;13:33–36.PubMedCrossRef Melvin WS, Needleman BJ, Krause KR, Ellison EC. Robotic resection of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2003;13:33–36.PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Ballantyne GH. Telerobotic gastrointestinal surgery: phase 2—safety and efficacy. Surg Endosc. 2007;21:1054–62.PubMedCrossRef Ballantyne GH. Telerobotic gastrointestinal surgery: phase 2—safety and efficacy. Surg Endosc. 2007;21:1054–62.PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Talamini MA, Chapman S, Horgan S, Melvin WS, Academic Robotics G. A prospective analysis of 211 robotic-assisted surgical procedures. Surg Endosc. 2003;17:1521–24.PubMedCrossRef Talamini MA, Chapman S, Horgan S, Melvin WS, Academic Robotics G. A prospective analysis of 211 robotic-assisted surgical procedures. Surg Endosc. 2003;17:1521–24.PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Kang CM, Choi SH, Hwang HK, Lee WJ, Chi HS. Minimally invasive (laparoscopic and robot-assisted) approach for solid pseudopapillary tumor of the distal pancreas: a single-center experience. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2011;18:87–93.PubMedCrossRef Kang CM, Choi SH, Hwang HK, Lee WJ, Chi HS. Minimally invasive (laparoscopic and robot-assisted) approach for solid pseudopapillary tumor of the distal pancreas: a single-center experience. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2011;18:87–93.PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Zhou NX, Chen JZ, Liu Q, et al. Outcomes of pancreatoduodenectomy with robotic surgery versus open surgery. Int J Med Robot. 2011;7:131–7.PubMedCrossRef Zhou NX, Chen JZ, Liu Q, et al. Outcomes of pancreatoduodenectomy with robotic surgery versus open surgery. Int J Med Robot. 2011;7:131–7.PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Buchs NC, Addeo P, Bianco FM, Ayloo S, Benedetti E, Giulianotti PC. Robotic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: a comparative study at a single institution. World J Surg. 2011;35:2739–46.PubMedCrossRef Buchs NC, Addeo P, Bianco FM, Ayloo S, Benedetti E, Giulianotti PC. Robotic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: a comparative study at a single institution. World J Surg. 2011;35:2739–46.PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Memon S, Heriot AG, Murphy DG, Bressel M, Lynch AC. Robotic versus laparoscopic proctectomy for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19:2095–101.PubMedCrossRef Memon S, Heriot AG, Murphy DG, Bressel M, Lynch AC. Robotic versus laparoscopic proctectomy for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19:2095–101.PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Zeh HJ, Zureikat AH, Secrest A, Dauoudi M, Bartlett D, Moser AJ. Outcomes after robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary lesions. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19:864–70.PubMedCrossRef Zeh HJ, Zureikat AH, Secrest A, Dauoudi M, Bartlett D, Moser AJ. Outcomes after robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary lesions. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19:864–70.PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Chan OCY, Tang CN, Lai ECH, Yang GPC, Li MKW. Robotic hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery: a cohort study. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2011;18:471–80.PubMedCrossRef Chan OCY, Tang CN, Lai ECH, Yang GPC, Li MKW. Robotic hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery: a cohort study. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2011;18:471–80.PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Kang CM, Kim DH, Lee WJ, Chi HS. Initial experiences using robot-assisted central pancreatectomy with pancreaticogastrostomy: a potential way to advanced laparoscopic pancreatectomy. Surg Endosc. 2011;25:1101-6.PubMedCrossRef Kang CM, Kim DH, Lee WJ, Chi HS. Initial experiences using robot-assisted central pancreatectomy with pancreaticogastrostomy: a potential way to advanced laparoscopic pancreatectomy. Surg Endosc. 2011;25:1101-6.PubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Hammill C, Cassera M, Swanstrom L, Hansen P. Robotic assistance may provide the technical capability to perform a safe, minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy. HPB. 2010;12:198. Hammill C, Cassera M, Swanstrom L, Hansen P. Robotic assistance may provide the technical capability to perform a safe, minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy. HPB. 2010;12:198.
15.
go back to reference Walsh M, Chalikonda S, Saavedra JRA, Lentz G, Fung J. Laparoscopic robotic assisted Whipple: early results of a novel technique and comparison with the standard open procedure. Surg Endosc. 2011;25:S221.CrossRef Walsh M, Chalikonda S, Saavedra JRA, Lentz G, Fung J. Laparoscopic robotic assisted Whipple: early results of a novel technique and comparison with the standard open procedure. Surg Endosc. 2011;25:S221.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Waters JA, Canal DF, Wiebke EA, et al. Robotic distal pancreatectomy: cost effective? Surgery. 2010;148:814–23.PubMedCrossRef Waters JA, Canal DF, Wiebke EA, et al. Robotic distal pancreatectomy: cost effective? Surgery. 2010;148:814–23.PubMedCrossRef
17.
go back to reference Chalikonda S, Aguilar-Saavedra JR, Walsh RM. Laparoscopic robotic-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy: a case-matched comparison with open resection. Surg Endosc. 2012;26:2397–402. Chalikonda S, Aguilar-Saavedra JR, Walsh RM. Laparoscopic robotic-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy: a case-matched comparison with open resection. Surg Endosc. 2012;26:2397–402.
18.
go back to reference Suc B, Msika S, Fingerhut A, et al. Temporary fibrin glue occlusion of the main pancreatic duct in the prevention of intra-abdominal complications after pancreatic resection: prospective randomized trial. Ann Surg. 2003;237:57–65.PubMedCrossRef Suc B, Msika S, Fingerhut A, et al. Temporary fibrin glue occlusion of the main pancreatic duct in the prevention of intra-abdominal complications after pancreatic resection: prospective randomized trial. Ann Surg. 2003;237:57–65.PubMedCrossRef
19.
go back to reference Bassi C, Dervenis C, Butturini G, et al. Postoperative pancreatic fistula: an international study group (ISGPF) definition. Surgery. 2005;138:8–13.PubMedCrossRef Bassi C, Dervenis C, Butturini G, et al. Postoperative pancreatic fistula: an international study group (ISGPF) definition. Surgery. 2005;138:8–13.PubMedCrossRef
20.
go back to reference Kang CM, Kim DH, Lee WJ, Chi HS. Initial experiences using robot-assisted central pancreatectomy with pancreaticogastrostomy: a potential way to advanced laparoscopic pancreatectomy. Surg Endosc. 2011;25:1101–6.PubMedCrossRef Kang CM, Kim DH, Lee WJ, Chi HS. Initial experiences using robot-assisted central pancreatectomy with pancreaticogastrostomy: a potential way to advanced laparoscopic pancreatectomy. Surg Endosc. 2011;25:1101–6.PubMedCrossRef
21.
go back to reference Schmidt CM, Turrini O, Parikh P, et al. Effect of hospital volume, surgeon experience, and surgeon volume on patient outcomes after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a single-institution experience. Arch Surg. 2010;145:634–40.PubMedCrossRef Schmidt CM, Turrini O, Parikh P, et al. Effect of hospital volume, surgeon experience, and surgeon volume on patient outcomes after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a single-institution experience. Arch Surg. 2010;145:634–40.PubMedCrossRef
22.
go back to reference D’Annibale A, Orsini C, Morpurgo E, Sovernigo G. Robotic surgery: considerations after 250 procedures. Chir Ital. 2006;58:5–14.PubMed D’Annibale A, Orsini C, Morpurgo E, Sovernigo G. Robotic surgery: considerations after 250 procedures. Chir Ital. 2006;58:5–14.PubMed
23.
go back to reference Longnecker MP. Re: “Point/counterpoint: meta-analysis of observational studies”. Am J Epidemiol 1995;142:779–82.PubMed Longnecker MP. Re: “Point/counterpoint: meta-analysis of observational studies”. Am J Epidemiol 1995;142:779–82.PubMed
24.
go back to reference Abraham NS, Byrne CJ, Young JM, Solomon MJ. Meta-analysis of well-designed nonrandomized comparative studies of surgical procedures is as good as randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:238–45.PubMedCrossRef Abraham NS, Byrne CJ, Young JM, Solomon MJ. Meta-analysis of well-designed nonrandomized comparative studies of surgical procedures is as good as randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:238–45.PubMedCrossRef
25.
go back to reference Abulkhir A, Limongelli P, Healey AJ, et al. Preoperative portal vein embolization for major liver resection: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg. 2008;247:49–57.PubMedCrossRef Abulkhir A, Limongelli P, Healey AJ, et al. Preoperative portal vein embolization for major liver resection: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg. 2008;247:49–57.PubMedCrossRef
26.
go back to reference Brunaud L, Ayav A, Zarnegar R, et al. Prospective evaluation of 100 robotic-assisted unilateral adrenalectomies. Surgery. 2008;144:995–1001; discussion 1001. Brunaud L, Ayav A, Zarnegar R, et al. Prospective evaluation of 100 robotic-assisted unilateral adrenalectomies. Surgery. 2008;144:995–1001; discussion 1001.
Metadata
Title
Robotic versus Open Pancreatectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Authors
Jie Zhang, MD
Wen-Ming Wu, MD
Lei You, MD
Yu-Pei Zhao, MD
Publication date
01-06-2013
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Annals of Surgical Oncology / Issue 6/2013
Print ISSN: 1068-9265
Electronic ISSN: 1534-4681
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-012-2823-3

Other articles of this Issue 6/2013

Annals of Surgical Oncology 6/2013 Go to the issue