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
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Annals of Surgical Oncology
Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology 3/2012

01-03-2012 | Pancreatic Tumors

Outcomes After Robot-Assisted Pancreaticoduodenectomy for Periampullary Lesions

Authors: Herbert J. Zeh, MD, Amer H. Zureikat, MD, Aaron Secrest, BS, Mustapha Dauoudi, MD, David Bartlett, MD, A. James Moser, MD

Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology | Issue 3/2012

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

There are many theoretical advantages that a minimally invasive approach to the pancreaticoduodenectomy might offer patients with benign and malignant disease of the head of the pancreas over traditional open techniques, including improved recovery time, decreased hospital stay, and earlier initiation of and higher rate of completion of adjuvant therapy. The goal of this study was to assess the oncologic and safety outcomes after a robot-assisted approach to pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Methods

Retrospective review of a prospectively acquired database of robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (RAPD) for periampullary lesions between October 2008 and December 2010.

Results

Fifty patients underwent attempted RAPD. Conversion to open procedure was required in eight patients (16%). At intention-to-treat analysis, pancreatic fistula as defined by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery occurred in 10 patients (20%). Most patients experienced either no (21, 42%) postoperative complications or minor Clavien I/II events (13, 26%). Major morbidity (Clavien III/IV) occurred in 15 patients (30%). The margin-negative resection rate was 89%, and the median number of lymph nodes collected was 18. Fifteen patients met the eligibility criteria for adjuvant chemotherapy after surgery. Eleven (73.3%) of 15 eligible patients were treated with adjuvant therapy at a mean of 11.5 weeks after surgery.

Conclusions

RAPD can be performed with safety and oncologic outcomes comparable to open or laparoscopic approaches. Results of this early series suggest that the robot-assisted approach holds promise. Larger, more mature multi-institutional cohorts will be needed to explore potential benefits over open and laparoscopic techniques.
Literature
1.
Nguyen KT, Zureikat AH, Chalikonda S, Bartlett DL, Moser AJ, Zeh HJ. Technical aspects of robotic-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (RAPD). J Gastrointest Surg. 2011;15:870–5.PubMedCrossRef
2.
Zureikat AH, Nguyen KT, Bartlett DL, Zeh HJ, Moser AJ. Robotic-assisted major pancreatic resection and reconstruction. Arch Surg. 2011;146:256–61.PubMedCrossRef
3.
Bao P, Potter D, Eisenber DP, et al. Validation of a prediction rule to maximize curative (R0) resection of early-stage pancreatic adenocarcinoma. HPB (Oxford). 2009;11:606–11.CrossRef
4.
Shukla PJ, Barreto SG, Fingerhut A, et al. Toward improving uniformity and standardization in the reporting of pancreatic anastomoses: a new classification system by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS). Surgery. 2009;147:144–53.PubMedCrossRef
5.
Bassi C, Dervenis C, Butturini G, et al. Postoperative pancreatic fistula: an International Study Group (ISGPF) definition. Surgery. 2005;138:8–13.PubMedCrossRef
6.
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240:205–13.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Wente MN, Veit JA, Bassi C, et al. Postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH): an International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) definition. Surgery. 2007;142:20–5.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Wente MN, Bassi C, Dervenis C, et al. Delayed gastric emptying (DGE) after pancreatic surgery: a suggested definition by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS). Surgery. 2007;142:761–8.PubMedCrossRef
9.
Gagner M, Pomp A. Laparoscopic pylorus-preserving pancreatoduodenectomy. Surg Endosc. 1994;8:408–10.PubMedCrossRef
10.
Kendrick ML, Cusati D. Total laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: feasibility and outcome in an early experience. Arch Surg. 2010;145:19–23.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Palanivelu C, Rajan PS, Rangarajan M, et al. Evolution in techniques of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a decade long experience from a tertiary center. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg. 2009;16:731–40.PubMedCrossRef
12.
Winter JM, Cameron JL, Campbell KA, et al. 1423 pancreaticoduodenectomies for pancreatic cancer: a single-institution experience. J Gastrointest Surg. 2006;10:1199–210.PubMedCrossRef
13.
Giulianotti PC, Sbrana F, Bianco FM, et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreatic surgery: single-surgeon experience. Surg Endosc. 2010;24:1646–57.PubMedCrossRef
14.
Yekebas EF, Wolfram L, Cataldegirmen G, et al. Postpancreatectomy hemorrhage: diagnosis and treatment: an analysis in 1669 consecutive pancreatic resections. Ann Surg. 2007;246:269–80.PubMedCrossRef
15.
Fujii Y, Shimada H, Endo I, et al. Management of massive arterial hemorrhage after pancreatobiliary surgery: does embolotherapy contribute to successful outcome? J Gastrointest Surg. 2007;11:432–8.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Reber PU, Baer HU, Patel AG, Triller J, Buchler MW. Life-threatening upper gastrointestinal tract bleeding caused by ruptured extrahepatic pseudoaneurysm after pancreatoduodenectomy. Surgery. 1998;124:114–5.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Narula VK, Mikami DJ, Melvin WS. Robotic and laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a hybrid approach. Pancreas. 2010;39:160–4.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Anderson C, Uman G, Pigazzi A. Oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2008;34:1135–42.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Shuang J, Qi S, Zheng J, et al. A case-control study of laparoscopy-assisted and open distal gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer. J Gastrointest Surg. 2011;15:57–62.PubMedCrossRef
20.
Huscher CG, Mingoli A, Sgarzini G, et al. Laparoscopic versus open subtotal gastrectomy for distal gastric cancer: five-year results of a randomized prospective trial. Ann Surg. 2005;241:232–7.PubMedCrossRef
21.
Riall TS, Cameron JL, Lillemoe KD, et al. Yeo. Pancreaticoduodenectomy with or without distal gastrectomy and extended retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy for periampullary adenocarcinoma—part 3: update on 5-year survival. J Gastrointest Surg. 2005;9:1191–204.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Michalski CW, Kleeff J, Wente MN, Diener MK, Buchler MW, Friess H. Systematic review and meta-analysis of standard and extended lymphadenectomy in pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer. Br J Surg. 2007;94:265–73.PubMedCrossRef
23.
Slidell MB, Chang DC, Cameron JL, et al. Impact of total lymph node count and lymph node ratio on staging and survival after pancreatectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a large, population-based analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2008;15:165–74.PubMedCrossRef
24.
House MG, Gonen M, Jarnagin WR, et al. Prognostic significance of pathologic nodal status in patients with resected pancreatic cancer. J Gastrointest Surg. 2007;11:1549–55.PubMedCrossRef
25.
Simons JP, Ng SC, McDade TP, Zhou Z, Earle CC, Tseng JF. Progress for resectable pancreatic cancer? A population-based assessment of U.S. practices. Cancer. 2010;116:1681–90.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Outcomes After Robot-Assisted Pancreaticoduodenectomy for Periampullary Lesions
Authors
Herbert J. Zeh, MD
Amer H. Zureikat, MD
Aaron Secrest, BS
Mustapha Dauoudi, MD
David Bartlett, MD
A. James Moser, MD
Publication date
01-03-2012
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Annals of Surgical Oncology / Issue 3/2012
Print ISSN: 1068-9265
Electronic ISSN: 1534-4681
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-011-2045-0

Other articles of this Issue 3/2012

Annals of Surgical Oncology 3/2012 Go to the issue

Breast Oncology

Lobular In-Situ Neoplasia on Breast Core Needle Biopsy: Imaging Indication and Pathologic Extent Can Identify Which Patients Require Excisional Biopsy

Breast Oncology

Evaluation of the MD Anderson Prognostic Index for Local-Regional Recurrence After Breast Conserving Therapy in Patients Receiving Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy

Healthcare Policy and Outcomes

Oncology Health Information Quality on the Internet: a Multilingual Evaluation

Head and Neck Oncology

Feasibility of Robot-Assisted Neck Dissections via a Transaxillary and Retroauricular (“TARA”) Approach in Head and Neck Cancer: Preliminary Results

Melanomas

The Additional Value of Lymphatic Mapping with Routine SPECT/CT in Unselected Patients with Clinically Localized Melanoma

Healthcare Policy and Outcomes

Race and Health Disparities in Patient Refusal of Surgery for Early-Stage Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A SEER Cohort Study