Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Surgical Endoscopy 7/2021

Open Access 01-07-2021 | Pancreatoduodenostomy

Oncological outcomes of robotic-assisted versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a propensity score-matched analysis

Authors: Yuanchi Weng, Yu Jiang, Ningzhen Fu, Jiabin Jin, Yusheng Shi, Zhen Huo, Xiaxing Deng, Chenghong Peng, Baiyong Shen

Published in: Surgical Endoscopy | Issue 7/2021

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Robotic-assisted minimally invasive surgery is associated with worse oncologic outcomes for some but not other types of cancers. We conducted a propensity score-matched analysis to compare oncologic outcomes of robotic-assisted laparoscopic (RPD) vs. open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).

Methods

Treatment-naïve PDAC patients undergoing either RPD or OPD at our hospital between January 2013 and December 2017 were included. Propensity score matching was conducted at a ratio of 1:2. The primary outcome was disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS).

Results

A total of 672 cases were identified. The propensity score-matched cohort included 105 patients receiving RPD and 210 patients receiving OPD. The 2 groups did not differ in the number of retrieved lymph nodes [11 (7–16) vs. 11 (6–17), P = 0.622] and R0 resection rate (88.6% vs. 89.0%, P = 0.899). There was no statistically significant difference in median DFS (14 [95% CI 11–22] vs. 12 [95% CI 10–14] months (HR 0.94; 95% CI 0.87–1.50; log-rank P = 0.345) and median OS (27 [95% CI 22–35] vs. 20 [95% CI 18–24] months (HR 0.77; 95% CI 0.57–1.04; log-rank P = 0.087) between the two groups. Multivariate COX analysis showed that RPD was not an independent predictor of DFS (HR 0.90; 95% CI 0.68–1.19, P = 0.456) or OS (HR 0.77; 95% CI 0.57–1.05, P = 0.094).

Conclusion

Comparable DFS and OS were observed between patients receiving RPD and OPD. This preliminary finding requires further confirmation with prospective randomized controlled trials.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Wente MN, Veit JA, Bassi C et al (2007) Postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH): an International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) definition. Surgery 142:20–25CrossRef Wente MN, Veit JA, Bassi C et al (2007) Postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH): an International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) definition. Surgery 142:20–25CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Wente MN, Bassi C, Dervenis C et al (2007) Delayed gastric emptying (DGE) after pancreatic surgery: a suggested definition by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS). Surgery 142:761–768CrossRef Wente MN, Bassi C, Dervenis C et al (2007) Delayed gastric emptying (DGE) after pancreatic surgery: a suggested definition by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS). Surgery 142:761–768CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Bassi C, Marchegiani G, Dervenis C et al (2017) The 2016 update of the International Study Group (ISGPS) definition and grading of postoperative pancreatic fistula: 11 years after. Surgery 161:584–591CrossRef Bassi C, Marchegiani G, Dervenis C et al (2017) The 2016 update of the International Study Group (ISGPS) definition and grading of postoperative pancreatic fistula: 11 years after. Surgery 161:584–591CrossRef
4.
go back to reference McMillan MT, Zureikat AH, Hogg ME et al (2017) A propensity score-matched analysis of robotic vs open pancreatoduodenectomy on incidence of pancreatic fistula. JAMA Surg 152:327–335CrossRef McMillan MT, Zureikat AH, Hogg ME et al (2017) A propensity score-matched analysis of robotic vs open pancreatoduodenectomy on incidence of pancreatic fistula. JAMA Surg 152:327–335CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Cuschieri A (1994) Laparoscopic surgery of the pancreas. J R Coll Surg Edinb 39:178–184PubMed Cuschieri A (1994) Laparoscopic surgery of the pancreas. J R Coll Surg Edinb 39:178–184PubMed
6.
go back to reference Giulianotti PC, Coratti A, Angelini M et al (2003) Robotics in general surgery: personal experience in a large community hospital. Arch Surg 138:777–784CrossRef Giulianotti PC, Coratti A, Angelini M et al (2003) Robotics in general surgery: personal experience in a large community hospital. Arch Surg 138:777–784CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Wang SE, Shyr BU, Chen SC et al (2018) Comparison between robotic and open pancreaticoduodenectomy with modified Blumgart pancreaticojejunostomy: a propensity score-matched study. Surgery 164:1162–1167CrossRef Wang SE, Shyr BU, Chen SC et al (2018) Comparison between robotic and open pancreaticoduodenectomy with modified Blumgart pancreaticojejunostomy: a propensity score-matched study. Surgery 164:1162–1167CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Correa-Gallego C, Dinkelspiel HE, Sulimanoff I et al (2014) Minimally-invasive vs open pancreaticoduodenectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Coll Surg 218:129–139CrossRef Correa-Gallego C, Dinkelspiel HE, Sulimanoff I et al (2014) Minimally-invasive vs open pancreaticoduodenectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Coll Surg 218:129–139CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Kim HS, Han Y, Kang JS et al (2018) Comparison of surgical outcomes between open and robot-assisted minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 25:142–149CrossRef Kim HS, Han Y, Kang JS et al (2018) Comparison of surgical outcomes between open and robot-assisted minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 25:142–149CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Liu R, Zhang T, Zhao ZM et al (2017) The surgical outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy versus laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary neoplasms: a comparative study of a single center. Surg Endosc. 31:2380–2386CrossRef Liu R, Zhang T, Zhao ZM et al (2017) The surgical outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy versus laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary neoplasms: a comparative study of a single center. Surg Endosc. 31:2380–2386CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Klompmaker S, van Hilst J, Wellner UF et al (2018) Outcomes after minimally-invasive versus open pancreatoduodenectomy: a pan-European propensity score matched study. Ann Surg. 271:356CrossRef Klompmaker S, van Hilst J, Wellner UF et al (2018) Outcomes after minimally-invasive versus open pancreatoduodenectomy: a pan-European propensity score matched study. Ann Surg. 271:356CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Zureikat AH, Postlewait LM, Liu Y et al (2016) A multi-institutional comparison of perioperative outcomes of robotic and open pancreaticoduodenectomy. Ann Surg 264:640–649CrossRef Zureikat AH, Postlewait LM, Liu Y et al (2016) A multi-institutional comparison of perioperative outcomes of robotic and open pancreaticoduodenectomy. Ann Surg 264:640–649CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Pedziwiatr M, Malczak P, Pisarska M et al (2017) Minimally invasive versus open pancreatoduodenectomy-systematic review and meta-analysis. Langenbecks Arch Surg 402:841–851CrossRef Pedziwiatr M, Malczak P, Pisarska M et al (2017) Minimally invasive versus open pancreatoduodenectomy-systematic review and meta-analysis. Langenbecks Arch Surg 402:841–851CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Nassour I, Choti MA, Porembka MR et al (2018) Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: oncological outcomes. Surg Endosc 32:2907–2913CrossRef Nassour I, Choti MA, Porembka MR et al (2018) Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: oncological outcomes. Surg Endosc 32:2907–2913CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Guerra F, Checcacci P, Vegni A et al (2019) Surgical and oncological outcomes of our first 59 cases of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. J Visc Surg 156:185–190CrossRef Guerra F, Checcacci P, Vegni A et al (2019) Surgical and oncological outcomes of our first 59 cases of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. J Visc Surg 156:185–190CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Coratti A, Di Marino M, Coratti F et al (2016) Initial experience with robotic pancreatic surgery: technical feasibility and oncological implications. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 26:31–37CrossRef Coratti A, Di Marino M, Coratti F et al (2016) Initial experience with robotic pancreatic surgery: technical feasibility and oncological implications. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 26:31–37CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Bencini L, Annecchiarico M, Farsi M et al (2015) Minimally invasive surgical approach to pancreatic malignancies. World J Gastrointest Oncol 7:411–421CrossRef Bencini L, Annecchiarico M, Farsi M et al (2015) Minimally invasive surgical approach to pancreatic malignancies. World J Gastrointest Oncol 7:411–421CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Austin PC (2014) The use of propensity score methods with survival or time-to-event outcomes: reporting measures of effect similar to those used in randomized experiments. Stat Med 33:1242–1258CrossRef Austin PC (2014) The use of propensity score methods with survival or time-to-event outcomes: reporting measures of effect similar to those used in randomized experiments. Stat Med 33:1242–1258CrossRef
19.
go back to reference von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M et al (2007) The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet 370:1453–1457CrossRef von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M et al (2007) The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet 370:1453–1457CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Boone BA, Zenati M, Hogg ME et al (2015) Assessment of quality outcomes for robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy: identification of the learning curve. JAMA Surg 150:416–422CrossRef Boone BA, Zenati M, Hogg ME et al (2015) Assessment of quality outcomes for robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy: identification of the learning curve. JAMA Surg 150:416–422CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Tempero MA (2019) NCCN guidelines updates: pancreatic cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 17:603–605PubMed Tempero MA (2019) NCCN guidelines updates: pancreatic cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 17:603–605PubMed
22.
go back to reference Amin MB, Greene FL, Edge SB et al (2017) The Eighth Edition JCC Cancer Staging Manual: Continuing to build a bridge from a population-based to a more "personalized" approach to cancer staging. CA Cancer J Clin 67:93–99CrossRef Amin MB, Greene FL, Edge SB et al (2017) The Eighth Edition JCC Cancer Staging Manual: Continuing to build a bridge from a population-based to a more "personalized" approach to cancer staging. CA Cancer J Clin 67:93–99CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Chen S, Chen JZ, Zhan Q et al (2015) Robot-assisted laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: a prospective, matched, mid-term follow-up study. Surg Endosc 29:3698–3711CrossRef Chen S, Chen JZ, Zhan Q et al (2015) Robot-assisted laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: a prospective, matched, mid-term follow-up study. Surg Endosc 29:3698–3711CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Kuza CM, Hatzakis G, Nahmias JT (2017) The assignment of American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification for adult polytrauma patients: results from a survey and future considerations. Anesth Analg 125:1960–1966CrossRef Kuza CM, Hatzakis G, Nahmias JT (2017) The assignment of American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification for adult polytrauma patients: results from a survey and future considerations. Anesth Analg 125:1960–1966CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Sawyer RG, Claridge JA, Nathens AB et al (2015) Trial of short-course antimicrobial therapy for intraabdominal infection. N Engl J Med. 372:1996–2005CrossRef Sawyer RG, Claridge JA, Nathens AB et al (2015) Trial of short-course antimicrobial therapy for intraabdominal infection. N Engl J Med. 372:1996–2005CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Mazuski JE, Tessier JM, May AK et al (2017) The Surgical Infection Society Revised guidelines on the management of intra-abdominal infection. Surg Infect (Larchmt) 18:1–76CrossRef Mazuski JE, Tessier JM, May AK et al (2017) The Surgical Infection Society Revised guidelines on the management of intra-abdominal infection. Surg Infect (Larchmt) 18:1–76CrossRef
28.
go back to reference Weber DG, Bendinelli C, Balogh ZJ (2014) Damage control surgery for abdominal emergencies. Br J Surg 101:e109–118CrossRef Weber DG, Bendinelli C, Balogh ZJ (2014) Damage control surgery for abdominal emergencies. Br J Surg 101:e109–118CrossRef
29.
go back to reference Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML et al (2009) The Clavien–Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg 250:187–196CrossRef Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML et al (2009) The Clavien–Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg 250:187–196CrossRef
30.
go back to reference Boggi U, Signori S, De Lio N et al (2013) Feasibility of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. Br J Surg 100:917–925CrossRef Boggi U, Signori S, De Lio N et al (2013) Feasibility of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. Br J Surg 100:917–925CrossRef
31.
go back to reference Bao PQ, Mazirka PO, Watkins KT (2014) Retrospective comparison of robot-assisted minimally invasive versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary neoplasms. J Gastrointest Surg 18:682–689CrossRef Bao PQ, Mazirka PO, Watkins KT (2014) Retrospective comparison of robot-assisted minimally invasive versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary neoplasms. J Gastrointest Surg 18:682–689CrossRef
32.
go back to reference Ramirez PT, Frumovitz M, Pareja R et al (2018) Minimally invasive versus abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. N Engl J Med 379:1895–1904CrossRef Ramirez PT, Frumovitz M, Pareja R et al (2018) Minimally invasive versus abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. N Engl J Med 379:1895–1904CrossRef
33.
go back to reference Melamed A, Margul DJ, Chen L et al (2018) Survival after minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer. N Engl J Med 379:1905–1914CrossRef Melamed A, Margul DJ, Chen L et al (2018) Survival after minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer. N Engl J Med 379:1905–1914CrossRef
34.
go back to reference Torphy RJ, Friedman C, Halpern A et al (2018) Comparing short-term and oncologic outcomes of minimally invasive versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy across low and high volume centers. Ann Surg 270:1147CrossRef Torphy RJ, Friedman C, Halpern A et al (2018) Comparing short-term and oncologic outcomes of minimally invasive versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy across low and high volume centers. Ann Surg 270:1147CrossRef
35.
go back to reference Kauffmann EF, Napoli N, Menonna F et al (2016) Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy with vascular resection. Langenbecks Arch Surg 401:1111–1122CrossRef Kauffmann EF, Napoli N, Menonna F et al (2016) Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy with vascular resection. Langenbecks Arch Surg 401:1111–1122CrossRef
36.
go back to reference Shyr BU, Chen SC, Shyr YM et al (2019) Surgical, survival, and oncological outcomes after vascular resection in robotic and open pancreaticoduodenectomy. Surg Endosc. 34:377CrossRef Shyr BU, Chen SC, Shyr YM et al (2019) Surgical, survival, and oncological outcomes after vascular resection in robotic and open pancreaticoduodenectomy. Surg Endosc. 34:377CrossRef
37.
go back to reference Yamaguchi K, Okusaka T, Shimizu K et al (2017) Clinical practice guidelines for pancreatic cancer 2016 from the Japan Pancreas Society: a synopsis. Pancreas 46:595–604CrossRef Yamaguchi K, Okusaka T, Shimizu K et al (2017) Clinical practice guidelines for pancreatic cancer 2016 from the Japan Pancreas Society: a synopsis. Pancreas 46:595–604CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Oncological outcomes of robotic-assisted versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a propensity score-matched analysis
Authors
Yuanchi Weng
Yu Jiang
Ningzhen Fu
Jiabin Jin
Yusheng Shi
Zhen Huo
Xiaxing Deng
Chenghong Peng
Baiyong Shen
Publication date
01-07-2021
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy / Issue 7/2021
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-020-07791-2

Other articles of this Issue 7/2021

Surgical Endoscopy 7/2021 Go to the issue