Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Surgical Endoscopy 9/2019

01-09-2019 | 2018 SAGES Oral

Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic left pancreatectomy at a high-volume, minimally invasive center

Authors: William B. Lyman, Michael Passeri, Amit Sastry, Allyson Cochran, David A. Iannitti, Dionisios Vrochides, Erin H. Baker, John B. Martinie

Published in: Surgical Endoscopy | Issue 9/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Introduction

While minimally invasive left pancreatectomy has become more widespread and generally accepted over the last decade, opinions on modality of minimally invasive approach (robotic or laparoscopic) remain mixed with few institutions performing a significant portion of both operative approaches simultaneously.

Methods

247 minimally invasive left pancreatectomies were retrospectively identified in a prospectively maintained institutional REDCap™ database, 135 laparoscopic left pancreatectomy (LLP) and 108 robotic-assisted left pancreatectomy (RLP). Demographics, intraoperative variables, postoperative outcomes, and OR costs were compared between LLP and RLP with an additional subgroup analysis for procedures performed specifically for pancreatic adenocarcinoma (35 LLP and 23 RLP) focusing on pathologic outcomes and 2-year actuarial survival.

Results

There were no significant differences in preoperative demographics or indications between LLP and RLP with 34% performed for chronic pancreatitis and 23% performed for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. While laparoscopic cases were faster (p < 0.001) robotic cases had a higher rate of splenic preservation (p < 0.001). Median length of stay was 5 days for RLP and LLP, and rate of clinically significant grade B/C pancreatic fistula was approximately 20% for both groups. Conversion rates to laparotomy were 4.3% and 1.8% for LLP and RLP approaches respectively. RLP had a higher rate of readmission (p = 0.035). Pathologic outcomes and 2-year actuarial survival were similar between LLP and RLP. LLP on average saved $206.67 in OR costs over RLP.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates that at a high-volume center with significant minimally invasive experience, both LLP and RLP can be equally effective when used at the discretion of the operating surgeon. We view the laparoscopic and robotic platforms as tools for the modern surgeon, and at our institution, given the technical success of both operative approaches, we will continue to encourage our surgeons to approach a difficult operation with their tool of choice.

Graphical abstract

Literature
1.
2.
go back to reference de Rooij T, van Hilst J, Boerma D et al (2016) Impact of a nationwide training program in minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (LAELAPS). Ann Surg 264(5):754–762CrossRefPubMed de Rooij T, van Hilst J, Boerma D et al (2016) Impact of a nationwide training program in minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (LAELAPS). Ann Surg 264(5):754–762CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Matsuoka L, Parekh D (2012) The minimally invasive approach to surgical management of pancreatic diseases. Gastroenterol Clin North Am 41(1):77–101CrossRefPubMed Matsuoka L, Parekh D (2012) The minimally invasive approach to surgical management of pancreatic diseases. Gastroenterol Clin North Am 41(1):77–101CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Boggi U, Napoli N, Costa F et al (2016) Robotic-assisted pancreatic resections. World J Surg 40(10):2497–2506CrossRefPubMed Boggi U, Napoli N, Costa F et al (2016) Robotic-assisted pancreatic resections. World J Surg 40(10):2497–2506CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Plotkin A, Ceppa EP, Zarzaur BL, Kilbane EM, Riall TS, Pitt HA (2017) Reduced morbidity with minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. HPB 19(3):279–285CrossRefPubMed Plotkin A, Ceppa EP, Zarzaur BL, Kilbane EM, Riall TS, Pitt HA (2017) Reduced morbidity with minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. HPB 19(3):279–285CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Selby LV, DeMatteo RP, Tholey RM et al (2017) Evolving application of minimally invasive cancer operations at a tertiary cancer center. J Surg Oncol 115(4):365–370CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Selby LV, DeMatteo RP, Tholey RM et al (2017) Evolving application of minimally invasive cancer operations at a tertiary cancer center. J Surg Oncol 115(4):365–370CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
7.
go back to reference Zureikat AH, Moser AJ, Boone BA, Bartlett DL, Zenati M, Zeh HJ III (2013) 250 robotic pancreatic resections: safety and feasibility. Ann Surg 258(4):554–559 (discussion 559–562)CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Zureikat AH, Moser AJ, Boone BA, Bartlett DL, Zenati M, Zeh HJ III (2013) 250 robotic pancreatic resections: safety and feasibility. Ann Surg 258(4):554–559 (discussion 559–562)CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
8.
go back to reference de Rooij T, Besselink MG, Shamali A et al (2016) Pan-European survey on the implementation of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery with emphasis on cancer. HPB 18(2):170–176CrossRefPubMed de Rooij T, Besselink MG, Shamali A et al (2016) Pan-European survey on the implementation of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery with emphasis on cancer. HPB 18(2):170–176CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Gavriilidis P, Lim C, Menahem B, Lahat E, Salloum C, Azoulay D (2016) Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy—the first meta-analysis. HPB 18(7):567–574CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Gavriilidis P, Lim C, Menahem B, Lahat E, Salloum C, Azoulay D (2016) Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy—the first meta-analysis. HPB 18(7):567–574CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
go back to reference Daouadi M, Zureikat AH, Zenati MS et al (2013) Robot-assisted minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy is superior to the laparoscopic technique. Ann Surg 257(1):128–132CrossRefPubMed Daouadi M, Zureikat AH, Zenati MS et al (2013) Robot-assisted minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy is superior to the laparoscopic technique. Ann Surg 257(1):128–132CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Goh BK, Chan CY, Soh HL et al (2017) A comparison between robotic-assisted laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. Int J Med Robot 13(1):e1733CrossRef Goh BK, Chan CY, Soh HL et al (2017) A comparison between robotic-assisted laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. Int J Med Robot 13(1):e1733CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Liu R, Liu Q, Zhao ZM, Tan XL, Gao YX, Zhao GD (2017) Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a propensity score-matched study. J Surg Oncol 116:461–469CrossRefPubMed Liu R, Liu Q, Zhao ZM, Tan XL, Gao YX, Zhao GD (2017) Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a propensity score-matched study. J Surg Oncol 116:461–469CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Lee SY, Allen PJ, Sadot E et al (2015) Distal pancreatectomy: a single institution’s experience in open, laparoscopic, and robotic approaches. J Am Coll Surg 220(1):18–27CrossRefPubMed Lee SY, Allen PJ, Sadot E et al (2015) Distal pancreatectomy: a single institution’s experience in open, laparoscopic, and robotic approaches. J Am Coll Surg 220(1):18–27CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Xourafas D, Ashley SW, Clancy TE (2017) Comparison of perioperative outcomes between open, laparoscopic, and robotic distal pancreatectomy: an analysis of 1815 patients from the ACS-NSQIP procedure-targeted pancreatectomy database. J Gastrointest Surg 21:1442–1452CrossRefPubMed Xourafas D, Ashley SW, Clancy TE (2017) Comparison of perioperative outcomes between open, laparoscopic, and robotic distal pancreatectomy: an analysis of 1815 patients from the ACS-NSQIP procedure-targeted pancreatectomy database. J Gastrointest Surg 21:1442–1452CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Ielpo B, Duran H, Diaz E et al (2017) Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a comparative study of clinical outcomes and costs analysis. Int J Surg 48:300–304CrossRefPubMed Ielpo B, Duran H, Diaz E et al (2017) Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a comparative study of clinical outcomes and costs analysis. Int J Surg 48:300–304CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Souche R, Herrero A, Bourel G et al (2018) Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a French prospective single-center experience and cost-effectiveness analysis. Surg Endosc 32:3562–3569CrossRefPubMed Souche R, Herrero A, Bourel G et al (2018) Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a French prospective single-center experience and cost-effectiveness analysis. Surg Endosc 32:3562–3569CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Gebauer F, Tachezy M, Vashist YK et al (2015) Resection margin clearance in pancreatic cancer after implementation of the Leeds Pathology Protocol (LEEPP): clinically relevant or just academic? World J Surg 39(2):493–499CrossRefPubMed Gebauer F, Tachezy M, Vashist YK et al (2015) Resection margin clearance in pancreatic cancer after implementation of the Leeds Pathology Protocol (LEEPP): clinically relevant or just academic? World J Surg 39(2):493–499CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Strasberg SM, Fields R (2012) Left-sided pancreatic cancer: distal pancreatectomy and its variants: radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy and distal pancreatectomy with celiac axis resection. Cancer J 18(6):562–570CrossRefPubMed Strasberg SM, Fields R (2012) Left-sided pancreatic cancer: distal pancreatectomy and its variants: radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy and distal pancreatectomy with celiac axis resection. Cancer J 18(6):562–570CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Chen S, Zhan Q, Chen JZ et al (2015) Robotic approach improves spleen-preserving rate and shortens postoperative hospital stay of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a matched cohort study. Surg Endosc 29(12):3507–3518CrossRefPubMed Chen S, Zhan Q, Chen JZ et al (2015) Robotic approach improves spleen-preserving rate and shortens postoperative hospital stay of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a matched cohort study. Surg Endosc 29(12):3507–3518CrossRefPubMed
20.
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(3):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(3):584–591CrossRef
21.
22.
go back to reference Nassour I, Wang SC, Porembka MR et al (2017) Conversion of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy: predictors and outcomes. Ann Surg Oncol 24(12):3725–3731CrossRefPubMed Nassour I, Wang SC, Porembka MR et al (2017) Conversion of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy: predictors and outcomes. Ann Surg Oncol 24(12):3725–3731CrossRefPubMed
23.
go back to reference Wright GP, Zureikat AH (2016) Development of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery: an evidence-based systematic review of laparoscopic versus robotic approaches. J Gastrointest Surg 20(9):1658–1665CrossRefPubMed Wright GP, Zureikat AH (2016) Development of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery: an evidence-based systematic review of laparoscopic versus robotic approaches. J Gastrointest Surg 20(9):1658–1665CrossRefPubMed
24.
go back to reference Zureikat AH, Borrebach J, Pitt HA et al (2017) Minimally invasive hepatopancreatobiliary surgery in North America: an ACS-NSQIP analysis of predictors of conversion for laparoscopic and robotic pancreatectomy and hepatectomy. HPB 19(7):595–602CrossRefPubMed Zureikat AH, Borrebach J, Pitt HA et al (2017) Minimally invasive hepatopancreatobiliary surgery in North America: an ACS-NSQIP analysis of predictors of conversion for laparoscopic and robotic pancreatectomy and hepatectomy. HPB 19(7):595–602CrossRefPubMed
25.
go back to reference Hanna EM, Rozario N, Rupp C, Sindram D, Iannitti DA, Martinie JB (2013) Robotic hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery: lessons learned and predictors for conversion. Int J Med Robot 9(2):152–159CrossRefPubMed Hanna EM, Rozario N, Rupp C, Sindram D, Iannitti DA, Martinie JB (2013) Robotic hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery: lessons learned and predictors for conversion. Int J Med Robot 9(2):152–159CrossRefPubMed
26.
go back to reference Adam MA, Thomas S, Youngwirth L, Pappas T, Roman SA, Sosa JA (2017) Defining a hospital volume threshold for minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy in the United States. JAMA Surg 152(4):336–342CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Adam MA, Thomas S, Youngwirth L, Pappas T, Roman SA, Sosa JA (2017) Defining a hospital volume threshold for minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy in the United States. JAMA Surg 152(4):336–342CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic left pancreatectomy at a high-volume, minimally invasive center
Authors
William B. Lyman
Michael Passeri
Amit Sastry
Allyson Cochran
David A. Iannitti
Dionisios Vrochides
Erin H. Baker
John B. Martinie
Publication date
01-09-2019
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy / Issue 9/2019
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6565-6

Other articles of this Issue 9/2019

Surgical Endoscopy 9/2019 Go to the issue