Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of Robotic Surgery 4/2022

21-09-2021 | Whipple Surgery | Original Article

Short-term and pathologic outcomes of robotic versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for periampullary and pancreatic head malignancy: an early experience

Authors: Jayant Mulchandani, Nikhitha Shetty, Aditya Kulkarni, Sanjeev Shetty, Mohamed Shies Sadat, Ashwinikumar Kudari

Published in: Journal of Robotic Surgery | Issue 4/2022

Login to get access

Abstract

Open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) is associated with high perioperative morbidity. Adoption of robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy (RAPD) has been slow despite ergonomic advantages, improved visualization and dexterity. We aim to report our experience comparing operative and short-term outcomes following RAPD and OPD. We did retrospective analysis of prospectively maintained database, including all consecutive patients who underwent RAPD or OPD between January 2016 and August 2019. 48 patients were included, 21 in RAPD group and 27 in OPD group. RAPD was associated with longer mean operative time (440 vs. 414.1 min) but had significantly less mean intra-operative blood loss (256.9 vs. 404.5 ml), median length of ICU stay (1 vs. 3 days), overall length of stay (11 vs. 13 days) and lower rates of SSI (23.8% vs. 63%). Both groups showed equal incidence of POPF, comparable R0 resection rates (100% vs. 96.3%) and median number of lymph nodes harvested (14 vs. 18). Rate of open conversion was 28.6% (n = 6), most commonly for bleeding (66.6%) and mesenteric vessel involvement (33.3%). When compared to first ten RAPD cases, mean operative time (483.5 vs. 400.5 min) and rate of conversion (36.36% vs. 20%) was less in last eleven cases. RAPD is significantly better than OPD in terms of intra-operative blood loss, length of ICU stay, length of total stay and SSI. The longer operative time and conversion rate associated with RAPD progressively decreased as experience accumulated and the learning curve was crossed. Further randomized controlled trials are needed to investigate cost-effectiveness and long-term oncologic survival in RAPD patients.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Winter JM, Cameron JL, Campbell KA, Arnold MA, Chang DC, Coleman J, Hodgin MB, Sauter PK, Hruban RH, Riall TS, Schulick RD, Choti MA, Lillemoe KD, Yeo CJ (2006) 1423 pancreaticoduodenectomies for pancreatic cancer: a single institution experience. J Gastrointest Surg 10:1199–1210CrossRef Winter JM, Cameron JL, Campbell KA, Arnold MA, Chang DC, Coleman J, Hodgin MB, Sauter PK, Hruban RH, Riall TS, Schulick RD, Choti MA, Lillemoe KD, Yeo CJ (2006) 1423 pancreaticoduodenectomies for pancreatic cancer: a single institution experience. J Gastrointest Surg 10:1199–1210CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Gagner M, Pomp A (1994) Laparoscopic pylorus-preserving pancreatoduodenectomy. Surg Endosc 8(5):408–410CrossRef Gagner M, Pomp A (1994) Laparoscopic pylorus-preserving pancreatoduodenectomy. Surg Endosc 8(5):408–410CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Gagner M, Palermo M (2009) Laparoscopic Whipple procedure: review of the literature. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 16:726–730CrossRef Gagner M, Palermo M (2009) Laparoscopic Whipple procedure: review of the literature. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 16:726–730CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Mabrut JY, Fernandez-Cruz L, Azagra JS, Bassi C, Delvaux G, Weerts J, Fabre JM, Boulez J, Baulieux J, Peix JL, Gigot JF, Hepatobiliary and pancreatic section (HBPS) of the Royal Belgian Society of Surgery, Belgian Group for Endoscopic Surgery (BGES), Club Coelio (2005) Laparoscopic pancreatic resection: results of a multicenter European study of 127 patients. Surgery 137:597–605CrossRef Mabrut JY, Fernandez-Cruz L, Azagra JS, Bassi C, Delvaux G, Weerts J, Fabre JM, Boulez J, Baulieux J, Peix JL, Gigot JF, Hepatobiliary and pancreatic section (HBPS) of the Royal Belgian Society of Surgery, Belgian Group for Endoscopic Surgery (BGES), Club Coelio (2005) Laparoscopic pancreatic resection: results of a multicenter European study of 127 patients. Surgery 137:597–605CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Boggi U, Amorese G, Vistoli F et al (2015) Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a systematic literature review. Surg Endosc 29(1):9–23CrossRef Boggi U, Amorese G, Vistoli F et al (2015) Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a systematic literature review. Surg Endosc 29(1):9–23CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Song KB, Kim SC, Hwang DW, Lee JH, Lee DJ, Lee JW et al (2015) Matched case–control analysis comparing laparoscopic and open pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy in patients with periampullary tumors. Ann Surg 262:146–155CrossRef Song KB, Kim SC, Hwang DW, Lee JH, Lee DJ, Lee JW et al (2015) Matched case–control analysis comparing laparoscopic and open pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy in patients with periampullary tumors. Ann Surg 262:146–155CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Stauffer JA, Coppola A, Villacreses D, Mody K, Johnson E, Li Z et al (2017) Laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma: long-term results at a single institution. Surg Endosc 31:2233–2241CrossRef Stauffer JA, Coppola A, Villacreses D, Mody K, Johnson E, Li Z et al (2017) Laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma: long-term results at a single institution. Surg Endosc 31:2233–2241CrossRef
8.
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
9.
go back to reference Waters JA, Canal DF, Wiebke EA, Dumas RP, Beane JD, Aguilar-Saavedra JR, Ball CG, House MG, Zyromski NJ, Nakeeb A, Pitt HA, Lillemoe KD, Schmidt CM (2010) Robotic distal pancreatectomy: cost effective? Surgery 148:814–823CrossRef Waters JA, Canal DF, Wiebke EA, Dumas RP, Beane JD, Aguilar-Saavedra JR, Ball CG, House MG, Zyromski NJ, Nakeeb A, Pitt HA, Lillemoe KD, Schmidt CM (2010) Robotic distal pancreatectomy: cost effective? Surgery 148:814–823CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Daouadi M, Zureikat AH, Zenati MS, Choudry H, Tsung A, Bartlett DL, Hughes SJ, Lee KK, Moser AJ, Zeh HJ (2013) Robot-assisted minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy is superior to the laparoscopic technique. Ann Surg 257:128–132CrossRef Daouadi M, Zureikat AH, Zenati MS, Choudry H, Tsung A, Bartlett DL, Hughes SJ, Lee KK, Moser AJ, Zeh HJ (2013) Robot-assisted minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy is superior to the laparoscopic technique. Ann Surg 257:128–132CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Pędziwiatr M, Małczak P, Pisarska M et al (2017) Minimally invasive versus open pancreatoduodenectomy-systematic review and meta-analysis. Langenbecks Arch Surg 402:841–851CrossRef Pędziwiatr M, Małczak P, Pisarska M et al (2017) Minimally invasive versus open pancreatoduodenectomy-systematic review and meta-analysis. Langenbecks Arch Surg 402:841–851CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Boggi U, Amorese G, Vistoli F et al (2015) Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a systematic literature review. Surg Endosc 29:9–23CrossRef Boggi U, Amorese G, Vistoli F et al (2015) Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a systematic literature review. Surg Endosc 29:9–23CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Coratti A, Di Marino M, Coratti F et al (2016) Initial experience with robotic pancreatic surgery: technical feasbility 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 feasbility and oncological implications. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 26:31–37CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Zureikat AH, Moser AJ, Boone BA et al (2013) robotic pancreatic resection: safety and feasibility. Ann Surg 258(4):554–562CrossRef Zureikat AH, Moser AJ, Boone BA et al (2013) robotic pancreatic resection: safety and feasibility. Ann Surg 258(4):554–562CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Fong Y, Woo Y, Hyung WJ, Lau C, Strong VE (2018) The SAGES atlas of robotic surgery, Chap. 26. In: Giulianotti PC, Gheza F (eds) Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy. Springer, Berlin Fong Y, Woo Y, Hyung WJ, Lau C, Strong VE (2018) The SAGES atlas of robotic surgery, Chap. 26. In: Giulianotti PC, Gheza F (eds) Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy. Springer, Berlin
19.
go back to reference Koch M, Garden OJ, Padbury R et al (2011) Bile leakage after hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery: a definition and grading of severity by the international study group of liver surgery. Surgery 149:680–688CrossRef Koch M, Garden OJ, Padbury R et al (2011) Bile leakage after hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery: a definition and grading of severity by the international study group of liver surgery. Surgery 149:680–688CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Bassi C, Marchegiani G, Dervenis C et al (2017) International study group on pancreatic surgery (ISGPS). 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) International study group on pancreatic surgery (ISGPS). The 2016 update of the international study group (ISGPS) definition and grading of postoperative pancreatic fistula: 11 years after. Surgery 161:584–591CrossRef
21.
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
22.
go back to reference Nickel F, Haney CM, Kowalewski KF, Probst P, Limen EF, Kalkum E, Diener MK, Strobel O, Müller-Stich BP, Hackert T (2020) Laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Ann Surg 271(1):54–66CrossRef Nickel F, Haney CM, Kowalewski KF, Probst P, Limen EF, Kalkum E, Diener MK, Strobel O, Müller-Stich BP, Hackert T (2020) Laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Ann Surg 271(1):54–66CrossRef
28.
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
Metadata
Title
Short-term and pathologic outcomes of robotic versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for periampullary and pancreatic head malignancy: an early experience
Authors
Jayant Mulchandani
Nikhitha Shetty
Aditya Kulkarni
Sanjeev Shetty
Mohamed Shies Sadat
Ashwinikumar Kudari
Publication date
21-09-2021
Publisher
Springer London
Published in
Journal of Robotic Surgery / Issue 4/2022
Print ISSN: 1863-2483
Electronic ISSN: 1863-2491
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-021-01309-1

Other articles of this Issue 4/2022

Journal of Robotic Surgery 4/2022 Go to the issue