Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 25, Issue 6, pp 2004–2009 | Cite as

Conventional laparoscopic and robot-assisted spleen-preserving pancreatectomy: does da Vinci have clinical advantages?

  • Chang Moo Kang
  • Dong Hyun Kim
  • Woo Jung Lee
  • Hoon Sang Chi
Article

Abstract

Background

Function-preserving minimally invasive pancreatectomy is thought to be an ideal approach for pancreatic benign and borderline malignant lesions requiring pancreatectomy. However, it is not that easy to accomplish this goal with the conventional laparoscopic approach. It requires extensive surgeon experience and learned techniques. A robot surgical system was recently introduced to overcome these limitations and it may potentially provide precise and safe laparoscopic surgery.

Methods

Between March 2006 and July 2010, a total of 45 patients underwent laparoscopic or robot-assisted pancreatectomy performed by a single pancreatic surgeon to preserve the spleen. Twenty-five patients underwent the conventional laparoscopic approach (Lap group) and the other 20 patients underwent robot-assisted surgery (Robot group). The perioperative clinicopathologic variables (age, gender, length of resected pancreas, tumor size, tumor location, amount of bleeding, operation time, length of hospital stay, complications, mortality, and cost) were compared between the two groups, as well as the spleen preservation rate.

Results

Younger patients preferred robot-assisted surgery to conventional laparoscopic surgery (44.5 ± 15.9 vs. 56.7 ± 13.9 years, p = 0.010), and the mean operation time was longer in the Robot group (258.2 ± 118.6 vs. 348.7 ± 121.8 min, p = 0.016). The spleen-preserving rate of the Robot group was considerably superior to that of the Lap group (fail/success, 9/16 vs. 1/19, p = 0.027). However, robot surgery cost the patients about USD 8,300 (USD 8,304.8 ± 870.0), which was more than twice the amount for the Lap group (USD 3,861.7 ± 1,724.3). There were no significant differences in other clinicopathologic variables.

Conclusion

Robot-assisted pancreatic surgery could provide an increased chance for spleen preservation in spite of higher cost and longer operation time. More experiences are needed to specifically address the role of robot surgery in the advanced laparoscopic era.

Keywords

Robot da Vinci Laparoscopic Spleen-preserving Pancreatectomy 

References

  1. 1.
    Kim SC, Park KT, Hwang JW, Shin HC, Lee SS, Seo DW, Lee SK, Kim MH, Han DJ (2008) Comparative analysis of clinical outcomes for laparoscopic distal pancreatic resection and open distal pancreatic resection at a single institution. Surg Endosc 22:2261–2268PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mabrut JY, Fernandez-Cruz L, Azagra JS, Bassi C, Delvaux G, Weerts J, Fabre JM, Boulez J, Baulieux J, Peix JL, Gigot JF (2005) Laparoscopic pancreatic resection: results of a multicenter European study of 127 patients. Surgery 137:597–605PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Palanivelu C, Shetty R, Jani K, Sendhilkumar K, Rajan PS, Maheshkumar GS (2007) Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: results of a prospective non-randomized study from a tertiary center. Surg Endosc 21:373–377PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Teh SH, Tseng D, Sheppard BC (2007) Laparoscopic and open distal pancreatic resection for benign pancreatic disease. J Gastrointest Surg 11:1120–1125PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Melotti G, Butturini G, Piccoli M, Casetti L, Bassi C, Mullineris B, Lazzaretti MG, Pederzoli P (2007) Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: results on a consecutive series of 58 patients. Ann Surg 246:77–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Shoup M, Brennan MF, McWhite K, Leung DH, Klimstra D, Conlon KC (2002) The value of splenic preservation with distal pancreatectomy. Arch Surg 137:164–168PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cullingford GL, Watkins DN, Watts AD, Mallon DF (1991) Severe late postsplenectomy infection. Br J Surg 78:716–721PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Davidson RN, Wall RA (2001) Prevention and management of infections in patients without a spleen. Clin Microbiol Infect 7:657–660PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mellemkjoer L, Olsen JH, Linet MS, Gridley G, McLaughlin JK (1995) Cancer risk after splenectomy. Cancer 75:577–583PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Warshaw AL (1988) Conservation of the spleen with distal pancreatectomy. Arch Surg 123:550–553PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yoon YS, Lee KH, Han HS, Cho JY, Ahn KS (2009) Patency of splenic vessels after laparoscopic spleen and splenic vessel-preserving distal pancreatectomy. Br J Surg 96:633–640PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fernandez-Cruz L, Martinez I, Gilabert R, Cesar-Borges G, Astudillo E, Navarro S (2004) Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy combined with preservation of the spleen for cystic neoplasms of the pancreas. J Gastrointest Surg 8:493–501PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dulucq JL, Wintringer P, Stabilini C, Feryn T, Perissat J, Mahajna A (2005) Are major laparoscopic pancreatic resections worthwhile? A prospective study of 32 patients in a single institution. Surg Endosc 19:1028–1034PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ballantyne GH (2007) Telerobotic gastrointestinal surgery: phase 2—safety and efficacy. Surg Endosc 21:1054–1062PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Talamini MA, Chapman S, Horgan S, Melvin WS (2003) A prospective analysis of 211 robotic-assisted surgical procedures. Surg Endosc 17:1521–1524PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ballentyne GH, Marescaux J, Giulianotti PC (2004) Primer of robotic and telerobotic surgery, Chap. 22. Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, pp 155–164Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kang CM, Chi HS, Hyeung WJ, Kim KS, Choi JS, Lee WJ, Kim BR (2007) The first Korean experience of telemanipulative robot-assisted laparoscopic cholecystectomy using the da Vinci system. Yonsei Med J 48:540–545PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gagner M, Pomp A, Herrera MF (1996) Early experience with laparoscopic resections of islet cell tumors. Surgery 120:1051–1054PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sa Cunha A, Rault A, Beau C, Collet D, Masson B (2007) Laparoscopic central pancreatectomy: single institution experience of 6 patients. Surgery 142:405–409PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Palanivelu C, Rajan PS, Rangarajan M, Vaithiswaran V, Senthilnathan P, Parthasarathi R, Praveen Raj P (2009) Evolution in techniques of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a decade-long experience from a tertiary center. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 16:731–740PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Melvin WS, Needleman BJ, Krause KR, Schneider C, Wolf RK, Michler RE, Ellison EC (2002) Computer-enhanced robotic telesurgery. Initial experience in foregut surgery. Surg Endosc 16:1790–1792PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lanfranco AR, Castellanos AE, Desai JP, Meyers WC (2004) Robotic surgery: a current perspective. Ann Surg 239:14–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kang CM, Kim HG, Kim KS, Choi JS, Lee WJ, Kim BR (2007) Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for solid pseudopapillary neoplasm of the pancreas-report of two cases. Hepatogastroenterology 54:1053–1056PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chang Moo Kang
    • 1
    • 2
  • Dong Hyun Kim
    • 3
  • Woo Jung Lee
    • 1
    • 2
  • Hoon Sang Chi
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Division of Biliopancreas, Department of SurgeryYonsei University College of MedicineSeoulKorea
  2. 2.Clinic of Pancreatic and Biliary Cancer, Institute of GastroenterologyYonsei University Health SystemSeoulKorea
  3. 3.Department of SurgeryYonsei University Wonju College of MedicineSeoulKorea

Personalised recommendations