Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 29, Issue 12, pp 3507–3518 | Cite as

Robotic approach improves spleen-preserving rate and shortens postoperative hospital stay of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a matched cohort study

  • Shi Chen
  • Qian Zhan
  • Jiang-zhi Chen
  • Jia-bin Jin
  • Xia-xing Deng
  • Hao Chen
  • Bai-yong ShenEmail author
  • Cheng-hong PengEmail author
  • Hong-wei Li



Spleen preservation (SP) is beneficial for patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy of benign and borderline tumors; however, the conventional laparoscopy approach (C-LDP) is less effective in controlling splenic vessel bleeding. The benefits of the robotic-assisted approach (RA-LDP) in SP have not been clearly described. This study aimed to evaluate whether a robotic approach could improve SP rate and effectiveness/safety profile of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP).


Matched for scheduled SP, age, sex, ASA classification, tumor size, tumor location, and pathological type, 69 patients undergoing RA-LDP and 50 undergoing C-LDP between January 2005 and May 2014 were included. Main outcome measures included SP rate, operative time (OT), blood loss, transfusion frequency, morbidity, postoperative hospital stay (PHS), and oncologic safety.


Among matched patients scheduled for SP, RA-LDP was associated with significantly higher overall (95.7 vs. 39.4 %) and Kimura SP rates (72.3 vs. 21.2 %), shorter OT (median 120 vs. 200 min), less blood loss (median 100 vs. 300 mL), lower transfusion frequency (2.1 vs. 18.2 %), and shorter mean PHS (10.2 vs. 14.5 days). Among matched patients scheduled for splenectomy, RA-LDP was associated with similar OT, blood loss, transfusion frequency, and PHS. The two approaches were similar in overall morbidity, frequency of pancreatic fistula, and oncologic outcome among patients undergoing splenectomy for malignant tumors.


RA-LDP was associated with a significantly better SP rate and reduced OT, blood loss, transfusion requirement, and PHS for patients undergoing SP compared to C-LDP, but offered less benefits for patients undergoing splenectomy.


Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy Spleen preservation Robotic assistance Minimal invasiveness Matched cohort study 



The authors thank all of the participating patients and their families, as well as investigators, research nurses, study coordinators, and operation staff. Cheng-hong Peng and Bai-yong Shen designed the study protocol and reviewed the manuscript.


Authors Shi Chen, Qian Zhan, Jiang-zhi Chen, Jia-bin Jin, Xia-xing Deng, Hao Chen, Bai-yong Shen, Cheng-hong Peng, and Hong-wei Li have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.


  1. 1.
    Cuschieri A, Jakimowicz JJ, van Spreeuwel J (1996) Laparoscopic distal 70% pancreatectomy and splenectomy for chronic pancreatitis. Ann Surg 223:280–285PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Venkat R, Edil BH, Schulick RD et al (2012) Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is associated with significantly less overall morbidity compared to the open technique: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg 255:1048–1059CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kooby DA, Gillespie T, Bentrem D et al (2008) Left-sided pancreatectomy: a multicenter comparison of laparoscopic and open approaches. Ann Surg 248:438–446PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Waghorn DJ (2001) Overwhelming infection in asplenic patients: current best practice preventive measures are not being followed. J Clin Pathol 54:214–218PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hansen K, Singer DB (2001) Asplenic–hyposplenic overwhelming sepsis: post-splenectomy sepsis revisited. Pediatr Dev Pathol 4:105–121CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Shoup M, Brennan MF, McWhite K et al (2002) The value of splenic preservation with distal pancreatectomy. Arch Surg 137:164–168CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Warshaw AL (2010) Distal pancreatectomy with preservation of the spleen. J Hepato-Biliary-Pancreat Sci 17:808–812CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Giulianotti PC, Coratti A, Angelini M et al (2003) Robotics in general surgery: personal experience in a large community hospital. Arch Surg 138:777–784CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Winer J, Can MF, Bartlett DL et al (2012) The current state of robotic-assisted pancreatic surgery. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 9:468–476CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Daouadi M, Zureikat AH, Zenati MS et al (2013) Robot-assisted minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy is superior to the laparoscopic technique. Ann Surg 257:128–132CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kang CM, Kim DH, Lee WJ et al (2011) Conventional laparoscopic and robot-assisted spleen-preserving pancreatectomy: does da Vinci have clinical advantages? Surg Endosc 25:2004–2009CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lai ECH, Tang CN (2013) Current status of robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy: a comprehensive review. Asian J Endosc Surg 6:158–164CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Waters JA, Canal DF, Wiebke EA et al (2010) Robotic distal pancreatectomy: cost effective? Surgery 148:814–823CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kimura W, Inoue T, Futakawa N et al (1996) Spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy with conservation of the splenic artery and vein. Surgery 120:885–890CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Warshaw AL (1988) Conservation of the spleen with distal pancreatectomy. Arch Surg 123:550–553CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bassi C, Dervenis C, Butturini G et al (2005) Postoperative pancreatic fistula: an international study group (ISGPF) definition. Surgery 138:8–13CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Benoist S, Dugué L, Sauvanet A et al (1999) Is there a role of preservation of the spleen in distal pancreatectomy? J Am Coll Surg 188:255–260CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dalton R, Sarr M, Van Heerden J et al (1992) Carcinoma of the body and tail of the pancreas: is curative resection justified? Surgery 111:489–494PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Aldridge M, Williamson R (1991) Distal pancreatectomy with and without splenectomy. Br J Surg 78:976–979CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Koukoutsis I, Tamijmarane A, Bellagamba R et al (2007) The impact of splenectomy on outcomes after distal and total pancreatectomy. World J Surg Oncol 5:61PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jusoh AC, Ammori BJ (2012) Laparoscopic vs open distal pancreatectomy: a systematic review of comparative studies. Surg Endosc 26:904–913CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hwang HK, Kang CM, Chung YE et al (2013) Robot-assisted spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy: a single surgeon’s experiences and proposal of clinical application. Surg Endosc 27:774–781CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Giulianotti PC, Sbrana F, Bianco FM et al (2010) Robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreatic surgery: single-surgeon experience. Surg Endosc 24:1646–1657CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ferrone CR, Konstantinidis IT, Sahani DV et al (2011) Twenty-three years of the Warshaw operation for distal pancreatectomy with preservation of the spleen. Ann Surg 253:1136–1139CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Carrère N, Abid S, Julio CH et al (2007) Spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy with excision of splenic artery and vein: a case-matched comparison with conventional distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy. World J Surg 31:375–382CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Fernández-Cruz L, Cosa R, Blanco L et al (2007) Curative laparoscopic resection for pancreatic neoplasms: a critical analysis from a single institution. J Gastrointest Surg 11:1607–1622CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tien YW, Liu KL, Hu RH et al (2010) Risk of varices bleeding after spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy with excision of splenic artery and vein. Ann Surg Oncol 17:2193–2198CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Miura F, Takada T, Asano T et al (2005) Hemodynamic changes of splenogastric circulation after spleen-preserving pancreatectomy with excision of splenic artery and vein. Surgery 138:518–522CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cirocchi R, Partelli S, Coratti A et al (2013) Current status of robotic distal pancreatectomy: a systematic review. Surg Oncol 22:201–207CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Choi SH, Seo MA, Hwang HK et al (2012) Is it worthwhile to preserve adult spleen in laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy? Perioperative and patient-reported outcome analysis. Surg Endosc 26:3149–3156CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kooby DA, Hawkins WG, Schmidt CM et al (2010) A multicenter analysis of distal pancreatectomy for adenocarcinoma: is laparoscopic resection appropriate? J Am Coll Surg 210:779–785CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Czudek S (2013) Robotic surgery—a taste of Hollywood? Wideochir Inne Tech Malo Inwazyjne 8:95–98PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shi Chen
    • 1
    • 2
  • Qian Zhan
    • 1
  • Jiang-zhi Chen
    • 1
    • 3
  • Jia-bin Jin
    • 1
  • Xia-xing Deng
    • 1
  • Hao Chen
    • 1
  • Bai-yong Shen
    • 1
    Email author
  • Cheng-hong Peng
    • 1
    Email author
  • Hong-wei Li
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of General Surgery, Research Institute of Pancreatic Disease, Shanghai Institute of Digestive SurgeryRuijin Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiaotong University School of MedicineShanghaiPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Fujian Provincial HospitalFujian Medical UniversityFuzhouPeople’s Republic of China
  3. 3.Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Union HospitalFujian Medical UniversityFuzhouPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations