Advertisement

Frontiers of Medicine

, Volume 9, Issue 3, pp 356–360 | Cite as

Robotic distal pancreatectomy versus conventional laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a comparative study for short-term outcomes

  • Eric C. H. LaiEmail author
  • Chung Ngai Tang
Research Article

Abstract

Robotic system has been increasingly used in pancreatectomy. However, the effectiveness of this method remains uncertain. This study compared the surgical outcomes between robot-assisted laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy and conventional laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. During a 15-year period, 35 patients underwent minimally invasive approach of distal pancreatectomy in our center. Seventeen of these patients had robot-assisted laparoscopic approach, and the remaining 18 had conventional laparoscopic approach. Their operative parameters and perioperative outcomes were analyzed retrospectively in a prospective database. The mean operating time in the robotic group (221.4 min) was significantly longer than that in the laparoscopic group (173.6 min) (P = 0.026). Both robotic and conventional laparoscopic groups presented no significant difference in spleen-preservation rate (52.9% vs. 38.9%) (P = 0.505), operative blood loss (100.3 ml vs. 268.3 ml) (P = 0.29), overall morbidity rate (47.1% vs. 38.9%) (P = 0.73), and post-operative hospital stay (11.4 days vs. 14.2 days) (P = 0.46). Both groups also showed no perioperative mortality. Similar outcomes were observed in robotic distal pancreatectomy and conventional laparoscopic approach. However, robotic approach tended to have the advantages of less blood loss and shorter hospital stay. Further studies are necessary to determine the clinical position of robotic distal pancreatectomy.

Keywords

distal pancreatectomy pancreatic neoplasm robotic surgery 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Lai EC, Tang CN. Current status of robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy: a comprehensive review. Asian J Endosc Surg 2013; 6(3): 158–164CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Giulianotti PC, Sbrana F, Bianco FM, Elli EF, Shah G, Addeo P, Caravaglios G, Coratti A. Robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreatic surgery: single-surgeon experience. Surg Endosc 2010; 24(7): 1646–1657CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zureikat AH, Moser AJ, Boone BA, Bartlett DL, Zenati M, Zeh HJ 3rd. 250 robotic pancreatic resections: safety and feasibility. Ann Surg 2013; 258(4): 554–559, discussion 559–562Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    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. Robotic distal pancreatectomy: cost effective? Surgery 2010; 148(4): 814–823CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kang CM, Kim DH, Lee WJ, Chi HS. Conventional laparoscopic and robot-assisted spleen-preserving pancreatectomy: does da Vinci have clinical advantages? Surg Endosc 2011; 25(6): 2004–2009CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Daouadi M, Zureikat AH, Zenati MS, Choudry H, Tsung A, Bartlett DL, Hughes SJ, Lee KK, Moser AJ, Zeh HJ. Robot-assisted minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy is superior to the laparoscopic technique. Ann Surg 2013; 257(1): 128–132CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lee SY, Allen PJ, Sadot E, D’ Angelica MI, DeMatteo RP, Fong Y, Jarnagin WR, Kingham TP. Distal pancreatectomy: a single institution’s experience in open, laparoscopic, and robotic approaches. J Am Coll Surg 2015; 220(1): 18–27CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bassi C, Dervenis C, Butturini G, Fingerhut A, Yeo C, Izbicki J, Neoptolemos J, Sarr M, Traverso W, Buchler M; International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistula Definition. Postoperative pancreatic fistula: an international study group (ISGPF) definition. Surgery 2005; 138(1): 8–13CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pratt WB, Maithel SK, Vanounou T, Huang ZS, Callery MP, Vollmer CM Jr. Clinical and economic validation of the International Study Group of Pancreatic Fistula (ISGPF) classification scheme. Ann Surg 2007; 245(3): 443–451PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tang CN, Tsui KK, Ha JP, Wong DC, Li MK. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a comparative study. Hepatogastroenterology 2007; 54(73): 265–271PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jusoh AC, Ammori BJ. Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy: a systematic review of comparative studies. Surg Endosc 2012; 26(4): 904–913CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Venkat R, Edil BH, Schulick RD, Lidor AO, Makary MA, Wolfgang CL. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is associated with significantly less overall morbidity compared to the open technique: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg 2012; 255(6): 1048–1059CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gagner M, Pomp A, Herrera MF. Early experience with laparoscopic resections of islet cell tumors. Surgery 1996; 120(6): 1051–1054CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cuschieri A. Laparoscopic surgery of the pancreas. J R Coll Surg Edinb 1994; 39(3): 178–184PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SurgeryPamela Youde Nethersole Eastern HospitalChai WanHong Kong SAR, China

Personalised recommendations