Skip to main content
Log in

The surgical outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy versus laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary neoplasms: a comparative study of a single center

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript



Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is a difficult and complex operation. The introduction of robotics has opened up new angles in pancreatic surgery. This study aims to assess the surgical outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy relative to its laparoscopic counterpart.


A retrospective study was designed to compare the surgical outcomes of 27 robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) and 25 laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD). Perioperative data, including operating time, complication, morbidity and mortality, estimated blood loss, and postoperative length of stay, were analyzed.


The robotic group exhibited significantly shorter operative time (mean 387 vs. 442 min), shorter hospital stay (mean 17 vs. 24 days), and less blood loss (mean 219 vs. 334 ml) than those in the LPD group. No statistical difference was observed between the two groups in terms of complication rate, mortality rate, R0 resection rate, and number of harvested lymph node.


RPD is more efficient and secure process than LPD among properly selected patients. RPD is therefore a feasible alternative to the laparoscopic procedure. Further studies are needed to evaluate the cost effectiveness of the robotic approach for PD.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others


  1. Whipple AO (1945) Pancreaticoduodenectomy for islet carcinoma: a five-year follow-up. Ann Surg 121:847–852

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Gagner M, Pomp A (1994) Laparoscopic pylorus-preserving pancreatoduodenectomy. Surg Endosc 8:408–410

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Anderson B, Karmali S (2014) Laparoscopic resection of pancreatic adenocarcinoma: dream or reality? World J Gastroenterol 20:14255–14262

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Keck T, Wellner U, Kusters S, Makowiec F, Sick O, Hopt UT, Karcz K (2011) Laparoscopic resection of the pancreatic head. Feasibility and perioperative result. Chirurg 82:691–697

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Sanchez-Cabus S, Pittau G, Gelli M, Memeo R, Schwarz L, Sa Cunha A (2015) Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: hybrid surgical technique. J Am Coll Surg 220:e7–11

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Honda G, Kurata M, Okuda Y, Kobayashi S, Sakamoto K, Takahashi K (2013) Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: taking advantage of the unique view from the caudal side. J Am Coll Surg 217:e45–e49

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Bencini L, Annecchiarico M, Farsi M, Bartolini I, Mirasolo V, Guerra F, Coratti A (2015) Minimally invasive surgical approach to pancreatic malignancies. World J Gastrointest Oncol 7:411–421

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Damoli I, Butturini G, Ramera M, Paiella S, Marchegiani G, Bassi C (2015) Minimally invasive pancreatic surgery. A review. Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne 2:141–149

    Google Scholar 

  9. Stafford AT, Walsh RM (2015) Robotic surgery of the pancreas: the current state of the art. J Surg Oncol 112:289–294

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Baker EH, Ross SW, Seshadri R, Swan RZ, Iannitti DA, Vrochides D, Martinie JB (2015) Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma: role in 2014 and beyond. J Gastrointest Oncol 6:396–405

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Strijker M, van Santvoort HC, Besselink MG, van Hillegersberg R, Borel Rinkes IH, Vriens MR, Molenaar IQ (2013) Robot-assisted pancreatic surgery: a systematic review of the literature. HPB 15:1–10

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Joyce D (2014) Robotic surgery of the pancreas. World J Gastroenterol 20:14726–14732

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Boggi U, Signori S, De Lio N, Perrone VG, Vistoli F, Belluomini M, Cappelli C, Amprese G, Mosca F (2013) Feasibility of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. Br J Surg 100:917–925

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Cirocchi R, Partelli S, Trastulli S, Coratti A, Parisi A, Falconi M (2013) A systematic review on robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. Surg Oncol 22:238–246

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Boggi U, Amorese G, Vistoli F, Caniglia F, De Lio N, Perrone V, Barbarello L, Belluomini M, Signori S, Mosca F (2015) Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a systematic literature review. Surg Endosc 29:9–23

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Jacobs MJ, Kamyab A (2013) Total laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy. JSLS 17:188–193

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Croome KP, Farnell MB, Que FG, Reid-Lombardo KM, Truty MJ, Nagorney DM, Kendrick ML (2014) Total laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: oncologic advantages over open approaches? Ann Surg 260:638–640

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Lai EC, Yang GP, Tang CN (2012) Robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy–a comparative study. Int J Surg 10:475–479

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Zeh HJ, Zureikat AH, Secrest A, Dauoudi M, Bartlett D, Moser AJ (2012) Outcomes after robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary lesions. Ann Surg Oncol 19:864–870

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Zhang J, Wu WM, You L, Zhao YP (2013) Robotic versus open pancreatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 20:1774–1780

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Gong W, Cai J, Wang Z, Chen A, Ye X, Li H, Zhao Q (2016) Robot-assisted coronary artery bypass grafting improves short-term outcomes compared with minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass grafting. J Thorac Dis 8:459–468

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Elli E, Gonzalez-Heredia R, Sarvepalli S, Masrur M (2015) Laparoscopic and robotic sleeve gastrectomy: short- and long-term results. Obes Surg 25:967–974

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Kim JC, Yu CS, Lim SB, Park IJ, Kim CW, Yoon YS (2016) Comparative analysis focusing on surgical and early oncological outcomes of open, laparoscopy-assisted, and robot-assisted approaches in rectal cancer patients. Int J Colorectal Dis 31:1179–1187

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Smeenk RM, van ‘t Hof G, Elsten E, Feskens PG (2015) The results of 100 robotic versus 100 laparoscopic gastric bypass procedures: a single high volume centre experience. Obes Surg 26:1266–1273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Napoli N, Kauffmann EF, Palmeri M, Miccoli M, Costa F, Vistoli F, Amorese G, Boggi U (2016) The learning curve in robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. Dig Surg 33:299–307

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Wang M, Meng L, Cai Y, Li Y, Wang X, Zhang Z, Peng B (2016) Learning curve for laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a CUSUM analysis. J Gastrointest Surg 20:924–935

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rong Liu.

Ethics declarations


Drs. Rong Liu, Tao Zhang, Zhi-Ming Zhao, Xiang-Long Tan, Guo-Dong Zhao, Xuan Zhang and Yong Xu declare no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Additional information

Rong Liu and Tao Zhang contributed equally to this work and both should be considered first author.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Liu, R., Zhang, T., Zhao, ZM. et al. The surgical outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy versus laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary neoplasms: a comparative study of a single center. Surg Endosc 31, 2380–2386 (2017).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: