Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Robotic Versus Open Pancreaticoduodenectomy: A Comparative Study at a Single Institution

  • Published:
World Journal of Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) remains one of the most challenging abdominal procedures, and its application is poorly reported in the literature so far. To date, few data are available comparing a minimally invasive approach to open PD. The aim of the present study is to compare the robotic and open approaches for PD at a single institution.

Methods

Data from 83 consecutive PD procedures performed between January 2002 and May 2010 at a single institution were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were stratified into two groups: the open group (n = 39; 47%) and the robotic group (n = 44; 53%).

Results

Patients in the robotic group were statistically older (63 years of age versus 56 years; p = 0.04) and heavier (body mass index: 27.7 vs. 24.8; p = 0.01); and had a higher American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score (2.5 vs. 2.15; p = 0.01) when compared to the open group. Indications for surgery were the same in both groups. The robotic group had a significantly shorter operative time (444 vs. 559 min; p = 0.0001), reduced blood loss (387 vs. 827 ml; p = 0.0001), and a higher number of lymph nodes harvested (16.8 vs. 11; p = 0.02) compared to the open group. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of complication rates, mortality rates, and hospital stay.

Conclusions

The authors present one of the first studies comparing open and robotic PD. While it is too early to draw definitive conclusions concerning the long-term outcomes, short-term results show a positive trend in favor of the robotic approach without compromising the oncological principles associated with the open approach.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Dulucq JL, Wintringer P, Mahajna A (2006) Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for benign and malignant diseases. Surg Endosc 20:1045–1050

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Gagner M, Palermo M (2009) Laparoscopic Whipple procedure: review of the literature. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 16:726–730

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Gagner M, Pomp A (1997) Laparoscopic pancreatic resection: is it worthwhile? J Gastrointest Surg 1:20–25

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Kendrick ML, Cusati D (2010) Total laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: feasibility and outcome in an early experience. Arch Surg 145:19–23

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Palanivelu C, Jani K, Senthilnathan P et al (2007) Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: technique and outcomes. J Am Coll Surg 205:222–230

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Palanivelu C, Rajan PS, Rangarajan M et al (2009) Evolution in techniques of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a decade long experience from a tertiary center. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 16:731–740

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Cho A, Yamamoto H, Nagata M et al (2009) Comparison of laparoscopy-assisted and open pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary disease. Am J Surg 198:445–449

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Buchs NC, Addeo P, Bianco FM et al (2010) Safety of robotic general surgery in elderly patients. J Robotic Surg 4:91–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Buchs NC, Addeo P, Bianco FM et al (2010) Outcomes of robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy in patients older than 70 years: a comparative study. World J Surg 34:2109–2114

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Giulianotti PC, Coratti A, Angelini M et al (2003) Robotics in general surgery: personal experience in a large community hospital. Arch Surg 138:777–784

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Giulianotti PC, Sbrana F, Bianco FM et al (2010) Robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreatic surgery: single-surgeon experience. Surg Endosc 24:1646–1657

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Giulianotti PC, Coratti A, Sbrana F et al (2011) Robotic liver surgery: results for 70 resections. Surgery 149:29–39

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Trede M, Schwall G, Saeger HD (1990) Survival after pancreatoduodenectomy. 118 consecutive resections without an operative mortality. Ann Surg 211:447–458

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Brozzetti S, Mazzoni G, Miccini M et al (2006) Surgical treatment of pancreatic head carcinoma in elderly patients. Arch Surg 141:137–142

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Bassi C, Dervenis C, Butturini G et al (2005) Postoperative pancreatic fistula: an international study group (ISGPF) definition. Surgery 138:8–13

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Darwin P, Goldberg E, Uradomo L (2010) Jackson Pratt drain fluid-to-serum bilirubin concentration ratio for the diagnosis of bile leaks. Gastrointest Endosc 71:99–104

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. van Berge Henegouwen MI, van Gulik TM, DeWit LT et al (1997) Delayed gastric emptying after standard pancreaticoduodenectomy versus pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy: an analysis of 200 consecutive patients. J Am Coll Surg 185:373–379

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Zheng MH, Feng B, Lu AG et al (2006) Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for ductal adenocarcinoma of common bile duct: a case report and literature review. Med Sci Monit 12:CS57–CS60

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Bhatti I, Peacock O, Awan AK et al (2010) Lymph node ratio versus number of affected lymph nodes as predictors of survival for resected pancreatic adenocarcinoma. World J Surg 34:768–775

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Schnelldorfer T, Ware AL, Sarr MG et al (2008) Long-term survival after pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma: is cure possible? Ann Surg 247:456–462

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Kazanjian KK, Hines OJ, Duffy JP et al (2008) Improved survival following pancreaticoduodenectomy to treat adenocarcinoma of the pancreas: the influence of operative blood loss. Arch Surg 143:1166–1171

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Sohn TA, Yeo CJ, Cameron JL et al (2000) Resected adenocarcinoma of the pancreas—616 patients: results, outcomes, and prognostic indicators. J Gastrointest Surg 4:567–579

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Kim MC, Heo GU, Jung GJ (2010) Robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: surgical techniques and clinical merits. Surg Endosc 24:610–615

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Pugliese R, Maggioni D, Sansonna F et al (2010) Subtotal gastrectomy with D2 dissection by minimally invasive surgery for distal adenocarcinoma of the stomach: results and 5-year survival. Surg Endosc 24:2594–2602

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Pugliese R, Maggioni D, Sansonna F et al (2009) Outcomes and survival after laparoscopic gastrectomy for adenocarcinoma. Analysis on 65 patients operated on by conventional or robot-assisted minimal access procedures. Eur J Surg Oncol 35:281–288

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Finkelstein J, Eckersberger E, Sadri H et al (2010) Open versus laparoscopic versus robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: the European and US experience. Rev Urol 12:35–43

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Hiki N, Shimizu N, Yamaguchi H et al (2006) Manipulation of the small intestine as a cause of the increased inflammatory response after open compared with laparoscopic surgery. Br J Surg 93:195–204

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Tran K, Van Eijck C, Di Carlo V et al (2002) Occlusion of the pancreatic duct versus pancreaticojejunostomy: a prospective randomized trial. Ann Surg 236:422–428

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Iranmanesh P, Morel P, Wagner OJ et al (2010) Set-up and docking of the da Vinci surgical system: prospective analysis of initial experience. Int J Med Robot 6:57–60

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Schmidt CM, Turrini O, Parikh P et al (2010) Effect of hospital volume, surgeon experience, and surgeon volume on patient outcomes after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a single-institution experience. Arch Surg 145:634–640

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Young J (2009) Understanding statistical analysis in the surgical literature: some key concepts. ANZ J Surg 79:398–403

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Brunaud L, Ayav A, Zarnegar R et al (2008) Prospective evaluation of 100 robotic-assisted unilateral adrenalectomies. Surgery 144:995–1001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. deSouza AL, Prasad LM, Park JJ et al (2010) Robotic assistance in right hemicolectomy: is there a role? Dis Colon Rectum 53:1000–1006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of General, Minimally Invasive and Robotic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Illinois at Chicago, 840 S. Wood Street, Suite 435 E, Chicago, IL, 60612, USA

    Nicolas Christian Buchs, Pietro Addeo, Francesco Maria Bianco, Subhashini Ayloo & Pier Cristoforo Giulianotti

  2. Division of Transplantation, Department of Surgery, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, 60612, USA

    Enrico Benedetti

Authors
  1. Nicolas Christian Buchs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Pietro Addeo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Francesco Maria Bianco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Subhashini Ayloo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Enrico Benedetti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Pier Cristoforo Giulianotti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pier Cristoforo Giulianotti.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Buchs, N.C., Addeo, P., Bianco, F.M. et al. Robotic Versus Open Pancreaticoduodenectomy: A Comparative Study at a Single Institution. World J Surg 35, 2739–2746 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-011-1276-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-011-1276-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation