Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Laparoscopic robotic-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy: a case-matched comparison with open resection

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Minimally invasive procedures have expanded recently to include pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD), but the efficacy of a laparoscopic robotic-assisted approach has not been demonstrated. A case-matched comparison was undertaken to study outcomes between laparoscopic robotic approach (LRPD) and the conventional open counterpart (OPD).

Methods

From March 2009 through December 2010, 30 LRPD were performed by two pancreaticobiliary surgeons at the Cleveland Clinic. Thirty OPD patients operated by four pancreaticobiliary surgeons during this same period were matched by demographics, and postoperative outcomes were compared from review of a prospectively collected database.

Results

Mean age was 62 years for LRPD versus 61 years for OPD (p = 0.43). Mean body mass index was 24.8 versus 25.6 kg/m2 (p = 0.49). Surgical indications included adenocarcinoma in 14 patients from each group (46%), intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm in 4 (14%), and other in 12 (40%). There was one preoperative death in the LRPD group and none following OPD. Morbidity occurred in nine patients (30%) following LRPD versus 13 (44%) in the OPD group (p = 0.14). Intraoperative factors assessed included blood loss (485.8 vs 775 ml, p = 0.13) and operative time (476.2 vs 366.4 min, p = 0.0005). Conversion from LRPD to open occurred in three patients (12%) due to bleeding. Reoperation was performed in two patients (6%) following LRPD versus seven (24%) following OPD (p = 0.17). Length of hospital stay was 9.79 days for LRPD versus 13.26 days in the OPD group (p = 0.043).

Conclusions

This is the first comparison of a novel laparoscopic robotic-assisted PD with the open PD in a case-matched fashion. Our data demonstrate a significant increase in operative time but decreased length of stay for LRPD. The favorable morbidity following LRPD makes it a reasonable surgical approach for selected patients requiring PD.

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

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Whipple AO, Parsons WB, Mullins CR (1935) Treatment of carcinoma of the ampulla of Vater. Ann Surg 102(4):763–779

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Cameron JL, Pitt HA, Yeo CJ et al (1993) One hundred and forty-five consecutive pancreaticoduodenectomies without mortality. Ann Surg 217(5):430–435 discussion 435–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Winter JM, Cameron JL, Campbell KA et al (2006) 1423 pancreaticoduodenectomies for pancreatic cancer: a single-institution experience. J Gastrointest Surg 10(9):1199–1210 discussion 1210–1211

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. McPhee JT, Hill JS, Whalen GF et al (2007) Perioperative mortality for pancreatectomy: a national perspective. Ann Surg 246(2):246–253

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Orr RK (2010) Outcomes in pancreatic cancer surgery. Surg Clin North Am 90(2):219–34

    Google Scholar 

  6. Yeo CJ (2002) Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms of the pancreas. Adv Surg 36:15–38

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 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(3):445–449

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Gagner M, Pomp A (1994) Laparoscopic pylorus-preserving pancreatoduodenectomy. Surg Endosc 8(5):408–410

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Milone L, Turner P, Gagner M (2004) Laparoscopic surgery for pancreatic tumors, an uptake. Minerva Chir 59(2):165–173

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Melvin WS, Needleman BJ, Krause KR, Ellison EC (2003) Robotic resection of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 13(1):33–36

    Article  PubMed  CAS  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(7):777–784

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Vasilescu C, Sgarbura O, Tudor S et al (2009) Robotic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy. A case report. Acta Chir Belg 109(3):396–399

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Kang CM, Kim DH, Lee WJ, Chi HS (2011) Initial experiences using robot-assisted central pancreatectomy with pancreaticogastrostomy: a potential way to advanced laparoscopic pancreatectomy. Surg Endosc 25(4):1101s–1106s

    Google Scholar 

  14. Giulianotti PC, Sbrana F, Bianco FM, et al. (2010) Robot-assisted laparoscopic middle pancreatectomy. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 20(2):135–139

    Google Scholar 

  15. Giulianotti PC, Sbrana F, Bianco FM, et al. (2010) Robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreatic surgery: single-surgeon experience. Surg Endosc 24(7):1646–1657

    Google Scholar 

  16. Kang CM, Kim DH, Lee WJ, Chi HS (2011) Conventional laparoscopic and robot-assisted spleen-preserving pancreatectomy: does da Vinci have clinical advantages? Surg Endosc 25(6):2004–2009

    Google Scholar 

  17. Waters JA, Canal DF, Wiebke EA et al. (2010) Robotic distal pancreatectomy: cost effective? Surgery 148(4):814–823

    Google Scholar 

  18. Clavien PA, Strasberg SM (2009) Severity grading of surgical complications. Ann Surg 250(2):197–198

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Gagner M, Pomp A, Herrera MF (1996) Early experience with laparoscopic resections of islet cell tumors. Surgery 120(6):1051–1054

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Kendrick ML, Cusati D (2010) Total laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: feasibility and outcome in an early experience. Arch Surg 145(1):19–23

    Google Scholar 

  21. Bilimoria KY, Bentrem DJ, Nelson H et al (2008) Use and outcomes of laparoscopic-assisted colectomy for cancer in the United States. Arch Surg 143(9):832–839 discussion 839–840

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Saif MW (2011) Adjuvant therapy of pancreatic cancer: beyond gemcitabine. Highlights from the “2011 ASCO gastrointestinal cancers symposium”. San Francisco, CA, USA. (January 20–22). JOP 12(2):106–9

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of general Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, A100, 9500 Euclid Avenue/A100, Cleveland, 44195, OH, USA

    S. Chalikonda, J. R. Aguilar-Saavedra & R. M. Walsh

Authors
  1. S. Chalikonda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. R. Aguilar-Saavedra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. R. M. Walsh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to R. M. Walsh.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chalikonda, S., Aguilar-Saavedra, J.R. & Walsh, R.M. Laparoscopic robotic-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy: a case-matched comparison with open resection. Surg Endosc 26, 2397–2402 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-012-2207-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-012-2207-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation