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.
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.
Authors: Pier Cristoforo Giulianotti; Andrea Coratti; Fabio Sbrana; Pietro Addeo; Francesco Maria Bianco; Nicolas Christian Buchs; Mario Annechiarico; Enrico Benedetti Journal: Surgery Date: 2010-06-08 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: T A Sohn; C J Yeo; J L Cameron; L Koniaris; S Kaushal; R A Abrams; P K Sauter; J Coleman; R H Hruban; K D Lillemoe Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2000 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Nicolas C Buchs; Pietro Addeo; Francesco M Bianco; Subhashini Ayloo; Enrique F Elli; Pier C Giulianotti Journal: J Robot Surg Date: 2010-05-26
Authors: R Pugliese; D Maggioni; F Sansonna; G C Ferrari; A Forgione; A Costanzi; C Magistro; J Pauna; S Di Lernia; D Citterio; C Brambilla Journal: Eur J Surg Oncol Date: 2008-03-14 Impact factor: 4.424
Authors: Pier Cristoforo Giulianotti; Fabio Sbrana; Francesco Maria Bianco; Enrique Fernando Elli; Galaxy Shah; Pietro Addeo; Giuseppe Caravaglios; Andrea Coratti Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2010-01-09 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Tobias Keck; Simon Küsters; Ulrich Friedrich Wellner; Ulrich Theodor Hopt; Konrad Wojciech Karcz Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2012-05-31 Impact factor: 3.445
Authors: Erin H Baker; Samuel W Ross; Ramanathan Seshadri; Ryan Z Swan; David A Iannitti; Dionisios Vrochides; John B Martinie Journal: J Gastrointest Oncol Date: 2015-08
Authors: Trang K Nguyen; Mazen S Zenati; Brian A Boone; Jennifer Steve; Melissa E Hogg; David L Bartlett; Herbert J Zeh; Amer H Zureikat Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2015-04-23 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: Amir Szold; Roberto Bergamaschi; Ivo Broeders; Jenny Dankelman; Antonello Forgione; Thomas Langø; Andreas Melzer; Yoav Mintz; Salvador Morales-Conde; Michael Rhodes; Richard Satava; Chung-Ngai Tang; Ramon Vilallonga Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2014-11-08 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Claudio Ricci; Riccardo Casadei; Giovanni Taffurelli; Carlo Alberto Pacilio; Marco Ricciardiello; Francesco Minni Journal: World J Surg Date: 2018-03 Impact factor: 3.352