S Chalikonda1, J R Aguilar-Saavedra, R M Walsh. 1. Department of general Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, A100, 9500 Euclid Avenue/A100, Cleveland, OH 44195, USA.
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/m(2) (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.
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 OPDpatients 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/m(2) (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.
Authors: Jordan M Winter; John L Cameron; Kurtis A Campbell; Meghan A Arnold; David C Chang; Joann Coleman; Mary B Hodgin; Patricia K Sauter; Ralph H Hruban; Taylor S Riall; Richard D Schulick; Michael A Choti; Keith D Lillemoe; Charles J Yeo Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 3.452
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: 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: Juan C Rodríguez-Sanjuán; Marcos Gómez-Ruiz; Soledad Trugeda-Carrera; Carlos Manuel-Palazuelos; Antonio López-Useros; Manuel Gómez-Fleitas Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2016-02-14 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Thijs de Rooij; Sjors Klompmaker; Mohammad Abu Hilal; Michael L Kendrick; Olivier R Busch; Marc G Besselink Journal: Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2016-02-17 Impact factor: 46.802