BACKGROUND: The indications for minimally invasive (MIS) pancreatectomy have slowly increased as experience, techniques, and technology have improved and evolved to manage malignant lesions in selected patients without compromising safety and oncologic principles. There are sparse data comparing laparoscopic, robotic, and open distal pancreatectomy (DP). STUDY DESIGN: All patients undergoing DP at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center between 2000 and 2013 were analyzed from a prospective database. Clinicopathologic and survival data were analyzed to compare perioperative and oncologic outcomes in patients who underwent DP via open, laparoscopic, and robotic approaches. RESULTS: Eight hundred five DP were performed during the study period, comprising 37 robotic distal pancreatectomies (RDP), 131 laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies (LDP), and 637 open distal pancreatectomies (ODP). The 3 groups were similar with respect to American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, sex ratio, body mass index, pancreatic fistula rate, and 90-day morbidity and mortality. Patients in the ODP group were generally older (p = 0.001), had significantly higher intraoperative blood loss (p < 0.001), and had a trend toward a longer hospital stay (p = 0.05). Of the significant preoperative variables, visceral fat was predictive of conversion on multivariate analysis (p = 0.003). Oncologic outcomes in the adenocarcinoma cases were similar for the 3 groups, with high rates of R0 resection (88% to 100%). The ODP group had a higher lymph node yield than the LDP and RDP groups (15.4, [SD 8.7] vs 10.4 [SD 8.0] vs 12[SD 7.2], p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: The RDP and LDP were comparable with respect to most perioperative outcomes, with no clear advantage of one approach over the other. Both of these MIS techniques may have advantages over ODP in well-selected patients. All approaches achieved a similarly high rate of R0 resection for patients with adenocarcinoma.
BACKGROUND: The indications for minimally invasive (MIS) pancreatectomy have slowly increased as experience, techniques, and technology have improved and evolved to manage malignant lesions in selected patients without compromising safety and oncologic principles. There are sparse data comparing laparoscopic, robotic, and open distal pancreatectomy (DP). STUDY DESIGN: All patients undergoing DP at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center between 2000 and 2013 were analyzed from a prospective database. Clinicopathologic and survival data were analyzed to compare perioperative and oncologic outcomes in patients who underwent DP via open, laparoscopic, and robotic approaches. RESULTS: Eight hundred five DP were performed during the study period, comprising 37 robotic distal pancreatectomies (RDP), 131 laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies (LDP), and 637 open distal pancreatectomies (ODP). The 3 groups were similar with respect to American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, sex ratio, body mass index, pancreatic fistula rate, and 90-day morbidity and mortality. Patients in the ODP group were generally older (p = 0.001), had significantly higher intraoperative blood loss (p < 0.001), and had a trend toward a longer hospital stay (p = 0.05). Of the significant preoperative variables, visceral fat was predictive of conversion on multivariate analysis (p = 0.003). Oncologic outcomes in the adenocarcinoma cases were similar for the 3 groups, with high rates of R0 resection (88% to 100%). The ODP group had a higher lymph node yield than the LDP and RDP groups (15.4, [SD 8.7] vs 10.4 [SD 8.0] vs 12[SD 7.2], p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: The RDP and LDP were comparable with respect to most perioperative outcomes, with no clear advantage of one approach over the other. Both of these MIS techniques may have advantages over ODP in well-selected patients. All approaches achieved a similarly high rate of R0 resection for patients with adenocarcinoma.
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
Authors: William B Lyman; Michael Passeri; Amit Sastry; Allyson Cochran; David A Iannitti; Dionisios Vrochides; Erin H Baker; John B Martinie Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2018-11-12 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Mohamed Abdelgadir Adam; Kingshuk Choudhury; Paolo Goffredo; Shelby D Reed; Dan Blazer; Sanziana A Roman; Julie A Sosa Journal: World J Surg Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 3.352