BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is increasing in popularity thanks to the benefits that have been recently demonstrated by many authors. The Da Vinci(®) Surgical System could overcome some limits of laparoscopy, helping the surgeons to perform safer and faster difficult procedures. Nowadays, prospective clinical trials comparing LDP to robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) are lacking. The aim of this study is to present a prospective comparison between the two techniques. METHODS: Since November 2011, all patients suitable for minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy were assigned either to LDP or RDP, depending on the availability of the Da Vinci(®) Surgical System for our Surgical Unit. Demographics, clinical, and intra- and postoperative data, including estimated costs of the procedure, were prospectively collected. Follow-up included cross-sectional imaging ended on April 2014. RESULTS: Twenty-two patients underwent RDP and 21 LDP; patients' characteristics were similar. The median operative time was longer and procedures' cost was double in RDP group. The conversion to open rate and the median length of postoperative hospital stay were 4.5 % and 7 days, respectively, in both groups. Pancreatic fistula developed in 57.1 % (12/21) and 50 % (11/22) of LDP and RDP, respectively (p = 0.870), being grade A the most frequent. Mortality was nil and an R0 resection was achieved in all Patients. The overall number of lymph nodes harvested was similar between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Both RDP and LDP are valid techniques for the treatment of distal pancreatic tumors. The advantages of RDP are claimed by many but still under investigation. Some of these advantages are more subjective than objective, and it seems difficult to demonstrate a real superiority of one technique over the other in a standardized fashion. In our experience, laparoscopy has not been abandoned in favor of the robot: we continue to perform both approaches choosing upon single patient's characteristics.
BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is increasing in popularity thanks to the benefits that have been recently demonstrated by many authors. The Da Vinci(®) Surgical System could overcome some limits of laparoscopy, helping the surgeons to perform safer and faster difficult procedures. Nowadays, prospective clinical trials comparing LDP to robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) are lacking. The aim of this study is to present a prospective comparison between the two techniques. METHODS: Since November 2011, all patients suitable for minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy were assigned either to LDP or RDP, depending on the availability of the Da Vinci(®) Surgical System for our Surgical Unit. Demographics, clinical, and intra- and postoperative data, including estimated costs of the procedure, were prospectively collected. Follow-up included cross-sectional imaging ended on April 2014. RESULTS: Twenty-two patients underwent RDP and 21 LDP; patients' characteristics were similar. The median operative time was longer and procedures' cost was double in RDP group. The conversion to open rate and the median length of postoperative hospital stay were 4.5 % and 7 days, respectively, in both groups. Pancreatic fistula developed in 57.1 % (12/21) and 50 % (11/22) of LDP and RDP, respectively (p = 0.870), being grade A the most frequent. Mortality was nil and an R0 resection was achieved in all Patients. The overall number of lymph nodes harvested was similar between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Both RDP and LDP are valid techniques for the treatment of distal pancreatic tumors. The advantages of RDP are claimed by many but still under investigation. Some of these advantages are more subjective than objective, and it seems difficult to demonstrate a real superiority of one technique over the other in a standardized fashion. In our experience, laparoscopy has not been abandoned in favor of the robot: we continue to perform both approaches choosing upon single patient's characteristics.
Authors: Raghunandan Venkat; Barish H Edil; Richard D Schulick; Anne O Lidor; Martin A Makary; Christopher L Wolfgang Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Giuseppe R Nigri; Alan S Rosman; Niccolò Petrucciani; Alessandro Fancellu; Michele Pisano; Luigi Zorcolo; Giovanni Ramacciato; Marcovalerio Melis Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2010-12-24 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Ki Byung Song; Song Cheol Kim; Jae Berm Park; Young Hoon Kim; Young Soo Jung; Myung-Hwan Kim; Sung-Koo Lee; Dong-Wan Seo; Sang Soo Lee; Do Hyun Park; Duck Jong Han Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2011-05-10 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Marin Strijker; Hjalmar C van Santvoort; Marc G Besselink; Richard van Hillegersberg; Inne H M Borel Rinkes; Menno R Vriens; I Quintus Molenaar Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2012-10-17 Impact factor: 3.647
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 M Hanna; Nigel Rozario; Christopher Rupp; David Sindram; David A Iannitti; John B Martinie Journal: Int J Med Robot Date: 2013-03-19 Impact factor: 2.547
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: Thijs de Rooij; Marc G Besselink; Awad Shamali; Giovanni Butturini; Olivier R Busch; Bjørn Edwin; Roberto Troisi; Laureano Fernández-Cruz; Ibrahim Dagher; Claudio Bassi; Mohammad Abu Hilal Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2015-12-10 Impact factor: 3.647