Literature DB >> 26574831

Early experience with robotic pancreatic surgery in a Canadian institution.

Sabrina Piedimonte1, Yifan Wang1, Simon Bergman1, Tsafrir Vanounou1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic resections have traditionally been associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. The robotic platform is believed to improve technical aspects of the procedure while offering minimally invasive benefits. We sought to determine the safety and feasibility of the first robotic pancreaticoduodenectomies performed at our institution.
METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed data on all patients who underwent robotic-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (RAPD) between July 2010 and June 2014 and compared them to outcomes of patients undergoing hybrid laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomies (HLAPD) during the same time period.
RESULTS: Fifteen patients were scheduled for RAPD; 2 were converted to an open approach and 1 to a mini-laparotomy during the laparoscopic portion of the procedure. Patients who had RAPD (n = 12) had a median duration of surgery of 596.6 (range 509-799) minutes, estimated blood loss of 275 (range 50-1000) mL and median length of stay of 7.5 (range 5-57) days. Mean total opioid use up to postoperative day 7 was 142.599 ± 68.2 versus 176.9 ± 112.7 mg equivalents of intravenous morphine for RAPD and HLAPD, respectively. There was no significant difference between RAPD and HLAPD in any parameters, highlighting the safety and feasibility of a step-wise minimally invasive learning platform. Most patients in the RAPD group had malignant pathology (88.2%). Oncologic outcomes were maintained with no significant difference in ability to resect lymph nodes or achieve negative margins. There were 4 (28.5%) Clavien I-II complications and 3 (29.4%) Clavien III- IV complications, 2 of which required readmission. There were no reported deaths at 90 days. Complication, pancreatic leak and mortality rates did not differ significantly from our laparoscopic experience.
CONCLUSION: Outcomes of RAPD and HLAPD were comparable at our centre, even during the early stages of our learning curve. These results also highlight the safety, feasibility and patient benefits of a step-wise transition from open to hybrid to fully robotic pancreaticoduodenectomies in a high-volume academic centre.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26574831      PMCID: PMC4651691          DOI: 10.1503/cjs.003815

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Can J Surg        ISSN: 0008-428X            Impact factor:   2.089


  19 in total

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

Authors:  S Chalikonda; J R Aguilar-Saavedra; R M Walsh
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2012-03-22       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  Outcomes after robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary lesions.

Authors:  Herbert J Zeh; Amer H Zureikat; Aaron Secrest; Mustapha Dauoudi; David Bartlett; A James Moser
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2011-09-24       Impact factor: 5.344

3.  Robotic-assisted major pancreatic resection and reconstruction.

Authors:  Amer H Zureikat; Kevin T Nguyen; David L Bartlett; Herbert J Zeh; A James Moser
Journal:  Arch Surg       Date:  2010-11-15

Review 4.  Postoperative pancreatic fistula: an international study group (ISGPF) definition.

Authors:  Claudio Bassi; Christos Dervenis; Giovanni Butturini; Abe Fingerhut; Charles Yeo; Jakob Izbicki; John Neoptolemos; Michael Sarr; William Traverso; Marcus Buchler
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 3.982

Review 5.  Minimally-invasive vs open pancreaticoduodenectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Camilo Correa-Gallego; Helen E Dinkelspiel; Isabel Sulimanoff; Sarah Fisher; Eduardo F Viñuela; T Peter Kingham; Yuman Fong; Ronald P DeMatteo; Michael I D'Angelica; William R Jarnagin; Peter J Allen
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2013-11-23       Impact factor: 6.113

6.  Outcomes of pancreatoduodenectomy with robotic surgery versus open surgery.

Authors:  Ning-xin Zhou; Jun-zhou Chen; Quanda Liu; Xiaodong Zhang; Zhifei Wang; Shiyan Ren; Xiong-fei Chen
Journal:  Int J Med Robot       Date:  2011-03-16       Impact factor: 2.547

Review 7.  The utility of the robot in pancreatic resections.

Authors:  Amer H Zureikat; Melissa E Hogg; Herbert J Zeh
Journal:  Adv Surg       Date:  2014

8.  Can laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy be safely implemented?

Authors:  Amer H Zureikat; Jason A Breaux; Jennifer L Steel; Steven J Hughes
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2011-05-03       Impact factor: 3.452

9.  Assessment of complications after pancreatic surgery: A novel grading system applied to 633 patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Authors:  Michelle L DeOliveira; Jordan M Winter; Markus Schafer; Steven C Cunningham; John L Cameron; Charles J Yeo; Pierre-Alain Clavien
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 12.969

10.  Robotics in general surgery: personal experience in a large community hospital.

Authors:  Pier Cristoforo Giulianotti; Andrea Coratti; Marta Angelini; Fabio Sbrana; Simone Cecconi; Tommaso Balestracci; Giuseppe Caravaglios
Journal:  Arch Surg       Date:  2003-07
View more
  7 in total

Review 1.  Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy with vascular resection.

Authors:  Emanuele F Kauffmann; Niccolò Napoli; Francesca Menonna; Fabio Vistoli; Gabriella Amorese; Daniela Campani; Luca Emanuele Pollina; Niccola Funel; Carla Cappelli; Davide Caramella; Ugo Boggi
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2016-08-24       Impact factor: 3.445

Review 2.  International consensus statement on robotic pancreatic surgery.

Authors:  Rong Liu; Go Wakabayashi; Chinnusamy Palanivelu; Allan Tsung; Kehu Yang; Brian K P Goh; Charing Ching-Ning Chong; Chang Moo Kang; Chenghong Peng; Eli Kakiashvili; Ho-Seong Han; Hong-Jin Kim; Jin He; Jae Hoon Lee; Kyoichi Takaori; Marco Vito Marino; Shen-Nien Wang; Tiankang Guo; Thilo Hackert; Ting-Shuo Huang; Yiengpruksawan Anusak; Yuman Fong; Yuichi Nagakawa; Yi-Ming Shyr; Yao-Ming Wu; Yupei Zhao
Journal:  Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr       Date:  2019-08       Impact factor: 7.293

3.  The first year is the hardest: a comparison of early versus late experience after the introduction of robotic hiatal hernia repair.

Authors:  Kimberly Washington; Jeffrey R Watkins; D Rohan Jeyarajah
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2019-04-25

4.  Reduction of pancreatic anastomotic leakage after pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Authors:  Paul Niloff
Journal:  Can J Surg       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 2.089

Review 5.  Stents for the prevention of pancreatic fistula following pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Authors:  Zhiyong Dong; Jing Xu; Zhen Wang; Maxim S Petrov
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2016-05-06

6.  Technical considerations for the fully robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Authors:  Daniel Galvez; Rebecca Sorber; Ammar A Javed; Jin He
Journal:  J Vis Surg       Date:  2017-06-12

Review 7.  Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary disease: a comprehensive review of literature and meta-analysis of outcomes compared with open surgery.

Authors:  Ke Chen; Yu Pan; Xiao-Long Liu; Guang-Yi Jiang; Di Wu; Hendi Maher; Xiu-Jun Cai
Journal:  BMC Gastroenterol       Date:  2017-11-23       Impact factor: 3.067

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.