Bin Huang1, Lu Feng2, Jichun Zhao3. 1. Department of Vascular Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan Province, China. 2. Department of Emergency Surgery, Sichuan Academy of Medical Sciences and Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital, Chengdu, 610072, Sichuan Province, China. 3. Department of Vascular Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan Province, China. zjcwch@163.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The number of published series on minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy has significantly increased. Robotic systems can overcome some limitations of laparoscopy. This study aimed to compare two techniques in distal pancreatectomy. METHODS: Multiple electronic databases were systematically searched to identify studies (up to July 2015) that compared perioperative outcomes between robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP). Relative risks with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated. RESULTS: Nine studies were enrolled in this review. Four studies reported on operative time, indicating no difference between the RDP and LDP groups (WMD = 21.55, 95 % CI -65.28-108.37, P = 0.63). No significant difference between the two groups was indicated with respect to the number of patients who converted to open (OR 0.35, 95 % CI 0.11-1.13, P = 0.08), spleen preservation rate (OR 2.37, 95 % CI 0.50-11.30, P = 0.28), and transfusion rate (OR 1.30, 95 % CI 0.54-3.13, P = 0.56). In addition, no difference was indicated in the incidence of pancreatic fistulas (OR 1.05, 95 % CI 0.67-1.65, P = 0.83) and length of hospital stay between the two groups (WMD = -0.61, 95 % CI -1.40-0.19, P = 0.13). CONCLUSIONS: RDP seems to be a safe and effective alternative to LDP. Large randomized controlled trials are needed to verify the results of this meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The number of published series on minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy has significantly increased. Robotic systems can overcome some limitations of laparoscopy. This study aimed to compare two techniques in distal pancreatectomy. METHODS: Multiple electronic databases were systematically searched to identify studies (up to July 2015) that compared perioperative outcomes between robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP). Relative risks with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated. RESULTS: Nine studies were enrolled in this review. Four studies reported on operative time, indicating no difference between the RDP and LDP groups (WMD = 21.55, 95 % CI -65.28-108.37, P = 0.63). No significant difference between the two groups was indicated with respect to the number of patients who converted to open (OR 0.35, 95 % CI 0.11-1.13, P = 0.08), spleen preservation rate (OR 2.37, 95 % CI 0.50-11.30, P = 0.28), and transfusion rate (OR 1.30, 95 % CI 0.54-3.13, P = 0.56). In addition, no difference was indicated in the incidence of pancreatic fistulas (OR 1.05, 95 % CI 0.67-1.65, P = 0.83) and length of hospital stay between the two groups (WMD = -0.61, 95 % CI -1.40-0.19, P = 0.13). CONCLUSIONS: RDP seems to be a safe and effective alternative to LDP. Large randomized controlled trials are needed to verify the results of this meta-analysis.
Entities:
Keywords:
Complications; Distal pancreatectomy; Laparoscopy; Robotic surgery
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: Sandeep S Vijan; Kamran A Ahmed; William S Harmsen; Florencia G Que; Kaye M Reid-Lombardo; David M Nagorney; John H Donohue; Michael B Farnell; Michael L Kendrick Journal: Arch Surg Date: 2010-07
Authors: Ser Yee Lee; Peter J Allen; Eran Sadot; Michael I D'Angelica; Ronald P DeMatteo; Yuman Fong; William R Jarnagin; T Peter Kingham Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2014-10-15 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Bjørn Edwin; Mushegh A Sahakyan; Mohammad Abu Hilal; Marc G Besselink; Marco Braga; Jean-Michel Fabre; Laureano Fernández-Cruz; Brice Gayet; Song Cheol Kim; Igor E Khatkov Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2017-02-15 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Shi Qing Lee; Tousif Kabir; Ye-Xin Koh; Jin-Yao Teo; Ser-Yee Lee; Juinn-Huar Kam; Peng-Chung Cheow; Prema Raj Jeyaraj; Pierce K H Chow; London L Ooi; Alexander Y F Chung; Chung-Yip Chan; Brian K P Goh Journal: Ann Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg Date: 2020-08-31