Paschalis Gavriilidis1, Chetana Lim1, Benjamin Menahem1, Eylon Lahat1, Chady Salloum1, Daniel Azoulay2. 1. Department of Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery and Liver Transplantation, Henri Mondor Hospital, Créteil, France. 2. Department of Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery and Liver Transplantation, Henri Mondor Hospital, Créteil, France; INSERM U 955, Créteil, France. Electronic address: daniel.azoulay@hmn.aphp.fr.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy is considered hazardous for the majority of authors and minimally distal pancreatectomy is still a debated topic. The aim of this study was to compare robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) using meta-analysis. METHOD: EMBASE, Medline and PubMed were searched systematically to identify full-text articles comparing robotic and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies. The meta-analysis was performed by using Review Manager 5.3. RESULTS: Nine studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria and included 637 patients (246 robotic and 391 laparoscopic). RDP had a shorter hospital length of stay by 1 day (P = 0.01). On the other hand, LDP had shorter operative time by 30 min, although this was statistically nonsignificant (P = 0.12). RDP showed a significantly increased readmission rate (P = 0.04). There was no difference in the conversion rate, incidence of postoperative pancreatic fistula, International Study Group of Pancreatic Fistula grade B-C rate, major morbidity, spleen preservation rate and perioperative mortality. All surgical specimens of RDP reported R0 negative margins, whereas 7 specimens in the LDP group had affected margins. CONCLUSIONS: In terms of feasibility, safety and oncological adequacy, there is no essential difference between the two techniques so far. The 30 min longer operative time of the RDP is due to the docking and undocking of the robot. The shorter length of stay by 1 day should be judged in combination with the increased 90-day readmission rate.
BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy is considered hazardous for the majority of authors and minimally distal pancreatectomy is still a debated topic. The aim of this study was to compare robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) using meta-analysis. METHOD: EMBASE, Medline and PubMed were searched systematically to identify full-text articles comparing robotic and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies. The meta-analysis was performed by using Review Manager 5.3. RESULTS: Nine studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria and included 637 patients (246 robotic and 391 laparoscopic). RDP had a shorter hospital length of stay by 1 day (P = 0.01). On the other hand, LDP had shorter operative time by 30 min, although this was statistically nonsignificant (P = 0.12). RDP showed a significantly increased readmission rate (P = 0.04). There was no difference in the conversion rate, incidence of postoperative pancreatic fistula, International Study Group of Pancreatic Fistula grade B-C rate, major morbidity, spleen preservation rate and perioperative mortality. All surgical specimens of RDP reported R0 negative margins, whereas 7 specimens in the LDP group had affected margins. CONCLUSIONS: In terms of feasibility, safety and oncological adequacy, there is no essential difference between the two techniques so far. The 30 min longer operative time of the RDP is due to the docking and undocking of the robot. The shorter length of stay by 1 day should be judged in combination with the increased 90-day readmission rate.
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: Daniel R Rutz; Malcolm H Squires; Shishir K Maithel; Juan M Sarmiento; Joanna W Etra; Sebastian D Perez; William Knechtle; Kenneth Cardona; Maria C Russell; Charles A Staley; John F Sweeney; David A Kooby Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2014-06-16 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: Carrie E Ryan; Sharona B Ross; Prashant B Sukharamwala; Benjamin D Sadowitz; Thomas W Wood; Alexander S Rosemurgy Journal: JSLS Date: 2015 Jan-Mar Impact factor: 2.172
Authors: Nicola de'Angelis; Salah Alghamdi; Andrea Renda; Daniel Azoulay; Francesco Brunetti Journal: World J Surg Oncol Date: 2015-10-09 Impact factor: 2.754
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: 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