Jia-Bin Jin1, Kai Qin1, Hua Li1, Zhi-Chong Wu1, Qian Zhan1, Xia-Xing Deng1, Hao Chen1, Bai-Yong Shen1, Cheng-Hong Peng2, Hong-Wei Li1. 1. Pancreatic Disease Center, Department of General Surgery, Ruijin Hospital, Affiliated to Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, No. 197 Ruijin Er Road, Shanghai, 200025, People's Republic of China. 2. Pancreatic Disease Center, Department of General Surgery, Ruijin Hospital, Affiliated to Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, No. 197 Ruijin Er Road, Shanghai, 200025, People's Republic of China. chhpeng@yeah.net.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Enucleation is increasingly performed for benign or borderline tumours of the pancreas because it is a parenchyma-sparing and less invasive procedure compared to conventional pancreatectomy, which reduces the risk of exocrine and endocrine insufficiency. This study retrospectively evaluated and compared the pre-, intra-, and post-operative clinical characteristics after open and robotic approaches for pancreatic enucleation. METHODS: Fifty-six cases of enucleation for benign or borderline tumours of the pancreas treated from March 2010 to July 2015 were identified by a retrospective search. These included 25 patients who underwent an open approach and 31 patients who underwent a robotic approach. The clinical characteristics were extracted and compared. RESULTS: The two groups had a similar location and pathology of the tumour. The robotic group had a significantly shorter operation time and significantly less blood loss than the open group. The rates of clinical pancreatic fistula (PF) formation and major complications were similar. The robotic approach could be applied for a tumour on the right side of the pancreas without increasing the incidence of clinical PF or other major complications. The patients with clinical PF had a significantly shorter distance between the lesion and the main pancreatic duct (MPD). CONCLUSION: Robotic enucleation appears to be a feasible and safe approach for benign or borderline tumours of the pancreas and was associated with similarly favourable surgical outcomes as the open approach. Identifying and avoiding the MPD is an important step during enucleation.
BACKGROUND: Enucleation is increasingly performed for benign or borderline tumours of the pancreas because it is a parenchyma-sparing and less invasive procedure compared to conventional pancreatectomy, which reduces the risk of exocrine and endocrine insufficiency. This study retrospectively evaluated and compared the pre-, intra-, and post-operative clinical characteristics after open and robotic approaches for pancreatic enucleation. METHODS: Fifty-six cases of enucleation for benign or borderline tumours of the pancreas treated from March 2010 to July 2015 were identified by a retrospective search. These included 25 patients who underwent an open approach and 31 patients who underwent a robotic approach. The clinical characteristics were extracted and compared. RESULTS: The two groups had a similar location and pathology of the tumour. The robotic group had a significantly shorter operation time and significantly less blood loss than the open group. The rates of clinical pancreatic fistula (PF) formation and major complications were similar. The robotic approach could be applied for a tumour on the right side of the pancreas without increasing the incidence of clinical PF or other major complications. The patients with clinical PF had a significantly shorter distance between the lesion and the main pancreatic duct (MPD). CONCLUSION: Robotic enucleation appears to be a feasible and safe approach for benign or borderline tumours of the pancreas and was associated with similarly favourable surgical outcomes as the open approach. Identifying and avoiding the MPD is an important step during enucleation.
Authors: Matthew H Kulke; Manisha H Shah; Al B Benson; Emily Bergsland; Jordan D Berlin; Lawrence S Blaszkowsky; Lyska Emerson; Paul F Engstrom; Paul Fanta; Thomas Giordano; Whitney S Goldner; Thorvardur R Halfdanarson; Martin J Heslin; Fouad Kandeel; Pamela L Kunz; Boris W Kuvshinoff; Christopher Lieu; Jeffrey F Moley; Gitonga Munene; Venu G Pillarisetty; Leonard Saltz; Julie Ann Sosa; Jonathan R Strosberg; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey; Christopher Wolfgang; James C Yao; Jennifer Burns; Deborah Freedman-Cass Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Justin R Parekh; Sam C Wang; Emily K Bergsland; Alan P Venook; Robert S Warren; Grace E Kim; Eric K Nakakura Journal: Pancreas Date: 2012-08 Impact factor: 3.327
Authors: C E Cauley; H A Pitt; K M Ziegler; A Nakeeb; C M Schmidt; N J Zyromski; M G House; K D Lillemoe Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2012-04-24 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Tommaso Giuliani; Giovanni Marchegiani; Mark D Girgis; Stefano Francesco Crinò; Venkataraman R Muthusamy; Laura Bernardoni; Antonio Pea; Marco Ramera; Salvatore Paiella; Luca Landoni; Armando Gabbrielli; Roberto Salvia; Timothy R Donahue; Claudio Bassi Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2020-03-16 Impact factor: 4.584