Rong Liu1, Tao Zhang2,3, Zhi-Ming Zhao2, Xiang-Long Tan2, Guo-Dong Zhao2, Xuan Zhang2, Yong Xu2. 1. Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgical Oncology, Chinese PLA General Hospital and Chinese PLA Medical School, 28 Fuxing Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100853, China. liurong301@126.com. 2. Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgical Oncology, Chinese PLA General Hospital and Chinese PLA Medical School, 28 Fuxing Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100853, China. 3. Department of General Surgery, 306 Hospital of PLA, Beijing, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is a difficult and complex operation. The introduction of robotics has opened up new angles in pancreatic surgery. This study aims to assess the surgical outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy relative to its laparoscopic counterpart. METHODS: A retrospective study was designed to compare the surgical outcomes of 27 robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) and 25 laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD). Perioperative data, including operating time, complication, morbidity and mortality, estimated blood loss, and postoperative length of stay, were analyzed. RESULTS: The robotic group exhibited significantly shorter operative time (mean 387 vs. 442 min), shorter hospital stay (mean 17 vs. 24 days), and less blood loss (mean 219 vs. 334 ml) than those in the LPD group. No statistical difference was observed between the two groups in terms of complication rate, mortality rate, R0 resection rate, and number of harvested lymph node. CONCLUSIONS: RPD is more efficient and secure process than LPD among properly selected patients. RPD is therefore a feasible alternative to the laparoscopic procedure. Further studies are needed to evaluate the cost effectiveness of the robotic approach for PD.
BACKGROUND: Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is a difficult and complex operation. The introduction of robotics has opened up new angles in pancreatic surgery. This study aims to assess the surgical outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy relative to its laparoscopic counterpart. METHODS: A retrospective study was designed to compare the surgical outcomes of 27 robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) and 25 laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD). Perioperative data, including operating time, complication, morbidity and mortality, estimated blood loss, and postoperative length of stay, were analyzed. RESULTS: The robotic group exhibited significantly shorter operative time (mean 387 vs. 442 min), shorter hospital stay (mean 17 vs. 24 days), and less blood loss (mean 219 vs. 334 ml) than those in the LPD group. No statistical difference was observed between the two groups in terms of complication rate, mortality rate, R0 resection rate, and number of harvested lymph node. CONCLUSIONS: RPD is more efficient and secure process than LPD among properly selected patients. RPD is therefore a feasible alternative to the laparoscopic procedure. Further studies are needed to evaluate the cost effectiveness of the robotic approach for PD.
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: Kristopher P Croome; Michael B Farnell; Florencia G Que; K Marie Reid-Lombardo; Mark J Truty; David M Nagorney; Michael L Kendrick Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: U Boggi; S Signori; N De Lio; V G Perrone; F Vistoli; M Belluomini; C Cappelli; G Amorese; F Mosca Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2013-06 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: Cho Rok Lee; Seoung Yoon Rho; Sang Hyup Han; Young Moon; Sun Young Hwang; Young Joo Kim; Chang Moo Kang Journal: World J Surg Date: 2019-11 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Claudio Ricci; Riccardo Casadei; Giovanni Taffurelli; Carlo Alberto Pacilio; Marco Ricciardiello; Francesco Minni Journal: World J Surg Date: 2018-03 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Ioannis T Konstantinidis; Zeljka Jutric; Oliver S Eng; Susanne G Warner; Laleh G Melstrom; Yuman Fong; Byrne Lee; Gagandeep Singh Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2017-12-22 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Ibrahim Nassour; Sam C Wang; Matthew R Porembka; Adam C Yopp; Michael A Choti; Mathew M Augustine; Patricio M Polanco; John C Mansour; Rebecca M Minter Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2017-08-17 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Ibrahim Nassour; Michael A Choti; Matthew R Porembka; Adam C Yopp; Sam C Wang; Patricio M Polanco Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2017-12-26 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Rong Liu; Guo-Dong Zhao; Wen-Bo Tang; Ke-di Zhang; Zhi-Ming Zhao; Yuan-Xing Gao; Ming-Gen Hu; Cheng-Gang Li; Xiang-Long Tan; Xuan Zhang Journal: Nan Fang Yi Ke Da Xue Xue Bao Date: 2018-02-20