Long Peng1, Shengrong Lin1, Yong Li1, Weidong Xiao2. 1. Department of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, No. 17 Yongwai Zhengjie, Nanchang, 330006, Jiangxi Province, China. 2. Department of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, No. 17 Yongwai Zhengjie, Nanchang, 330006, Jiangxi Province, China. frankxwd@126.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) has been successfully performed since 2003, its advantages over open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) are still uncertain. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the clinical outcomes of RPD to those of OPD. METHODS: A systematic literature review was performed to identify RPD versus OPD comparative studies published between January 2003 and January 2016. Intraoperative outcomes, post-operative outcomes and oncologic safety were evaluated. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and weighted mean differences (WMDs) with a 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were calculated using fixed-effect or random-effect models. RESULTS: Nine non-randomized observational clinical studies involving 680 patients met the inclusion criteria and involved 245 RPDs and 435 OPDs. The overall complication rate was significantly lower in RPD (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.47-0.91, P = 0.012), as well as the margin positivity rate (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.20-0.77, P = 0.006), the wound infection rate (OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.06-0.53, P = 0.002) and the length of hospital stay (WMD = -6.00, 95% CI -9.80 to -2.21, P = 0.002). There was no significant difference in the following: the number of lymph nodes harvested; the operation time; the reoperation rate; the incidence of delayed gastric emptying, bile leakage, pancreatic fistula and clinically significant pancreatic fistula; and mortality. The mean conversion rate was 7.3% (range 0-14%). CONCLUSIONS: According to the results of this meta-analysis, RPD is as safe and efficient as OPD and is even favourable in terms of margin-negative resection, overall complication and wound infection rates and length of hospital stay. Given that there have not yet been any high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs), the evidence is still limited. Additional prospective, multi-centre RCTs are needed to further define the role of the robotic technique in PD.
BACKGROUND: Although robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) has been successfully performed since 2003, its advantages over open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) are still uncertain. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the clinical outcomes of RPD to those of OPD. METHODS: A systematic literature review was performed to identify RPD versus OPD comparative studies published between January 2003 and January 2016. Intraoperative outcomes, post-operative outcomes and oncologic safety were evaluated. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and weighted mean differences (WMDs) with a 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were calculated using fixed-effect or random-effect models. RESULTS: Nine non-randomized observational clinical studies involving 680 patients met the inclusion criteria and involved 245 RPDs and 435 OPDs. The overall complication rate was significantly lower in RPD (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.47-0.91, P = 0.012), as well as the margin positivity rate (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.20-0.77, P = 0.006), the wound infection rate (OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.06-0.53, P = 0.002) and the length of hospital stay (WMD = -6.00, 95% CI -9.80 to -2.21, P = 0.002). There was no significant difference in the following: the number of lymph nodes harvested; the operation time; the reoperation rate; the incidence of delayed gastric emptying, bile leakage, pancreatic fistula and clinically significant pancreatic fistula; and mortality. The mean conversion rate was 7.3% (range 0-14%). CONCLUSIONS: According to the results of this meta-analysis, RPD is as safe and efficient as OPD and is even favourable in terms of margin-negative resection, overall complication and wound infection rates and length of hospital stay. Given that there have not yet been any high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs), the evidence is still limited. Additional prospective, multi-centre RCTs are needed to further define the role of the robotic technique in PD.
Entities:
Keywords:
Complications; Oncologic safety; Open surgery; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Robotic surgery
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
Authors: Thomas J Howard; Joseph E Krug; Jian Yu; Nick J Zyromski; C Max Schmidt; Lewis E Jacobson; James A Madura; Eric A Wiebke; Keith D Lillemoe Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2006-12 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Kevin Tri Nguyen; Amer H Zureikat; Sricharan Chalikonda; David L Bartlett; A James Moser; Herbert J Zeh Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2010-12-14 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Nicolas Christian Buchs; Pietro Addeo; Francesco Maria Bianco; Subhashini Ayloo; Enrico Benedetti; Pier Cristoforo Giulianotti Journal: World J Surg Date: 2011-12 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: David K Chang; Amber L Johns; Neil D Merrett; Anthony J Gill; Emily K Colvin; Christopher J Scarlett; Nam Q Nguyen; Rupert W L Leong; Peter H Cosman; Mark I Kelly; Robert L Sutherland; Susan M Henshall; James G Kench; Andrew V Biankin Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-04-27 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Christopher Gromisch; Motaz Qadan; Mariana Albuquerque Machado; Kebin Liu; Yolonda Colson; Mark W Grinstaff Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2020-03-27 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Amer H Zureikat; Joal D Beane; Mazen S Zenati; Amr I Al Abbas; Brian A Boone; A James Moser; David L Bartlett; Melissa E Hogg; Herbert J Zeh Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2021-05-01 Impact factor: 13.787