Sang Hyun Shin1, Ye-Jee Kim2, Ki Byung Song1, Seong-Ryong Kim1, Dae Wook Hwang1, Jae Hoon Lee1, Kwang-Min Park1, Young-Joo Lee1, Eunsung Jun3, Song Cheol Kim4. 1. Division of Hepato-Biliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 88 Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul, 05505, South Korea. 2. Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea. 3. Department of Biomedical Sciences, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea. 4. Division of Hepato-Biliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 88 Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul, 05505, South Korea. drksc@amc.seoul.kr.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare perioperative and oncologic outcomes of pure (totally) laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (TLPD) or robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (RAPD) with those of conventional open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD). METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane library databases. Studies comparing TLPD with OPD and RAPD with OPD were included; only original studies reporting more than 10 cases for each technique were included. Studies were combined using a random-effects model to report heterogeneous data, or a fixed-effects model was applied. RESULTS: TLPD involved longer operative time (weighted mean difference [WMD]: 116.85 min; 95% confidence interval [CI] 54.53-179.17) and significantly shorter postoperative hospital stay (WMD: -3.68 days; 95% CI -4.65 to -2.71). Overall morbidity and postoperative pancreatic fistula were not significantly different between TLPD and OPD. RAPD was associated with a longer operative time, less intraoperative blood loss, and shorter hospital stay. Oncologic outcomes were not significantly different among the procedure types. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to OPD, TLPD and RAPD were feasible and oncologically safe procedures. However, there are no prospective studies, and the majority of the studies on TLPD and RAPD have remained in the early training phase. In addition to randomized controlled trials or prospective studies, new data from the late training phase of learning experiences should also be analyzed.
OBJECTIVE: To compare perioperative and oncologic outcomes of pure (totally) laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (TLPD) or robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (RAPD) with those of conventional open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD). METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane library databases. Studies comparing TLPD with OPD and RAPD with OPD were included; only original studies reporting more than 10 cases for each technique were included. Studies were combined using a random-effects model to report heterogeneous data, or a fixed-effects model was applied. RESULTS: TLPD involved longer operative time (weighted mean difference [WMD]: 116.85 min; 95% confidence interval [CI] 54.53-179.17) and significantly shorter postoperative hospital stay (WMD: -3.68 days; 95% CI -4.65 to -2.71). Overall morbidity and postoperative pancreatic fistula were not significantly different between TLPD and OPD. RAPD was associated with a longer operative time, less intraoperative blood loss, and shorter hospital stay. Oncologic outcomes were not significantly different among the procedure types. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to OPD, TLPD and RAPD were feasible and oncologically safe procedures. However, there are no prospective studies, and the majority of the studies on TLPD and RAPD have remained in the early training phase. In addition to randomized controlled trials or prospective studies, new data from the late training phase of learning experiences should also be analyzed.
Authors: M Giessing; S Reuter; S Deger; M Tüllmann; I Hirte; K Budde; L Fritsche; T Slowinski; D Dragun; H H Neumayer; S A Loening; B Schönberger Journal: Transplant Proc Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 1.066
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: Paul J Speicher; Daniel P Nussbaum; Rebekah R White; Sabino Zani; Paul J Mosca; Dan G Blazer; Bryan M Clary; Theodore N Pappas; Douglas S Tyler; Alexander Perez Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2014-06-13 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Jean-François Gigot; David Glineur; Juan Santiago Azagra; Martine Goergen; Marc Ceuterick; Mario Morino; José Etienne; Jacques Marescaux; Didier Mutter; Ludo van Krunckelsven; Bernard Descottes; Dominique Valleix; François Lachachi; Claude Bertrand; Baudouin Mansvelt; Guy Hubens; Jean-Pierre Saey; Romain Schockmel Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2002-07 Impact factor: 12.969
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: 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: Tran Manh Hung; Tran Que Son; Tran Hieu Hoc; Tran Thanh Tung; Trieu Van Truong; Le Manh Cuong; Vu Duy Kien Journal: Ann Med Surg (Lond) Date: 2021-08-10