Literature DB >> 28276146

Early experience of laparoscopic and robotic hybrid pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Hongbeom Kim1, Jae Ri Kim1, Youngmin Han1, Wooil Kwon1, Sun-Whe Kim1, Jin-Young Jang1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic surgery and robotic surgery have their own merits and demerits. The aim of this study was to evaluate early experiences of hybrid pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) and to identify the learning curve of robotic surgery.
METHODS: Sixteen patients underwent hybrid PD from August 2015 to February 2016. The outcomes were compared with those of an open PD group by the same operator during the same period. The resection time and anastomosis time were analyzed.
RESULTS: Six patients in the hybrid PD group developed complications. The postoperative hospital stay in the hybrid surgery group was significantly shorter than the open PD group (10.9 ± 3.2 vs 16.9 ± 8.8 days). The total operative time of hybrid surgery was significantly longer than that of open surgery (414.7 ± 47.0 vs 266.0 ± 51.1 minutes). In hybrid surgery, the actual operation time reduced with experience, particularly anastomosis time.
CONCLUSION: Hybrid PD is feasible and safe. The learning curve of hybrid surgery, particularly robotic anastomosis, is relatively short.
Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  laparoscopy; learning curve; outcome; pancreaticoduodenectomy; robotic surgical procedure

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28276146     DOI: 10.1002/rcs.1814

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Med Robot        ISSN: 1478-5951            Impact factor:   2.547


  7 in total

1.  Independent Predictors of Increased Operative Time and Hospital Length of Stay Are Consistent Across Different Surgical Approaches to Pancreatoduodenectomy.

Authors:  Dimitrios Xourafas; Timothy M Pawlik; Jordan M Cloyd
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2018-06-25       Impact factor: 3.452

2.  Robotic-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma in horseshoe kidney: a hybrid technique with conventional laparoscopic surgery.

Authors:  Kazuyuki Numakura; Yumina Muto; Ryohei Yamamoto; Atsushi Koizumi; Taketoshi Nara; Sohei Kanda; Mitsuru Saito; Shintaro Narita; Takamitsu Inoue; Tomonori Habuchi
Journal:  Int Cancer Conf J       Date:  2020-06-04

Review 3.  International consensus statement on robotic pancreatic surgery.

Authors:  Rong Liu; Go Wakabayashi; Chinnusamy Palanivelu; Allan Tsung; Kehu Yang; Brian K P Goh; Charing Ching-Ning Chong; Chang Moo Kang; Chenghong Peng; Eli Kakiashvili; Ho-Seong Han; Hong-Jin Kim; Jin He; Jae Hoon Lee; Kyoichi Takaori; Marco Vito Marino; Shen-Nien Wang; Tiankang Guo; Thilo Hackert; Ting-Shuo Huang; Yiengpruksawan Anusak; Yuman Fong; Yuichi Nagakawa; Yi-Ming Shyr; Yao-Ming Wu; Yupei Zhao
Journal:  Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr       Date:  2019-08       Impact factor: 7.293

4.  Revisiting the potential advantage of robotic surgical system in spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy over conventional laparoscopic approach.

Authors:  Seok Jeong Yang; Ho Kyoung Hwang; Chang Moo Kang; Woo Jung Lee
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2020-03

Review 5.  Robot-assisted radical cholecystectomy for gallbladder cancer: A review.

Authors:  Weng Jiayi; Vishal G Shelat
Journal:  J Clin Transl Res       Date:  2022-02-02

6.  Effectiveness and stability of robot-assisted anastomosis in minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Authors:  Sung Eun Park; Ho Joong Choi; Young Kyoung You; Tae Ho Hong
Journal:  Ann Surg Treat Res       Date:  2021-06-01       Impact factor: 1.859

7.  Learning curves in minimally invasive pancreatic surgery: a systematic review.

Authors:  Gayle Fung; Menazir Sha; Basir Kunduzi; Farid Froghi; Saad Rehman; Saied Froghi
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2022-03-12       Impact factor: 2.895

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.