Amer H Zureikat1, Jeffrey Borrebach2, Henry A Pitt3, Douglas Mcgill2, Melissa E Hogg4, Vanessa Thompson5, David J Bentrem6, Bruce L Hall7, Herbert J Zeh4. 1. Department of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. Electronic address: zureikatah@upmc.edu. 2. Wolff Center of University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 3. Department of Surgery, Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 4. Department of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 5. American College of Surgeons - National Surgical Quality Improvement Program, Chicago, IL, USA. 6. Department of Surgery, Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA. 7. American College of Surgeons - National Surgical Quality Improvement Program, Chicago, IL, USA; Department of Surgery and Olin Business School, Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, MO, USA; BJC Healthcare, St Louis, MO, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Procedural conversion rates represent an important aspect of the feasibility of minimally invasive surgical (MIS) approaches. This study aimed to outline the rates and predictors of procedural completion/conversion for MIS hepatectomy and pancreatectomy. METHODS: All 2014 ACS-NSQIP laparoscopic and robotic hepatectomy and pancreatectomy procedures were identified and grouped into pure, open assist, or unplanned conversion to open. Risk adjusted multinomial logistic regression models were generated with completion (Pure) set as the primary outcome. RESULTS: 1667 (laparoscopic = 1360, robotic = 307) resections were captured. After risk adjustment, robotic DP was associated with similar open assist (relative risk ratio -1.9%, P = 0.602), but lower unplanned conversion (-8.2%, P = 0.004) and open assist + unplanned conversion (-10.1%, P = 0.015) compared to laparoscopic DP; while robotic PD was associated with lower open assist (-22.2%, P < 0.001), unplanned conversions (-15%, P = 0.006) and open assist + unplanned conversions (-37.2, P < 0.001) compared to laparoscopic PD. The robotic and laparoscopic approaches to hepatectomy were not associated with differences in pure MIS completion rates (P = NS) after risk adjustment. CONCLUSIONS: The robotic approach to pancreatectomy was associated with higher rates of pure MIS completion compared to laparoscopy, whereas no difference in MIS completion rates was noted for robotic versus laparoscopic hepatectomy.
BACKGROUND: Procedural conversion rates represent an important aspect of the feasibility of minimally invasive surgical (MIS) approaches. This study aimed to outline the rates and predictors of procedural completion/conversion for MIS hepatectomy and pancreatectomy. METHODS: All 2014 ACS-NSQIP laparoscopic and robotic hepatectomy and pancreatectomy procedures were identified and grouped into pure, open assist, or unplanned conversion to open. Risk adjusted multinomial logistic regression models were generated with completion (Pure) set as the primary outcome. RESULTS: 1667 (laparoscopic = 1360, robotic = 307) resections were captured. After risk adjustment, robotic DP was associated with similar open assist (relative risk ratio -1.9%, P = 0.602), but lower unplanned conversion (-8.2%, P = 0.004) and open assist + unplanned conversion (-10.1%, P = 0.015) compared to laparoscopic DP; while robotic PD was associated with lower open assist (-22.2%, P < 0.001), unplanned conversions (-15%, P = 0.006) and open assist + unplanned conversions (-37.2, P < 0.001) compared to laparoscopic PD. The robotic and laparoscopic approaches to hepatectomy were not associated with differences in pure MIS completion rates (P = NS) after risk adjustment. CONCLUSIONS: The robotic approach to pancreatectomy was associated with higher rates of pure MIS completion compared to laparoscopy, whereas no difference in MIS completion rates was noted for robotic versus laparoscopic hepatectomy.
Authors: William B Lyman; Michael Passeri; Amit Sastry; Allyson Cochran; David A Iannitti; Dionisios Vrochides; Erin H Baker; John B Martinie Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2018-11-12 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: James R Howe; Nipun B Merchant; Claudius Conrad; Xavier M Keutgen; Julie Hallet; Jeffrey A Drebin; Rebecca M Minter; Terry C Lairmore; Jennifer F Tseng; Herbert J Zeh; Steven K Libutti; Gagandeep Singh; Jeffrey E Lee; Thomas A Hope; Michelle K Kim; Yusuf Menda; Thorvardur R Halfdanarson; Jennifer A Chan; Rodney F Pommier Journal: Pancreas Date: 2020-01 Impact factor: 3.327
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: Caitlin A Hester; Ibrahim Nassour; Alana Christie; Mathew M Augustine; John C Mansour; Patricio M Polanco; Matthew R Porembka; Thomas H Shoultz; Sam C Wang; Adam C Yopp; Herbert J Zeh; Rebecca M Minter Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2019-04-23 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Catherine H Davis; Miral S Grandhi; Victor P Gazivoda; Alissa Greenbaum; Timothy J Kennedy; Russell C Langan; H Richard Alexander; Henry A Pitt; David A August Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2022-08-04 Impact factor: 3.453
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
Authors: Riccardo Casadei; Claudio Ricci; Carlo Ingaldi; Laura Alberici; Maria Chiara Vaccaro; Elisa Galasso; Francesco Minni Journal: World J Surg Date: 2020-10-15 Impact factor: 3.352