Literature DB >> 28812160

Robotic versus open pancreatoduodenectomy: a propensity score-matched analysis based on factors predictive of postoperative pancreatic fistula.

Niccolò Napoli1, Emanuele F Kauffmann1, Francesca Menonna1, Francesca Costa1, Sara Iacopi1, Gabriella Amorese2, Serena Giorgi3, Angelo Baggiani3, Ugo Boggi4,5.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Improvement in morbidity of pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) largely depends on the reduction in the incidence of clinically relevant (CR) postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF).
METHODS: After internal validation of the clinical risk score (CRS) of POPF, and identification of other predictive factors for POPF, robotic (RPD), and open (OPD) PDs were stratified into risk categories and matched by propensity scores. The primary endpoint of this study was incidence of CR-POPF. Secondary endpoints were 90-day morbidity and mortality, and sample size calculation for randomized controlled trials (RCT).
RESULTS: No patient undergoing RPD was classified at negligible risk for POPF, and no CR-POPF occurred in 7 RPD at low risk. The matching process identified 48 and 11 pairs at intermediate and high risk for POPF, respectively. In the intermediate-risk group, RPD was associated with higher rates of CR-POPF (31.3% vs 12.5%) (p = 0.0026), with equivalent incidence of grade C POPF. In the high-risk group, CR-POPF occurred frequently, but in similar percentages, after either procedures. Starting from an unadjusted point estimate of the effect size of 1.71 (0.91-3.21), the pair-matched odds ratio for CR-POPF after RPD was 2.80 (1.01-7.78) for the intermediate-risk group, and 0.20 (0.01-4.17) for the high-risk group. Overall morbidity and mortality were equivalent in matched study groups. Sample size calculation for a non-inferiority RCT demonstrated that a total of 31,669 PDs would be required to randomize 682 patients at intermediate risk and 1852 patients at high risk.
CONCLUSIONS: In patients at intermediate risk, RPD is associated with higher rates of CR-POPF. Incidence of grade C POPF is similar in RPD and OPD, making overall morbidity and mortality also equivalent. A RCT, with risk stratification for POPF, would require an enormous number of patients. Implementation of an international registry could be the next step in the assessment of RPD.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Open pancreatoduodenectomy; Pancreatoduodenectomy; Postoperative pancreatic fistula; Propensity score; Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28812160     DOI: 10.1007/s00464-017-5798-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surg Endosc        ISSN: 0930-2794            Impact factor:   4.584


  49 in total

1.  The da Vinci(®) Surgical System overcomes innate hand dominance.

Authors:  Phillip Mucksavage; David C Kerbl; Jason Y Lee
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2011-07-11       Impact factor: 2.942

2.  Matched Case-Control Analysis Comparing Laparoscopic and Open Pylorus-preserving Pancreaticoduodenectomy in Patients With Periampullary Tumors.

Authors:  Ki Byung Song; Song Cheol Kim; Dae Wook Hwang; Jae Hoon Lee; Dong Joo Lee; Jung Woo Lee; Kwang-Min Park; Young-Joo Lee
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2015-07       Impact factor: 12.969

3.  Clinical Risk Score to Predict Pancreatic Fistula after Pancreatoduodenectomy: Independent External Validation for Open and Laparoscopic Approaches.

Authors:  Christopher R Shubert; Amy E Wagie; Michael B Farnell; David M Nagorney; Florencia G Que; K Marie Reid Lombardo; Mark J Truty; Rory L Smoot; Michael L Kendrick
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2015-05-21       Impact factor: 6.113

4.  Estimating allowable blood loss: corrected for dilution.

Authors:  J B Gross
Journal:  Anesthesiology       Date:  1983-03       Impact factor: 7.892

5.  Risk-adjusted Outcomes of Clinically Relevant Pancreatic Fistula Following Pancreatoduodenectomy: A Model for Performance Evaluation.

Authors:  Matthew T McMillan; Sameer Soi; Horacio J Asbun; Chad G Ball; Claudio Bassi; Joal D Beane; Stephen W Behrman; Adam C Berger; Mark Bloomston; Mark P Callery; John D Christein; Elijah Dixon; Jeffrey A Drebin; Carlos Fernandez-Del Castillo; William E Fisher; Zhi Ven Fong; Michael G House; Steven J Hughes; Tara S Kent; John W Kunstman; Giuseppe Malleo; Benjamin C Miller; Ronald R Salem; Kevin Soares; Vicente Valero; Christopher L Wolfgang; Charles M Vollmer
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2016-08       Impact factor: 12.969

6.  A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis of Robotic vs Open Pancreatoduodenectomy on Incidence of Pancreatic Fistula.

Authors:  Matthew T McMillan; Amer H Zureikat; Melissa E Hogg; Stacy J Kowalsky; Herbert J Zeh; Michael H Sprys; Charles M Vollmer
Journal:  JAMA Surg       Date:  2017-04-01       Impact factor: 14.766

7.  Severe postoperative complications adversely affect long-term survival after R1 resection for pancreatic head adenocarcinoma.

Authors:  David Petermann; Nicolas Demartines; Markus Schäfer
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 3.352

8.  Total laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: oncologic advantages over open approaches?

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

9.  Feasibility of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy.

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

10.  Hybrid laparoscopic versus open pylorus-preserving pancreatoduodenectomy: retrospective matched case comparison in 80 patients.

Authors:  Ulrich Friedrich Wellner; Simon Küsters; Olivia Sick; Caroline Busch; Dirk Bausch; Peter Bronsert; Ulrich Theodor Hopt; Konrad Wojciech Karcz; Tobias Keck
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2014-07-30       Impact factor: 3.445

View more
  12 in total

Review 1.  [Evidence in minimally invasive surgery of the pancreas].

Authors:  Ekatarina Petrova; Charlotte Müller-Debus; Kim Honselmann; Ulrich Wellner; Tobias Keck
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2021-01-11       Impact factor: 0.955

2.  A propensity score-matched analysis of robotic versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer based on margin status.

Authors:  Emanuele F Kauffmann; Niccolò Napoli; Francesca Menonna; Sara Iacopi; Carlo Lombardo; Juri Bernardini; Gabriella Amorese; Andrea Cacciato Insilla; Niccola Funel; Daniela Campani; Carla Cappelli; Davide Caramella; Ugo Boggi
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2018-06-25       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  Robotic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: a meta-analysis of short-term outcomes.

Authors:  Qing Yan; Lei-Bo Xu; Ze-Fang Ren; Chao Liu
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2019-12-17       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 4.  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

5.  Robotic-assisted versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for patients with benign and malignant periampullary disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of short-term outcomes.

Authors:  Mauro Podda; Chiara Gerardi; Salomone Di Saverio; Marco Vito Marino; R Justin Davies; Gianluca Pellino; Adolfo Pisanu
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2020-02-18       Impact factor: 4.584

6.  Minimally Invasive Pancreatoduodenectomy: Contemporary Practice, Evidence, and Knowledge Gaps.

Authors:  Jacob Ghotbi; Mushegh Sahakyan; Kjetil Søreide; Åsmund Avdem Fretland; Bård Røsok; Tore Tholfsen; Anne Waage; Bjørn Edwin; Knut Jørgen Labori; Sheraz Yaqub; Dyre Kleive
Journal:  Oncol Ther       Date:  2022-07-12

7.  Robotic versus standard open pancreatectomy: a propensity score-matched analysis comparison.

Authors:  Benedetto Ielpo; Riccardo Caruso; Hipolito Duran; Eduardo Diaz; Isabel Fabra; Luis Malavé; Yolanda Quijano; Emilio Vicente
Journal:  Updates Surg       Date:  2018-03-26

8.  Pancreatic head cancer: Open or minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy?

Authors:  Mengyu Feng; Zhe Cao; Zhiwei Sun; Taiping Zhang; Yupei Zhao
Journal:  Chin J Cancer Res       Date:  2019-12       Impact factor: 5.087

Review 9.  Robotic pancreas surgery: an overview of history and update on technique, outcomes, and financials.

Authors:  Hussein H Khachfe; Joseph R Habib; Salem Al Harthi; Amal Suhool; Ali H Hallal; Faek R Jamali
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2021-08-06

10.  Systematic review and updated network meta-analysis comparing open, laparoscopic, and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Authors:  Alberto Aiolfi; Francesca Lombardo; Gianluca Bonitta; Piergiorgio Danelli; Davide Bona
Journal:  Updates Surg       Date:  2020-12-14
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.