Ibrahim Nassour1, Michael A Choti1, Matthew R Porembka1, Adam C Yopp1, Sam C Wang1, Patricio M Polanco2,3. 1. Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, 5323 Harry Hines Blvd, Dallas, TX, 75390-8548, USA. 2. Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, 5323 Harry Hines Blvd, Dallas, TX, 75390-8548, USA. Patricio.Polanco@utsouthwestern.edu. 3. Department of Veterans Affairs North Texas Health Care System, Dallas, TX, USA. Patricio.Polanco@utsouthwestern.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) is being performed with increasing frequency for pancreatic cancer, but the most oncologically efficacious surgical platform, whether robotic or laparoscopic, is yet to be determined. Currently, there are no national studies comparing the oncological outcomes between robotic (RPD) and laparoscopic (LPD) pancreaticoduodenectomy. METHODS: This was a retrospective study using the National Cancer Database between 2010 and 2013. We compared the perioperative, pathological, and mid-term oncological outcomes between RPD and LPD. RESULTS: There were 1623 MIPD cases, of which 90% were LPD and 10% were RPD. Most LPD (63%) and RPD (51%) cases were performed at institutions with a volume of ≤ 5 MIPDs per year. There were no differences in patient- and tumor-related factors between the groups. The majority of treated tumors were adenocarcinoma (90.1% for RPD and 89.1% for LPD). RPDs were more likely to be performed at academic centers (89.1%) compared to LPDs (68.1%, P < 0.001) and at higher-volume centers (median MIPD/year of 4.7 for RPD vs 3.6 for LPD, P < 0.001). There was no difference in the median number of examined lymph nodes, margin status, median length of stay, 90-day mortality, or 30-day readmission between groups. There was no difference in median overall survival for pancreatic adenocarcinoma between LPD (20.7 months) and RPD (22.7 months; log-rank P = 0.445). The 1- and 3-year overall survival rates were 74 and 31% for LPD and 71 and 33% for RPD. CONCLUSION: In this national cohort of patients, LPD and RPD were associated with equivalent perioperative, pathological, and mid-term oncological outcomes.
BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) is being performed with increasing frequency for pancreatic cancer, but the most oncologically efficacious surgical platform, whether robotic or laparoscopic, is yet to be determined. Currently, there are no national studies comparing the oncological outcomes between robotic (RPD) and laparoscopic (LPD) pancreaticoduodenectomy. METHODS: This was a retrospective study using the National Cancer Database between 2010 and 2013. We compared the perioperative, pathological, and mid-term oncological outcomes between RPD and LPD. RESULTS: There were 1623 MIPD cases, of which 90% were LPD and 10% were RPD. Most LPD (63%) and RPD (51%) cases were performed at institutions with a volume of ≤ 5 MIPDs per year. There were no differences in patient- and tumor-related factors between the groups. The majority of treated tumors were adenocarcinoma (90.1% for RPD and 89.1% for LPD). RPDs were more likely to be performed at academic centers (89.1%) compared to LPDs (68.1%, P < 0.001) and at higher-volume centers (median MIPD/year of 4.7 for RPD vs 3.6 for LPD, P < 0.001). There was no difference in the median number of examined lymph nodes, margin status, median length of stay, 90-day mortality, or 30-day readmission between groups. There was no difference in median overall survival for pancreatic adenocarcinoma between LPD (20.7 months) and RPD (22.7 months; log-rank P = 0.445). The 1- and 3-year overall survival rates were 74 and 31% for LPD and 71 and 33% for RPD. CONCLUSION: In this national cohort of patients, LPD and RPD were associated with equivalent perioperative, pathological, and mid-term oncological outcomes.
Authors: Thijs de Rooij; Jony van Hilst; Djamila Boerma; Bert A Bonsing; Freek Daams; Ronald M van Dam; Marcel G Dijkgraaf; Casper H van Eijck; Sebastiaan Festen; Michael F Gerhards; Bas Groot Koerkamp; Erwin van der Harst; Ignace H de Hingh; Geert Kazemier; Joost Klaase; Ruben H de Kleine; Cornelis J van Laarhoven; Daan J Lips; Misha D Luyer; I Quintus Molenaar; Gijs A Patijn; Daphne Roos; Joris J Scheepers; George P van der Schelling; Pascal Steenvoorde; Menno R Vriens; Jan H Wijsman; Dirk J Gouma; Olivier R Busch; Mohammed Abu Hilal; Marc G Besselink Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2016-11 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Ibrahim Nassour; Sam C Wang; Alana Christie; Mathew M Augustine; Matthew R Porembka; Adam C Yopp; Michael A Choti; John C Mansour; Xian-Jin Xie; Patricio M Polanco; Rebecca M Minter Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2018-07 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Sahar Salehi; Elisabeth Åvall-Lundqvist; Berit Legerstam; Joseph W Carlson; Henrik Falconer Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2017-04-29 Impact factor: 9.162
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
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: J M Park; H I Kim; S U Han; H K Yang; Y W Kim; H J Lee; J Y An; M C Kim; S Park; K Y Song; S J Oh; S H Kong; B J Suh; D H Yang; T K Ha; W J Hyung; K W Ryu Journal: Eur J Surg Oncol Date: 2016-07-29 Impact factor: 4.424
Authors: Richard S Hoehn; Ibrahim Nassour; Mohamed A Adam; Sharon Winters; Alessandro Paniccia; Amer H Zureikat Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2020-04-20 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Hassan Aziz; Muhammad Khan; Sara Khan; Guillermo P Serra; Martin D Goodman; Yuri Genyk; Mohd Raashid Sheikh Journal: J Robot Surg Date: 2021-08-16
Authors: Pasquale Scognamiglio; Björn-Ole Stüben; Asmus Heumann; Jun Li; Jakob R Izbicki; Daniel Perez; Matthias Reeh Journal: Visc Med Date: 2021-11-12