Sun-Bing Xu1, Chang-Ku Jia2, Jing-Rui Wang2, Ren-Chao Zhang3, Yi-Ping Mou3. 1. Department of Hepatobiliary Pancreatic Surgery, Hangzhou First People's Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, Zhejiang Clinical Research Center of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Diseases, Hangzhou 310006, China. Electronic address: xsbing2@163.com. 2. Department of Hepatobiliary Pancreatic Surgery, Hangzhou First People's Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, Zhejiang Clinical Research Center of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Diseases, Hangzhou 310006, China. 3. Department of Gastrointestinal Pancreatic Surgery, Zhejiang Provincial People's Hospital, Hangzhou 310014, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/ PURPOSE: Robotic approach has improved the ergonomics of conventional laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP), but whether patients benefit more from robot assisted distal pancreatectomy (RADP) is still controversial. This meta-analysis aims to compare the perioperative and economic outcomes of RADP with LDP. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was carried out on PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library between January 1990 and March 2017. All eligible studies comparing RADP versus LDP were included. Perioperative and economic outcomes constituted the end points. RESULTS: 13 English studies with 1396 patients were included. Regarding to intraoperative outcomes, RADP was associated with a significant decrease in conversion rate (OR = 0.52; 95%CI: 0.34, 0.78; P = 0.002). Although the spleen-preserving rates were comparable between RADP and LDP, a significant higher splenic vessels conservation rate was observed in the RADP group (OR = 4.71; 95%CI: 1.77, 12.56; P = 0.002). No statistically significant differences were found at operation time, estimated blood loss and blood transfusion rate. Concerning postoperative outcomes, pooled data indicated the overall morbidity, pancreatic fistula and the length of hospital stay did not differ significantly between the RADP and LDP groups. And concerning pathological outcomes, positive margin rate and the number of lymph nodules harvested were comparable between the two groups. The operative cost of RADP was almost double that of LDP (WMD = 2350.2 US dollars; 95%CI: 1165.62, 3534.78; P = 0.0001). CONCLUSION: RADP showed a slight technical advantage. But whether this benefit is worth twofold cost should be considered by patient's individuation.
BACKGROUND/ PURPOSE: Robotic approach has improved the ergonomics of conventional laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP), but whether patients benefit more from robot assisted distal pancreatectomy (RADP) is still controversial. This meta-analysis aims to compare the perioperative and economic outcomes of RADP with LDP. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was carried out on PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library between January 1990 and March 2017. All eligible studies comparing RADP versus LDP were included. Perioperative and economic outcomes constituted the end points. RESULTS: 13 English studies with 1396 patients were included. Regarding to intraoperative outcomes, RADP was associated with a significant decrease in conversion rate (OR = 0.52; 95%CI: 0.34, 0.78; P = 0.002). Although the spleen-preserving rates were comparable between RADP and LDP, a significant higher splenic vessels conservation rate was observed in the RADP group (OR = 4.71; 95%CI: 1.77, 12.56; P = 0.002). No statistically significant differences were found at operation time, estimated blood loss and blood transfusion rate. Concerning postoperative outcomes, pooled data indicated the overall morbidity, pancreatic fistula and the length of hospital stay did not differ significantly between the RADP and LDP groups. And concerning pathological outcomes, positive margin rate and the number of lymph nodules harvested were comparable between the two groups. The operative cost of RADP was almost double that of LDP (WMD = 2350.2 US dollars; 95%CI: 1165.62, 3534.78; P = 0.0001). CONCLUSION: RADP showed a slight technical advantage. But whether this benefit is worth twofold cost should be considered by patient's individuation.
Authors: Christian Benzing; Lea Timmermann; Thomas Winklmann; Lena Marie Haiden; Karl Herbert Hillebrandt; Axel Winter; Max Magnus Maurer; Matthäus Felsenstein; Felix Krenzien; Moritz Schmelzle; Johann Pratschke; Thomas Malinka Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2022-03-21 Impact factor: 2.895