Shin-E Wang1, Bor-Uei Shyr1, Shih-Chin Chen1, Yi-Ming Shyr2. 1. Departments of Surgery, Taipei Veterans General Hospital and National Yang Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan. 2. Departments of Surgery, Taipei Veterans General Hospital and National Yang Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan. Electronic address: ymshyr@gmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study is to clarify the feasibility of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy in terms of surgical risks, clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula, and oncologic outcomes compared with open pancreaticoduodenectomy by using propensity score matching. Traditional open pancreaticoduodenectomy and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy have been compared only in small, retrospective, and nonrandomized cohort studies with variable quality. METHODS: Prospectively collected data for pancreaticoduodenectomy were evaluated. Comparison between robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy and open pancreaticoduodenectomy was carried out after propensity-score matching. A total of 117 robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy and 128 open pancreaticoduodenectomy cases were performed during the study period. After propensity score matching, 87 cases were included for comparison in each cohort. RESULTS: Longer operation time, less blood loss, more lymph nodes harvested, and less delayed gastric emptying were noted in the robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy cases. We found no significant difference regarding the overall postoperative complications by Clavien-Dindo classification, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage, wound infection rate, and postoperative hospital stay. Clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula was not significantly different between robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy and open pancreaticoduodenectomy, regardless of the Callery risk factor, with overall clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula of 8.0% by robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy and 12.6% by open pancreaticoduodenectomy after propensity score matching. We found no survival difference between robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy and open pancreaticoduodenectomy when the comparison was specifically performed for each primary periampullary malignancy. CONCLUSION: Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy is associated with less blood loss, less delayed gastric emptying, and more lymph node yield. Propensity scored-matched analysis revealed that robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy is not inferior to open pancreaticoduodenectomy in terms of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula, surgical risks, and survival outcomes.
BACKGROUND: This study is to clarify the feasibility of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy in terms of surgical risks, clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula, and oncologic outcomes compared with open pancreaticoduodenectomy by using propensity score matching. Traditional open pancreaticoduodenectomy and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy have been compared only in small, retrospective, and nonrandomized cohort studies with variable quality. METHODS: Prospectively collected data for pancreaticoduodenectomy were evaluated. Comparison between robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy and open pancreaticoduodenectomy was carried out after propensity-score matching. A total of 117 robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy and 128 open pancreaticoduodenectomy cases were performed during the study period. After propensity score matching, 87 cases were included for comparison in each cohort. RESULTS: Longer operation time, less blood loss, more lymph nodes harvested, and less delayed gastric emptying were noted in the robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy cases. We found no significant difference regarding the overall postoperative complications by Clavien-Dindo classification, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage, wound infection rate, and postoperative hospital stay. Clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula was not significantly different between robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy and open pancreaticoduodenectomy, regardless of the Callery risk factor, with overall clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula of 8.0% by robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy and 12.6% by open pancreaticoduodenectomy after propensity score matching. We found no survival difference between robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy and open pancreaticoduodenectomy when the comparison was specifically performed for each primary periampullary malignancy. CONCLUSION: Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy is associated with less blood loss, less delayed gastric emptying, and more lymph node yield. Propensity scored-matched analysis revealed that robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy is not inferior to open pancreaticoduodenectomy in terms of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula, surgical risks, and survival outcomes.