Literature DB >> 31535153

First experience with robotic pancreatoduodenectomy in Singapore.

Tze-Yi Low1, Ye-Xin Koh1, Brian Kp Goh1,2.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Recent studies reported that laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) is associated with superior perioperative outcomes compared to the open approach. However, concerns have been raised about the safety of LPD, especially during the learning phase. Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) has been reported to be associated with a shorter learning curve compared to LPD. We herein present our initial experience with RPD.
METHODS: A retrospective review of a single-institution prospective robotic hepatopancreaticobiliary (HPB) surgery database of 70 patients identified seven consecutive RPDs performed by a single surgeon in 2016-2017. These were matched at a 1:2 ratio with 14 open pancreatoduodenectomies (OPDs) selected from 77 consecutive pancreatoduodenectomies performed by the same surgeon between 2011 and 2017.
RESULTS: Seven patients underwent RPD, of which five were hybrid procedures with open reconstruction. There were no open conversions. Median operative time was 710.0 (range 560.0-930.0) minutes. Two major morbidities (> Grade 2) occurred: one gastrojejunostomy bleed requiring endoscopic haemostasis and one delayed gastric emptying requiring feeding tube placement. There were no pancreatic fistulas, reoperations or 90-day/in-hospital mortalities in the RPD group. Comparison between RPD and OPD demonstrated that RPD was associated with a significantly longer operative time. Compared to open surgery, there was no significant difference in estimated blood loss, blood transfusion, postoperative stay, pancreatic fistula rates, morbidity and mortality rates, R0 resection rates, and lymph node harvest rates.
CONCLUSION: Our initial experience demonstrates that RPD is feasible and safe in selected patients. It can be safely adopted without any compromise in patient outcomes compared to the open approach. Copyright: © Singapore Medical Association.

Entities:  

Keywords:  laparoscopic; minimally invasive surgery; pancreatectomy; pancreatoduodenectomy; robotic

Year:  2019        PMID: 31535153      PMCID: PMC8040914          DOI: 10.11622/smedj.2019119

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Singapore Med J        ISSN: 0037-5675            Impact factor:   1.858


  51 in total

Review 1.  Robotic technology in urology.

Authors:  D Murphy; B Challacombe; M S Khan; P Dasgupta
Journal:  Postgrad Med J       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 2.401

Review 2.  Minimally-invasive vs open pancreaticoduodenectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Camilo Correa-Gallego; Helen E Dinkelspiel; Isabel Sulimanoff; Sarah Fisher; Eduardo F Viñuela; T Peter Kingham; Yuman Fong; Ronald P DeMatteo; Michael I D'Angelica; William R Jarnagin; Peter J Allen
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2013-11-23       Impact factor: 6.113

Review 3.  Dunking pancreaticojejunostomy versus duct-to-mucosa anastomosis.

Authors:  Eugene P Kennedy; Charles J Yeo
Journal:  J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 7.027

Review 4.  Minimally Invasive Pancreaticoduodenectomy: What is the Best "Choice"? A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of Non-randomized Comparative Studies.

Authors:  Claudio Ricci; Riccardo Casadei; Giovanni Taffurelli; Carlo Alberto Pacilio; Marco Ricciardiello; Francesco Minni
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2018-03       Impact factor: 3.352

Review 5.  Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a systematic literature review.

Authors:  Ugo Boggi; Gabriella Amorese; Fabio Vistoli; Fabio Caniglia; Nelide De Lio; Vittorio Perrone; Linda Barbarello; Mario Belluomini; Stefano Signori; Franco Mosca
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2014-08-15       Impact factor: 4.584

6.  Distal pancreatectomy: a single institution's experience in open, laparoscopic, and robotic approaches.

Authors:  Ser Yee Lee; Peter J Allen; Eran Sadot; Michael I D'Angelica; Ronald P DeMatteo; Yuman Fong; William R Jarnagin; T Peter Kingham
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2014-10-15       Impact factor: 6.113

7.  First experience with robotic spleen-saving, vessel-preserving distal pancreatectomy in Singapore: a report of three consecutive cases.

Authors:  Brian Kp Goh; Jen-San Wong; Chung-Yip Chan; Peng-Chung Cheow; London Lpj Ooi; Alexander Yf Chung
Journal:  Singapore Med J       Date:  2016-01-25       Impact factor: 1.858

Review 8.  Robotic versus open pancreatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Jie Zhang; Wen-Ming Wu; Lei You; Yu-Pei Zhao
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2013-03-17       Impact factor: 5.344

Review 9.  Robotic thoracic surgery: The state of the art.

Authors:  Arvind Kumar; Belal Bin Asaf
Journal:  J Minim Access Surg       Date:  2015 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 1.407

10.  Initial experience with minimally invasive extended pancreatectomies for locally advanced pancreatic malignancies: Report of six cases.

Authors:  Tze-Yi Low; Brian K P Goh
Journal:  J Minim Access Surg       Date:  2019 Jul-Sep       Impact factor: 1.407

View more
  1 in total

1.  Changing trends and outcomes associated with the adoption of minimally invasive pancreatic surgeries: A single institution experience with 150 consecutive procedures in Southeast Asia.

Authors:  Brian K Goh; Tze Yi Low; Ye Xin Koh; Ser Yee Lee; Jin-Yao Teo; Juinn Huar Kam; Prema Raj Jeyaraj; Peng-Chung Cheow; Pierce K Chow; London L Ooi; Alexander Y Chung; Chung Yip Chan
Journal:  J Minim Access Surg       Date:  2020 Oct-Dec       Impact factor: 1.407

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.