Richard S Hoehn1, Ibrahim Nassour1, Mohamed A Adam1, Sharon Winters2, Alessandro Paniccia1, Amer H Zureikat3,4. 1. Department of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 2. UPMC Network Cancer Registry, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 3. Department of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. zureikatah@upmc.edu. 4. Division of GI Surgical Oncology, UPMC Pancreatic Cancer Center, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, 5150 Center Ave., Suite 421, UPMC Cancer Pavilion, Pittsburgh, PA, 15232, USA. zureikatah@upmc.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Robotic pancreatic surgery is expanding throughout centers across the country. We investigated national trends in the use and outcomes for robotic-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) and distal pancreatectomy (RDP) for primary pancreatic tumors. METHODS: The National Cancer Database was queried for RPD and RDP performed during three time periods: 2010-2012, 2013-2014, and 2015-2016. These time periods were compared for patient and center factors as well as surgical outcomes. RESULTS: The use of robotic surgery increased during the study period. Most centers performed a low volume of robotic surgery (RPD, 82% of centers averaged < 1 case/year; RDP, 87% averaged < 1 case/year). From the first to last time period, the proportion of cases performed at academic centers decreased (RPD, 83% to 56%; RDP, 77% to 58%, p < 0.001) while patient characteristics remained largely unchanged. For RPD, improvements in mortality (6.7 to 1.8%, p = 0.013) and lymphadenectomy (18 to 21 nodes, p = 0.035) were observed, with no changes in conversion to open surgery, negative margin resections, or readmissions. For RDP, length of stay decreased (7 to 6 days, p = 0.048), but there were no changes in other outcomes. Compared with academic centers, non-academic centers had equivalent rates of conversion to open surgery, negative margins, and 90-day mortality. On multivariate analysis, there was no difference in survival between academic and non-academic centers. DISCUSSION: Robotic pancreas surgery is expanding to a greater variety of centers nationwide with preservation of key surgical outcomes. These findings support the continued rigorous training and proliferation of qualified robotic pancreas surgeons going forward.
BACKGROUND: Robotic pancreatic surgery is expanding throughout centers across the country. We investigated national trends in the use and outcomes for robotic-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) and distal pancreatectomy (RDP) for primary pancreatic tumors. METHODS: The National Cancer Database was queried for RPD and RDP performed during three time periods: 2010-2012, 2013-2014, and 2015-2016. These time periods were compared for patient and center factors as well as surgical outcomes. RESULTS: The use of robotic surgery increased during the study period. Most centers performed a low volume of robotic surgery (RPD, 82% of centers averaged < 1 case/year; RDP, 87% averaged < 1 case/year). From the first to last time period, the proportion of cases performed at academic centers decreased (RPD, 83% to 56%; RDP, 77% to 58%, p < 0.001) while patient characteristics remained largely unchanged. For RPD, improvements in mortality (6.7 to 1.8%, p = 0.013) and lymphadenectomy (18 to 21 nodes, p = 0.035) were observed, with no changes in conversion to open surgery, negative margin resections, or readmissions. For RDP, length of stay decreased (7 to 6 days, p = 0.048), but there were no changes in other outcomes. Compared with academic centers, non-academic centers had equivalent rates of conversion to open surgery, negative margins, and 90-day mortality. On multivariate analysis, there was no difference in survival between academic and non-academic centers. DISCUSSION: Robotic pancreas surgery is expanding to a greater variety of centers nationwide with preservation of key surgical outcomes. These findings support the continued rigorous training and proliferation of qualified robotic pancreas surgeons going forward.
Authors: G A Gooiker; W van Gijn; M W J M Wouters; P N Post; C J H van de Velde; R A E M Tollenaar Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: Murtaza Shakir; Brian A Boone; Patricio M Polanco; Mazen S Zenati; Melissa E Hogg; Allan Tsung; Haroon A Choudry; A James Moser; David L Bartlett; Herbert J Zeh; Amer H Zureikat Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2015-04-23 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: James C Patti; Ana Sofia Ore; Courtney Barrows; Vic Velanovich; A James Moser Journal: Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr Date: 2017-08 Impact factor: 7.293
Authors: Camille L Stewart; Philip H G Ituarte; Kurt A Melstrom; Susanne G Warner; Laleh G Melstrom; Lily L Lai; Yuman Fong; Yanghee Woo Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2018-10-24 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Robert J Torphy; Chloe Friedman; Alison Halpern; Brandon C Chapman; Steven S Ahrendt; Martin M McCarter; Barish H Edil; Richard D Schulick; Ana Gleisner Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2019-12 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: Brian A Boone; Mazen Zenati; Melissa E Hogg; Jennifer Steve; Arthur James Moser; David L Bartlett; Herbert J Zeh; Amer H Zureikat Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2015-05 Impact factor: 14.766
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: Catherine H Davis; Miral S Grandhi; Victor P Gazivoda; Alissa Greenbaum; Timothy J Kennedy; Russell C Langan; H Richard Alexander; Henry A Pitt; David A August Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2022-08-04 Impact factor: 3.453
Authors: Carl R Schmidt; Britney R Harris; Kelsey A Musgrove; Pavan Rao; J Wallis Marsh; Alan A Thomay; Melissa E Hogg; Herbert J Zeh; Amer H Zureikat; Brian A Boone Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2020-11-02 Impact factor: 3.454