Literature DB >> 32458287

Robotic-assisted versus open distal pancreatectomy for benign and low-grade malignant pancreatic tumors: a propensity score-matched study.

Yuanchi Weng1, Jiabin Jin1, Zhen Huo1, Yusheng Shi1, Yu Jiang1, Xiaxing Deng2, Chenghong Peng3, Baiyong Shen4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to compare the short-term outcomes of open and robotic-assisted distal pancreatectomy (ODP and RDP) for benign and low-grade malignant tumors.
METHODS: The patients who underwent RDP and ODP for benign or low-grade malignant pancreatic tumors at our center were included. After PSM at a 1:1 ratio, the perioperative variations in the two cohorts were compared.
RESULTS: After 1:1 PSM, 219 cases of RDP and ODP were recorded. The RDP cohort showed advantages in the operative duration [120 (90-150) min vs 175 (130-210) min, P < 0.001], estimated blood loss [50 (30-175) ml vs 200 (100-300) ml, P < 0.001], spleen preservation rate (63.5% vs 26.5%, P < 0.001), infection rate (4.6% vs 12.3%, P = 0.006), and gastrointestinal function recovery [3 (2-4) vs. 3 (3-5), P = 0.019]. There were no significant differences in postoperative pancreatic fistula, postoperative hemorrhage, and delayed gastric emptying. Multivariate analysis showed that RDP (HR 0.24; 95% CI 0.16-0.36, P < 0.001), age (HR 1.02; 95% CI 1.00-1.03, P = 0.033), tumor size (HR 1.28; 95% CI 1.17-1.40, P < 0.001), pathological inflammatory neoplasm type (HR 5.12; 95% CI 2.22-11.81, P < 0.001), and estimated blood loss (HR 1.003; 95% CI 1.001-1.004, P < 0.001) were independent predictors of spleen preservation; RDP (HR 0.27; 95% CI 0.17-0.43, P < 0.001), age (HR 1.02; 95% CI 1.00-1.03, P = 0.022), elevated CA 19-9 level (HR 2.55; 95% CI 1.02-6.39, P = 0.046), tumor size (HR 1.44; 95% CI 1.29-1.61, P < 0.001), pathological inflammatory neoplasm type (HR 4.48; 95% CI 1.69-11.85, P = 0.003), and estimated blood loss (HR 1.003; 95% CI 1.001-1.004, P < 0.001) were independent predictors of spleen preservation with the Kimura technique.
CONCLUSION: RDP has advantages in the operative time, blood loss, spleen preservation, infection rate, and gastrointestinal function recovery over ODP in treating benign and low-grade malignant pancreatic tumors. The robotic-assisted approach was an independent predictor of spleen preservation and use of the Kimura technique.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Benign and low-grade malignant tumors; Distal pancreatectomy; Robotic-assisted; Spleen preservation

Year:  2020        PMID: 32458287     DOI: 10.1007/s00464-020-07639-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surg Endosc        ISSN: 0930-2794            Impact factor:   4.584


  46 in total

1.  Comprehensive comparative analysis of cost-effectiveness and perioperative outcomes between open, laparoscopic, and robotic distal pancreatectomy.

Authors:  Deepa R Magge; Mazen S Zenati; Ahmad Hamad; Caroline Rieser; Amer H Zureikat; Herbert J Zeh; Melissa E Hogg
Journal:  HPB (Oxford)       Date:  2018-06-30       Impact factor: 3.647

2.  Short- and mid-term outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatosplenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: A retrospective propensity score-matched study.

Authors:  Liu Qu; Zhao Zhiming; Tan Xianglong; Gao Yuanxing; Xu Yong; Liu Rong; Lau Wan Yee
Journal:  Int J Surg       Date:  2018-05-23       Impact factor: 6.071

3.  Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic left pancreatectomy at a high-volume, minimally invasive center.

Authors:  William B Lyman; Michael Passeri; Amit Sastry; Allyson Cochran; David A Iannitti; Dionisios Vrochides; Erin H Baker; John B Martinie
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2018-11-12       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 4.  The Miami International Evidence-based Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreas Resection.

Authors:  Horacio J Asbun; Alma L Moekotte; Frederique L Vissers; Filipe Kunzler; Federica Cipriani; Adnan Alseidi; Michael I D'Angelica; Alberto Balduzzi; Claudio Bassi; Bergthor Björnsson; Ugo Boggi; Mark P Callery; Marco Del Chiaro; Felipe J Coimbra; Claudius Conrad; Andrew Cook; Alessandro Coppola; Christos Dervenis; Safi Dokmak; Barish H Edil; Bjørn Edwin; Pier C Giulianotti; Ho-Seong Han; Paul D Hansen; Nicky van der Heijde; Jony van Hilst; Caitlin A Hester; Melissa E Hogg; Nicolas Jarufe; D Rohan Jeyarajah; Tobias Keck; Song Cheol Kim; Igor E Khatkov; Norihiro Kokudo; David A Kooby; Maarten Korrel; Francisco J de Leon; Nuria Lluis; Sanne Lof; Marcel A Machado; Nicolas Demartines; John B Martinie; Nipun B Merchant; I Quintus Molenaar; Cassadie Moravek; Yi-Ping Mou; Masafumi Nakamura; William H Nealon; Chinnusamy Palanivelu; Patrick Pessaux; Henry A Pitt; Patricio M Polanco; John N Primrose; Arab Rawashdeh; Dominic E Sanford; Palanisamy Senthilnathan; Shailesh V Shrikhande; John A Stauffer; Kyoichi Takaori; Mark S Talamonti; Chung N Tang; Charles M Vollmer; Go Wakabayashi; R Matthew Walsh; Shin-E Wang; Michael J Zinner; Christopher L Wolfgang; Amer H Zureikat; Maurice J Zwart; Kevin C Conlon; Michael L Kendrick; Herbert J Zeh; Mohammad Abu Hilal; Marc G Besselink
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2020-01       Impact factor: 12.969

Review 5.  Distal pancreatectomy for benign and low grade malignant tumors: Short-term postoperative outcomes of spleen preservation-A systematic review and update meta-analysis.

Authors:  Fiorella Pendola; Rahul Gadde; Caroline Ripat; Rishika Sharma; Omar Picado; Laila Lobo; Danny Sleeman; Alan S Livingstone; Nipun Merchant; Danny Yakoub
Journal:  J Surg Oncol       Date:  2017-02       Impact factor: 3.454

6.  Early experience with laparoscopic resections of islet cell tumors.

Authors:  M Gagner; A Pomp; M F Herrera
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  1996-12       Impact factor: 3.982

Review 7.  Splenic Preservation Versus Splenectomy During Distal Pancreatectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Ning Shi; Shang-Long Liu; Ya-Tong Li; Lei You; Meng-Hua Dai; Yu-Pei Zhao
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 5.344

8.  Safety and efficacy of post-anastomotic intraoperative endoscopy to avoid early anastomotic complications during gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

Authors:  Ji-Ho Park; Sang-Ho Jeong; Young-Joon Lee; Tae Han Kim; Jong-Man Kim; Dong-Hwan Kim; Seung-Jin Kwag; Ju-Yeon Kim; Taejin Park; Chi-Young Jeong; Young-Tae Ju; Eun-Jung Jung; Soon-Chan Hong
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2019-12-13       Impact factor: 4.584

9.  Clinical comparison of distal pancreatectomy with or without splenectomy: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Zhigang He; Daohai Qian; Jie Hua; Jian Gong; Shengping Lin; Zhenshun Song
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-03-28       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  The oncological safety in minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Du-Jiang Yang; Jun-Jie Xiong; Hui-Min Lu; Yi Wei; Ling Zhang; Shan Lu; Wei-Ming Hu
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-02-04       Impact factor: 4.379

View more
  2 in total

1.  Impact of the transection plan on postoperative pancreatic fistulas occurring after robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy for nonmalignant pancreatic neoplasms.

Authors:  Lihan Qian; Binwei Hu; Jiancheng Wang; Xiongxiong Lu; Xiaxing Deng; Weimin Chai; Zhiwei Xu; Weishen Wang; Baiyong Shen
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2022-08-08       Impact factor: 3.453

Review 2.  The current status and future directions of robotic pancreatectomy.

Authors:  Kohei Nakata; Masafumi Nakamura
Journal:  Ann Gastroenterol Surg       Date:  2021-03-04
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.