Literature DB >> 33068270

Robotic and open pancreaticoduodenectomy: results from Taipei Veterans General Hospital in Taiwan.

Yi-Ming Shyr1, Shin-E Wang2, Bor-Uei Shyr1, Bor-Shiuan Shyr1, Shih-Chin Chen1.   

Abstract

This study is to clarify the feasibility and justification of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) by comparing the outcomes between RPD and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) groups. All perioperative data and outcomes were prospectively collected. There were 304 (63.9%) RPD and 172 (36.1%) OPD. The median operation time was longer in RPD group than OPD (7.5 vs 7.0 h). The blood loss was much lower in RPD group, with a median of 130 vs. 400 c.c. in OPD group. Based on Clavien-Dindo classification, grade 0 (no complication) was 51.8% in RPD group, higher than 43.2% in OPD. Delayed gastric emptying was only 3.5% in RPD group, much lower than 13.6% in OPD. Wound infection rate was also lower in RPD group, 3.2% vs. 7.7% in OPD. The postoperative hospital stay was shorter in RPD group, with a median of 20 days, vs. 24 days in OPD. There was no significant difference regarding the lymph node yield, surgical mortality, postoperative pancreatic fistula, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage, chyle leakage and bile leakage between RPD and OPD groups. For pancreatic head adenocarcinoma, the survival outcome was better in RPD group, with 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year survival of 82.9%, 45.3%, and 26.8% respectively, as compared with 63.8%, 26.2%, and 17.4% in OPD. RPD is not only feasible but also justified without increasing the surgical risks and compromising the survival outcomes. Moreover, RPD might provide benefits of less blood loss, less delayed gastric emptying, lower wound infection rate and shorter length of postoperative stay, as compared with OPD.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Open; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Periampullary; Robotic

Year:  2020        PMID: 33068270     DOI: 10.1007/s13304-020-00899-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Updates Surg        ISSN: 2038-131X


  4 in total

1.  Technical considerations for the fully robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Authors:  Daniel Galvez; Rebecca Sorber; Ammar A Javed; Jin He
Journal:  J Vis Surg       Date:  2017-06-12

Review 2.  The state of the art of robotic pancreatectomy.

Authors:  Marco Del Chiaro; Ralf Segersvärd
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2014-05-28       Impact factor: 3.411

Review 3.  Comparison Between Robotic and Laparoscopic or Open Anastomoses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Ioannis D Kostakis; Harkiran Sran; Raphael Uwechue; Pankaj Chandak; Jonathon Olsburgh; Nizam Mamode; Ioannis Loukopoulos; Nicos Kessaris
Journal:  Robot Surg       Date:  2019-12-23

4.  Current status on the adoption of high energy devices in Italy: An Italian Society for Endoscopic Surgery and New Technologies (SICE) national survey.

Authors:  Emanuele Botteri; Mauro Podda; Alberto Arezzo; Nereo Vettoretto; Alberto Sartori; Antonino Agrusa; Marco Ettore Allaix; Gabriele Anania; Riccardo Brachet Contul; Valerio Caracino; Elisa Cassinotti; Diego Cuccurullo; Giancarlo D'Ambrosio; Marco Milone; Irnerio Muttillo; Wanda Luisa Petz; Marcello Pisano; Mario Guerrieri; Gianfranco Silecchia; Ferdinando Agresta
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2020-11-05       Impact factor: 4.584

  4 in total
  2 in total

1.  Obesity Does Not Influence Delayed Gastric Emptying Following Pancreatoduodenectomy.

Authors:  Jana Enderes; Christiane Pillny; Hanno Matthaei; Steffen Manekeller; Jörg C Kalff; Tim R Glowka
Journal:  Biology (Basel)       Date:  2022-05-17

2.  Active smokers show ameliorated delayed gastric emptying after pancreatoduodenectomy.

Authors:  Jana Enderes; Jessica Teschke; Martin von Websky; Steffen Manekeller; Jörg C Kalff; Tim R Glowka
Journal:  BMC Surg       Date:  2021-07-31       Impact factor: 2.102

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.