INTRODUCTION: Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy is slowly gaining acceptance within pancreatic surgery. Advantages have been demonstrated for robotic surgery in other fields, but robust data for pancreaticoduodenectomy is limited. The aim of this study was to compare the short-term outcomes of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) and laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD). METHODS: Patients who underwent a pancreaticoduodenectomy between January 2011 and July 2019 at the Johns Hopkins Hospital were included in this retrospective propensity-matched analysis. The RPD cohort was matched to patients who underwent OPD in a 1:2 fashion and LPD in a 1:1 fashion. Short-term outcomes were analyzed for all three cohorts. RESULTS: In total, 1644 patients were included, of which 96 (5.8%) underwent RPD, 131 (8.0%) LPD, and 1417 (86.2%) OPD. RPD was associated with a decreased incidence of delayed gastric emptying (9.4%) compared to OPD (23.5%; P = 0.006). The median estimated blood loss was significantly less in the RPD cohort (RPD vs OPD, 150 vs 487 mL; P < 0.001, RPD vs LPD, 125 vs 300 mL; P < 0.001). Compared to OPD, the robotic approach was associated with a shorter median length of stay (median 8 vs 9 days; P = 0.014) and a decrease in wound complications (4.2% vs 16.7%; P = 0.002). The incidence of other postoperative complications was comparable between RPD and OPD, and RPD and LPD. CONCLUSION: In the hands of experienced surgeons, RPD may have a modest yet statistically significant reduction in estimated blood loss, postoperative length of stay, wound complications, and delayed gastric emptying comparing to OPD in similar patients.
INTRODUCTION: Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy is slowly gaining acceptance within pancreatic surgery. Advantages have been demonstrated for robotic surgery in other fields, but robust data for pancreaticoduodenectomy is limited. The aim of this study was to compare the short-term outcomes of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) and laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD). METHODS:Patients who underwent a pancreaticoduodenectomy between January 2011 and July 2019 at the Johns Hopkins Hospital were included in this retrospective propensity-matched analysis. The RPD cohort was matched to patients who underwent OPD in a 1:2 fashion and LPD in a 1:1 fashion. Short-term outcomes were analyzed for all three cohorts. RESULTS: In total, 1644 patients were included, of which 96 (5.8%) underwent RPD, 131 (8.0%) LPD, and 1417 (86.2%) OPD. RPD was associated with a decreased incidence of delayed gastric emptying (9.4%) compared to OPD (23.5%; P = 0.006). The median estimated blood loss was significantly less in the RPD cohort (RPD vs OPD, 150 vs 487 mL; P < 0.001, RPD vs LPD, 125 vs 300 mL; P < 0.001). Compared to OPD, the robotic approach was associated with a shorter median length of stay (median 8 vs 9 days; P = 0.014) and a decrease in wound complications (4.2% vs 16.7%; P = 0.002). The incidence of other postoperative complications was comparable between RPD and OPD, and RPD and LPD. CONCLUSION: In the hands of experienced surgeons, RPD may have a modest yet statistically significant reduction in estimated blood loss, postoperative length of stay, wound complications, and delayed gastric emptying comparing to OPD in similar patients.
Authors: James D Luketich; Arjun Pennathur; Omar Awais; Ryan M Levy; Samuel Keeley; Manisha Shende; Neil A Christie; Benny Weksler; Rodney J Landreneau; Ghulam Abbas; Matthew J Schuchert; Katie S Nason Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2012-07 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Thijs de Rooij; Martijn Z Lu; M Willemijn Steen; Michael F Gerhards; Marcel G Dijkgraaf; Olivier R Busch; Daan J Lips; Sebastiaan Festen; Marc G Besselink Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2016-08 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Jony van Hilst; Thijs de Rooij; Sjors Klompmaker; Majd Rawashdeh; Francesca Aleotti; Bilal Al-Sarireh; Adnan Alseidi; Zeeshan Ateeb; Gianpaolo Balzano; Frederik Berrevoet; Bergthor Björnsson; Ugo Boggi; Olivier R Busch; Giovanni Butturini; Riccardo Casadei; Marco Del Chiaro; Sophia Chikhladze; Federica Cipriani; Ronald van Dam; Isacco Damoli; Susan van Dieren; Safi Dokmak; Bjørn Edwin; Casper van Eijck; Jean-Marie Fabre; Massimo Falconi; Olivier Farges; Laureano Fernández-Cruz; Antonello Forgione; Isabella Frigerio; David Fuks; Francesca Gavazzi; Brice Gayet; Alessandro Giardino; Bas Groot Koerkamp; Thilo Hackert; Matthias Hassenpflug; Irfan Kabir; Tobias Keck; Igor Khatkov; Masa Kusar; Carlo Lombardo; Giovanni Marchegiani; Ryne Marshall; Krish V Menon; Marco Montorsi; Marion Orville; Matteo de Pastena; Andrea Pietrabissa; Ignaci Poves; John Primrose; Raffaele Pugliese; Claudio Ricci; Keith Roberts; Bård Røsok; Mushegh A Sahakyan; Santiago Sánchez-Cabús; Per Sandström; Lauren Scovel; Leonardo Solaini; Zahir Soonawalla; F Régis Souche; Robert P Sutcliffe; Guido A Tiberio; Aleš Tomazic; Roberto Troisi; Ulrich Wellner; Steven White; Uwe A Wittel; Alessandro Zerbi; Claudio Bassi; Marc G Besselink; Mohammed Abu Hilal Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2019-01 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Jony van Hilst; Thijs de Rooij; Koop Bosscha; David J Brinkman; Susan van Dieren; Marcel G Dijkgraaf; Michael F Gerhards; Ignace H de Hingh; Tom M Karsten; Daniel J Lips; Misha D Luyer; Olivier R Busch; Sebastiaan Festen; Marc G Besselink Journal: Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2019-01-24
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: Matthäus Felsenstein; Karl H Hillebrandt; Lea Timmermann; Mathilde Feist; Christian Benzing; Moritz Schmelzle; Johann Pratschke; Thomas Malinka Journal: J Robot Surg Date: 2021-09-02