Robotic Dual-Console Distal Pancreatectomy: Could it be Considered a Safe Approach and Surgical Teaching even in Pancreatic Surgery? A Retrospective Observational Study Cohort.
Journal
World journal of surgery
ISSN: 1432-2323
Titre abrégé: World J Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7704052
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 2021
10 2021
Historique:
accepted:
10
06
2021
pubmed:
26
7
2021
medline:
21
9
2021
entrez:
25
7
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The study aims to assess the safety and feasibility of the robotic dual-console during a robotic distal pancreatectomy METHODS: The data of the consecutive patients submitted to RDP from 2012 to 2019 at the Verona University were retrieved from a prospectively maintained database. The patients submitted to RDP were divided into the dual-console platform group (DG) and compared to the standard robotic procedure group (SG). In the study period, 102 robotic distal pancreatectomies were performed, of whom 42 patients (41%) belonged to the DG and 60 patients (59%) to the SG. Higher operation time was recorded in the DG compared to the SG (410 vs. 265 min, p < 0.001). The overall conversion rate of the series was 7% (n 7 patients). All the conversions were observed in the SG (p = 0.021). No differences in morbidity or pancreatic fistula rate were recorded (p > 0.05). No mortality events in the 90th postoperative days were reported in this series. The robotic dual-console approach for distal pancreatectomy is safe, feasible, and reproducible. The postoperative surgical outcomes are comparable to the standard RDP with the single-console da Vinci Surgical System®. This surgical technique can widely and safely improve the robotic surgical training program.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The study aims to assess the safety and feasibility of the robotic dual-console during a robotic distal pancreatectomy METHODS: The data of the consecutive patients submitted to RDP from 2012 to 2019 at the Verona University were retrieved from a prospectively maintained database. The patients submitted to RDP were divided into the dual-console platform group (DG) and compared to the standard robotic procedure group (SG).
RESULTS
In the study period, 102 robotic distal pancreatectomies were performed, of whom 42 patients (41%) belonged to the DG and 60 patients (59%) to the SG. Higher operation time was recorded in the DG compared to the SG (410 vs. 265 min, p < 0.001). The overall conversion rate of the series was 7% (n 7 patients). All the conversions were observed in the SG (p = 0.021). No differences in morbidity or pancreatic fistula rate were recorded (p > 0.05). No mortality events in the 90th postoperative days were reported in this series.
CONCLUSIONS
The robotic dual-console approach for distal pancreatectomy is safe, feasible, and reproducible. The postoperative surgical outcomes are comparable to the standard RDP with the single-console da Vinci Surgical System®. This surgical technique can widely and safely improve the robotic surgical training program.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34304274
doi: 10.1007/s00268-021-06216-y
pii: 10.1007/s00268-021-06216-y
pmc: PMC8408081
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Observational Study
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
3191-3197Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Gynecol Oncol. 2012 Sep;126(3):432-6
pubmed: 22613352
Updates Surg. 2015 Sep;67(3):257-64
pubmed: 25990666
Surgery. 2017 Mar;161(3):584-591
pubmed: 28040257
Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2019 Nov;19(11):947-958
pubmed: 31661984
Medicine (Baltimore). 2018 Nov;97(45):e13000
pubmed: 30407289
JAMA Surg. 2013 Jun;148(6):525-31
pubmed: 23426503
Surg Endosc. 2021 Mar;35(3):1420-1428
pubmed: 32240383
HPB (Oxford). 2015 Jul;17(7):580-6
pubmed: 25906690
Tech Coloproctol. 2017 Sep;21(9):721-727
pubmed: 28929257
Surgery. 2014 Jan;155(1):1-4
pubmed: 23973110
Int J Surg. 2019 Dec;72:156-165
pubmed: 31704426
Surg Endosc. 2012 Apr;26(4):904-13
pubmed: 22083328
Updates Surg. 2021 Jun;73(3):923-928
pubmed: 32162271
J Vis Surg. 2017 Aug 21;3:106
pubmed: 29078666
Surg Endosc. 2010 Jul;24(7):1646-57
pubmed: 20063016
Lancet. 2007 Oct 20;370(9596):1453-7
pubmed: 18064739
PLoS One. 2016 Mar 14;11(3):e0151189
pubmed: 26974961
Surg Endosc. 2011 May;25(5):1642-51
pubmed: 21184115
Ann Surg. 2004 Aug;240(2):205-13
pubmed: 15273542
Adv Surg. 2011;45:323-40
pubmed: 21954697
Ann Surg. 2010 Aug;252(2):207-14
pubmed: 20622661
J Surg Oncol. 2016 Jan;113(1):5-7
pubmed: 26603965
Surgery. 2019 Sep;166(3):271-276
pubmed: 30975498
World J Urol. 2015 Jun;33(6):781-6
pubmed: 24973046
Ann Surg. 2012 Jun;255(6):1048-59
pubmed: 22511003