Robotic-assisted pancreatic surgery in the elderly patient: experiences from a high-volume centre.
Elderly patients
Pancreatic surgery
Robotic-assisted pancreatic surgery
Journal
BMC surgery
ISSN: 1471-2482
Titre abrégé: BMC Surg
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968567
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 Dec 2021
09 Dec 2021
Historique:
received:
20
07
2021
accepted:
03
11
2021
entrez:
10
12
2021
pubmed:
11
12
2021
medline:
15
12
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Robotic-assisted pancreatic surgery (RPS) has fundamentally developed over the past few years. For subgroups, e.g. elderly patients, applicability and safety of RPS still needs to be defined. Given prognosticated demographic developments, we aim to assess the role of RPS based on preoperative, operative and postoperative parameters. We included 129 patients undergoing RPS at our institution between 2017 and 2020. Eleven patients required conversion to open surgery and were excluded from further analysis. We divided patients into two groups; ≥ 70 years old (Group 1; n = 32) and < 70 years old (Group 2; n = 86) at time of resection. Most preoperative characteristics were similar in both groups. However, number of patients with previous abdominal surgery was significantly higher in patients ≥ 70 years old (78% vs 37%, p < 0.0001). Operative characteristics did not significantly differ between both groups. Although patients ≥ 70 years old stayed significantly longer at ICU (1.8 vs 0.9 days; p = 0.037), length of hospital stay and postoperative morbidity were equivalent between the groups. RPS is safe and feasible in elderly patients and shows non-inferiority when compared with younger patients. However, prospectively collected data is needed to define the role of RPS in elderly patients accurately. Trial registration Clinical Trial Register: Deutschen Register Klinischer Studien (DRKS; German Clinical Trials Register). Clinical Registration Number: DRKS00017229 (retrospectively registered, Date of Registration: 2019/07/19, Date of First Enrollment: 2017/10/18).
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Robotic-assisted pancreatic surgery (RPS) has fundamentally developed over the past few years. For subgroups, e.g. elderly patients, applicability and safety of RPS still needs to be defined. Given prognosticated demographic developments, we aim to assess the role of RPS based on preoperative, operative and postoperative parameters.
METHODS
METHODS
We included 129 patients undergoing RPS at our institution between 2017 and 2020. Eleven patients required conversion to open surgery and were excluded from further analysis. We divided patients into two groups; ≥ 70 years old (Group 1; n = 32) and < 70 years old (Group 2; n = 86) at time of resection.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Most preoperative characteristics were similar in both groups. However, number of patients with previous abdominal surgery was significantly higher in patients ≥ 70 years old (78% vs 37%, p < 0.0001). Operative characteristics did not significantly differ between both groups. Although patients ≥ 70 years old stayed significantly longer at ICU (1.8 vs 0.9 days; p = 0.037), length of hospital stay and postoperative morbidity were equivalent between the groups.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
RPS is safe and feasible in elderly patients and shows non-inferiority when compared with younger patients. However, prospectively collected data is needed to define the role of RPS in elderly patients accurately. Trial registration Clinical Trial Register: Deutschen Register Klinischer Studien (DRKS; German Clinical Trials Register). Clinical Registration Number: DRKS00017229 (retrospectively registered, Date of Registration: 2019/07/19, Date of First Enrollment: 2017/10/18).
Identifiants
pubmed: 34886818
doi: 10.1186/s12893-021-01395-w
pii: 10.1186/s12893-021-01395-w
pmc: PMC8662827
doi:
Banques de données
DRKS
['DRKS00017229']
Types de publication
Clinical Trial
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
415Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
World J Surg. 2010 Sep;34(9):2109-14
pubmed: 20526598
HPB (Oxford). 2020 Aug;22(8):1191-1196
pubmed: 31831317
Gastrointest Endosc. 2019 Feb;89(2):311-319.e1
pubmed: 30179609
Pancreatology. 2020 Sep;20(6):1234-1242
pubmed: 32782197
Surgery. 2017 Mar;161(3):584-591
pubmed: 28040257
Surgery. 2007 Nov;142(5):761-8
pubmed: 17981197
World J Surg. 2016 Oct;40(10):2497-506
pubmed: 27206401
World J Surg. 2005 Sep;29(9):1093-100
pubmed: 16086216
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2021 Mar;47(3 Pt A):503-513
pubmed: 32360064
Ann Surg. 2004 Aug;240(2):205-13
pubmed: 15273542
Zentralbl Chir. 2020 Jun;145(3):260-270
pubmed: 32498107
Chirurg. 2020 Sep;91(9):700-711
pubmed: 32747976
Ann Surg. 2020 Jan;271(1):1-14
pubmed: 31567509
Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2020 Feb;33(1):114-121
pubmed: 31789902
Int J Surg. 2020 Sep;81:61-65
pubmed: 32750491
Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr. 2019 Aug;8(4):345-360
pubmed: 31489304
J Surg Oncol. 2020 Dec;122(7):1383-1392
pubmed: 32772366
Surgery. 2007 Jul;142(1):20-5
pubmed: 17629996
JAMA Surg. 2015 May;150(5):416-22
pubmed: 25761143
J Gastrointest Surg. 2014 Apr;18(4):682-9
pubmed: 24234245
JAMA Surg. 2017 Apr 1;152(4):327-335
pubmed: 28030724
Crit Care. 2009;13(2):R45
pubmed: 19335921
Chirurg. 2021 Feb;92(2):107-114
pubmed: 33095282
J Clin Med. 2021 Jan 11;10(2):
pubmed: 33440608
Ann Surg. 2013 Oct;258(4):554-9; discussion 559-62
pubmed: 24002300
Dig Surg. 2016;33(4):299-307
pubmed: 27215422