Early experience with robotic central pancreatectomy with patient-reported outcomes and comparison with open central pancreatectomy.
central pancreatectomy
open central pancreatectomy
outcomes in central pancreatectomy
robotic central pancreatectomy
Journal
Journal of surgical oncology
ISSN: 1096-9098
Titre abrégé: J Surg Oncol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0222643
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jul 2023
Jul 2023
Historique:
received:
16
03
2023
accepted:
20
03
2023
medline:
13
6
2023
pubmed:
7
4
2023
entrez:
6
4
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Robotic central pancreatectomy (CP) has emerged in recent years as a noninferior approach to open CP and may offer improved patient-reported outcomes and reduction in incisional hernias. All patients who underwent open and robotic CP between (2013 and 2022) were selected, and perioperative outcomes were analyzed. Patients who underwent robotic CP were interviewed over the phone to assess patient-reported postoperative outcomes. A total of 18 CP operations (56%-open vs. 44%-robotic) were identified. The overall median age was 67 years (interquartile range: 60-72), and 50% (n = 9) of patients were female. Median length of surgery was statistically longer for robotic CP (411 vs. 138 min, p = 0.002); all other intraoperative variables were similar. Postoperatively, a similar number of patients in the open and robotic cohorts developed clinically significant postoperative pancreatic fistulas (37.5% vs. 30%, p = 1) and major complications (37.5% vs. 20%, p = 0.60), respectively. No patients in the robotic cohort developed an incisional hernia, compared to 40% (n = 4) in open (p = 0.08). All patients returned to a baseline level of activity and reported a high quality of life. With the exception of longer operative times, robotic CP is a noninferior, definitive resection technique for select lesions of the middle pancreas. Additionally, the robotic approach may result in a reduction in incisional hernia development.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Robotic central pancreatectomy (CP) has emerged in recent years as a noninferior approach to open CP and may offer improved patient-reported outcomes and reduction in incisional hernias.
METHODS
METHODS
All patients who underwent open and robotic CP between (2013 and 2022) were selected, and perioperative outcomes were analyzed. Patients who underwent robotic CP were interviewed over the phone to assess patient-reported postoperative outcomes.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 18 CP operations (56%-open vs. 44%-robotic) were identified. The overall median age was 67 years (interquartile range: 60-72), and 50% (n = 9) of patients were female. Median length of surgery was statistically longer for robotic CP (411 vs. 138 min, p = 0.002); all other intraoperative variables were similar. Postoperatively, a similar number of patients in the open and robotic cohorts developed clinically significant postoperative pancreatic fistulas (37.5% vs. 30%, p = 1) and major complications (37.5% vs. 20%, p = 0.60), respectively. No patients in the robotic cohort developed an incisional hernia, compared to 40% (n = 4) in open (p = 0.08). All patients returned to a baseline level of activity and reported a high quality of life.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
With the exception of longer operative times, robotic CP is a noninferior, definitive resection technique for select lesions of the middle pancreas. Additionally, the robotic approach may result in a reduction in incisional hernia development.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
51-57Informations de copyright
© 2023 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
Iacono C. Central pancreatectomy: the Dagradi Serio Iacono operation. Evolution of a surgical technique from the pioneers to the robotic approach. World J Gastroenterol. 2014;20:15674.
Giulianotti PC, Sbrana F, Bianco FM, Addeo P, Caravaglios G. Robot-assisted laparoscopic middle pancreatectomy. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2010;20:135-139.
Abood GJ, Can MF, Daouadi M, et al. Robotic-assisted minimally invasive central pancreatectomy: technique and outcomes. J Gastrointest Surg. 2013;17:1002-1008.
Cheng K, Shen B, Peng C, Deng X, Hu S. Initial experiences in robot-assisted middle pancreatectomy. HPB. 2013;15:315-321.
Chen S, Zhan Q, Jin J, et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic versus open middle pancreatectomy: short-term results of a randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc. 2017;31:962-971.
Charlson M, Szatrowski TP, Peterson J, Gold J. Validation of a combined comorbidity index. JCE. 1994;47:1245-1251.
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240:205-213.
Bassi C, Marchegiani G, Dervenis C, et al. The 2016 update of the International Study Group (ISGPS) definition and grading of postoperative pancreatic fistula: 11 years after. Surgery. 2017;161(161):584-591.
Winer J, Can MF, Bartlett DL, Zeh HJ, Zureikat AH. The current state of robotic-assisted pancreatic surgery. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2012;9:468-476.
Kang CM, Kim DH, Lee WJ, Chi HS. Initial experiences using robot-assisted central pancreatectomy with pancreaticogastrostomy: a potential way to advanced laparoscopic pancreatectomy. Surg Endosc. 2011;25:1101-1106.
Zureikat AH, Moser AJ, Boone BA, Bartlett DL, Zenati M, Zeh HJ. 250 robotic pancreatic resections: safety and feasibility. Ann Surg. 2013;258:554-562.
Cirocchi R, Partelli S, Coratti A, Desiderio J, Parisi A, Falconi M. Current status of robotic distal pancreatectomy: a systematic review. Surg Oncol. 2013;22:201-207.
Alfieri S, Boggi U, Butturini G, et al. Full robotic distal pancreatectomy: safety and feasibility analysis of a multicenter cohort of 236 patients. Surg Innov. 2020;27:11-18.
Bartels SAL, Vlug MS, Hollmann MW, et al. Small bowel obstruction, incisional hernia and survival after laparoscopic and open colonic resection (LAFA study). Br J Surg. 2014;101:1153-1159.
Pecorelli N, Greco M, Amodeo S, Braga M. Small bowel obstruction and incisional hernia after laparoscopic and open colorectal surgery: a meta-analysis of comparative trials. Surg Endosc. 2017;31:85-99.
Kössler-Ebs JB, Grummich K, Jensen K, et al. Incisional hernia rates after laparoscopic or open abdominal surgery-a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Surg. 2016;40:2319-2330.
Paiella S, De Pastena M, Faustini F, et al. Central pancreatectomy for benign or low-grade malignant pancreatic lesions-a single-center retrospective analysis of 116 cases. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2019;45:788-792.
Goudard Y, Gaujoux S, Dokmak S, et al. Reappraisal of central pancreatectomy: a 12-year single-center experience. JAMA Surg. 2014;149:356-363.
Xiao W, Zhu J, Peng L, Hong L, Sun G, Li Y. The role of central pancreatectomy in pancreatic surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. HPB. 2018;20:896-904.
Ocuin LM, Sarmiento JM, Staley CA, et al. Comparison of central and extended left pancreatectomy for lesions of the pancreatic neck. Ann Surg Oncol. 2008;15:2096-2103.