Short-term Outcomes of Robotic Versus Open Pancreatoduodenectomy - Propensity Score-matched Analysis.
Journal
Annals of surgery
ISSN: 1528-1140
Titre abrégé: Ann Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0372354
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 Jul 2023
03 Jul 2023
Historique:
medline:
30
6
2023
pubmed:
30
6
2023
entrez:
30
6
2023
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
The goal of the current study was to investigate the perioperative outcomes of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) in a high-volume center. Despite RPD's prospective advantages over OPD, current evidence comparing the two has been limited.and has prompted further investigation. The aim of this study was to compare both approaches while including the learning curve phase for RPD. A 1:1 propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis of a prospective database of RPD with OPD (2017-2022) at a high-volume center was performed. Main outcomes were overall- and pancreas specific complications. Of 375 patients who underwent PD (OPD n=276, RPD n=99), 180 were included in PSM analysis (90 per group). RPD was associated with less blood loss (500 (300-800) vs. 750 (400-1000)ml; P=0.006) and less total complications (50% vs. 19%; P<0.001). Operative time was longer (453 (408-529) vs. 306 (247-362)min; P<0.001); in patients with ductal adenocarcinoma, fewer lymph nodes were harvested (24 (18-27) vs. 33 (27-39); P<0.001) with RPD versus OPD. There were no significant differences for major complications (38 vs. 47%; P=0.291), reoperation rate (14% vs. 10%; P=0.495), postoperative pancreatic fistula (21% vs. 23%; P=0.858) and patients with textbook outcome (62% vs. 55%; P=0.452). Including the learning phase, RPD can be safely implemented in high-volume settings and shows potential for improved perioperative outcomes versus OPD. Pancreas-specific morbidity was unaffected by the robotic approach. Randomized trials with specifically trained pancreatic surgeons and expanded indication for the robotic approach are needed.
Sections du résumé
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
The goal of the current study was to investigate the perioperative outcomes of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) in a high-volume center.
SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA
BACKGROUND
Despite RPD's prospective advantages over OPD, current evidence comparing the two has been limited.and has prompted further investigation. The aim of this study was to compare both approaches while including the learning curve phase for RPD.
METHODS
METHODS
A 1:1 propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis of a prospective database of RPD with OPD (2017-2022) at a high-volume center was performed. Main outcomes were overall- and pancreas specific complications.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Of 375 patients who underwent PD (OPD n=276, RPD n=99), 180 were included in PSM analysis (90 per group). RPD was associated with less blood loss (500 (300-800) vs. 750 (400-1000)ml; P=0.006) and less total complications (50% vs. 19%; P<0.001). Operative time was longer (453 (408-529) vs. 306 (247-362)min; P<0.001); in patients with ductal adenocarcinoma, fewer lymph nodes were harvested (24 (18-27) vs. 33 (27-39); P<0.001) with RPD versus OPD. There were no significant differences for major complications (38 vs. 47%; P=0.291), reoperation rate (14% vs. 10%; P=0.495), postoperative pancreatic fistula (21% vs. 23%; P=0.858) and patients with textbook outcome (62% vs. 55%; P=0.452).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Including the learning phase, RPD can be safely implemented in high-volume settings and shows potential for improved perioperative outcomes versus OPD. Pancreas-specific morbidity was unaffected by the robotic approach. Randomized trials with specifically trained pancreatic surgeons and expanded indication for the robotic approach are needed.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37389886
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000005981
pii: 00000658-990000000-00534
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflicts of Interest: The authors report no conflicts of interest.