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
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.

Auteurs

Felix Nickel (F)

Department of General, Visceral, and Transplantation Surgery, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
Department of General, Visceral, and Thoracic Surgery, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf.

Philipp Wise (P)

Department of General, Visceral, and Transplantation Surgery, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
Department of General, Visceral, and Thoracic Surgery, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf.

Philip C Müller (PC)

Swiss HPB and Transplantation Center, Department of Surgery and Transplantation, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Department of Surgery, Clarunis University Center for Gastrointestinal and Liver Disease, University Hospital and St. Clara Hospital Basel, Switzerland.

Christoph Kuemmerli (C)

Department of Surgery, Clarunis University Center for Gastrointestinal and Liver Disease, University Hospital and St. Clara Hospital Basel, Switzerland.

Amila Cizmic (A)

Department of General, Visceral, and Transplantation Surgery, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
Department of General, Visceral, and Thoracic Surgery, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf.

Gabriel Salg (G)

Department of General, Visceral, and Transplantation Surgery, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.

Verena Steinle (V)

Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.

Anna Niessen (A)

Department of General, Visceral, and Transplantation Surgery, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
Department of General, Visceral, and Thoracic Surgery, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf.

Philipp Mayer (P)

Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.

Arianeb Mehrabi (A)

Department of General, Visceral, and Transplantation Surgery, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.

Martin Loos (M)

Department of General, Visceral, and Transplantation Surgery, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.

Beat P Müller-Stich (BP)

Department of General, Visceral, and Transplantation Surgery, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
Department of Surgery, Clarunis University Center for Gastrointestinal and Liver Disease, University Hospital and St. Clara Hospital Basel, Switzerland.

Yakup Kulu (Y)

Department of General, Visceral, and Transplantation Surgery, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.

Markus W Büchler (MW)

Department of General, Visceral, and Transplantation Surgery, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.

Thilo Hackert (T)

Department of General, Visceral, and Transplantation Surgery, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
Department of General, Visceral, and Thoracic Surgery, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf.

Classifications MeSH