Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy in obese patients.
Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy
Left pancreatic resection
Obesity
Outcomes
Robotic distal pancreatectomy
Journal
Surgical endoscopy
ISSN: 1432-2218
Titre abrégé: Surg Endosc
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8806653
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Nov 2023
Nov 2023
Historique:
received:
04
07
2023
accepted:
30
07
2023
medline:
2
11
2023
pubmed:
16
9
2023
entrez:
15
9
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Although robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) has a lower conversion rate to open surgery and causes less blood loss than laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP), clear evidence on the impact of the surgical approach on morbidity is lacking. Prior studies have shown a higher rate of complications among obese patients undergoing pancreatectomy. The primary aim of this study is to compare short-term outcomes of RDP vs. LDP in patients with a BMI ≥ 30. In this multicenter study, all obese patients who underwent RDP or LDP for any indication between 2012 and 2022 at 18 international expert centers were included. The baseline characteristics underwent inverse probability treatment weighting to minimize allocation bias. Of 446 patients, 219 (50.2%) patients underwent RDP. The median age was 60 years, the median BMI was 33 (31-36), and the preoperative diagnosis was ductal adenocarcinoma in 21% of cases. The conversion rate was 19.9%, the overall complication rate was 57.8%, and the 90-day mortality rate was 0.7% (3 patients). RDP was associated with a lower complication rate (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.52-0.89; p = 0.005), less blood loss (150 vs. 200 ml; p < 0.001), fewer blood transfusion requirements (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.15-0.50; p < 0.001) and a lower Comprehensive Complications Index (8.7 vs. 8.9, p < 0.001) than LPD. RPD had a lower conversion rate (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.19-0.39; p < 0.001) and achieved better spleen preservation rate (OR 1.96, 95% CI 1.13-3.39; p = 0.016) than LPD. In obese patients, RDP is associated with a lower conversion rate, fewer complications and better short-term outcomes than LPD.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Although robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) has a lower conversion rate to open surgery and causes less blood loss than laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP), clear evidence on the impact of the surgical approach on morbidity is lacking. Prior studies have shown a higher rate of complications among obese patients undergoing pancreatectomy. The primary aim of this study is to compare short-term outcomes of RDP vs. LDP in patients with a BMI ≥ 30.
METHODS
METHODS
In this multicenter study, all obese patients who underwent RDP or LDP for any indication between 2012 and 2022 at 18 international expert centers were included. The baseline characteristics underwent inverse probability treatment weighting to minimize allocation bias.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Of 446 patients, 219 (50.2%) patients underwent RDP. The median age was 60 years, the median BMI was 33 (31-36), and the preoperative diagnosis was ductal adenocarcinoma in 21% of cases. The conversion rate was 19.9%, the overall complication rate was 57.8%, and the 90-day mortality rate was 0.7% (3 patients). RDP was associated with a lower complication rate (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.52-0.89; p = 0.005), less blood loss (150 vs. 200 ml; p < 0.001), fewer blood transfusion requirements (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.15-0.50; p < 0.001) and a lower Comprehensive Complications Index (8.7 vs. 8.9, p < 0.001) than LPD. RPD had a lower conversion rate (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.19-0.39; p < 0.001) and achieved better spleen preservation rate (OR 1.96, 95% CI 1.13-3.39; p = 0.016) than LPD.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
In obese patients, RDP is associated with a lower conversion rate, fewer complications and better short-term outcomes than LPD.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37715084
doi: 10.1007/s00464-023-10361-x
pii: 10.1007/s00464-023-10361-x
pmc: PMC10615948
doi:
Types de publication
Multicenter Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
8384-8393Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Ann Surg. 2023 Aug 1;278(2):253-259
pubmed: 35861061
Ann Surg. 2013 Jul;258(1):1-7
pubmed: 23728278
Surg Endosc. 2021 Mar;35(3):1420-1428
pubmed: 32240383
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Nov;221(5):410-428.e19
pubmed: 31082383
Stat Sci. 2010 Feb 1;25(1):1-21
pubmed: 20871802
Stat Med. 2015 Dec 10;34(28):3661-79
pubmed: 26238958
Ann Surg. 2019 Jan;269(1):10-17
pubmed: 29099399
Arch Surg. 2003 Jul;138(7):777-84
pubmed: 12860761
Ann Surg Oncol. 2017 Nov;24(12):3725-3731
pubmed: 28849407
HPB (Oxford). 2019 Sep;21(9):1107-1118
pubmed: 30962137
Br J Surg. 2021 Mar 12;108(2):188-195
pubmed: 33711145
HPB (Oxford). 2019 Dec;21(12):1761-1772
pubmed: 31153835
Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2021 May;406(3):597-605
pubmed: 33301071
Surgery. 2021 Jul;170(1):194-206
pubmed: 33541746
World J Surg. 2007 Mar;31(3):556-60; discussion 561
pubmed: 16957821
Stat Med. 2009 Nov 10;28(25):3083-107
pubmed: 19757444
Ann Surg. 2019 Jan;269(1):2-9
pubmed: 30080726
Surgery. 2017 Mar;161(3):584-591
pubmed: 28040257
Ann Surg. 2021 Jul 1;274(1):e18-e27
pubmed: 30946088
HPB (Oxford). 2019 Oct;21(10):1268-1276
pubmed: 31080086
Lancet. 2011 Aug 27;378(9793):815-25
pubmed: 21872750
J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2016 Jul;26(7):551-6
pubmed: 27248765
Updates Surg. 2023 Jan;75(1):7-21
pubmed: 36378464
J Gastrointest Surg. 2011 Sep;15(9):1633-42
pubmed: 21484490
Ann Surg. 2004 Aug;240(2):205-13
pubmed: 15273542
Int J Colorectal Dis. 2018 Aug;33(8):1079-1086
pubmed: 29577170
Ann Surg. 2013 Jan;257(1):128-32
pubmed: 22868357
Br J Surg. 2020 Sep;107(10):1281-1288
pubmed: 32259297