» Articles » PMID: 25791063

Robotic Approach Improves Spleen-preserving Rate and Shortens Postoperative Hospital Stay of Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy: a Matched Cohort Study

Overview
Journal Surg Endosc
Publisher Springer
Date 2015 Mar 21
PMID 25791063
Citations 51
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Spleen preservation (SP) is beneficial for patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy of benign and borderline tumors; however, the conventional laparoscopy approach (C-LDP) is less effective in controlling splenic vessel bleeding. The benefits of the robotic-assisted approach (RA-LDP) in SP have not been clearly described. This study aimed to evaluate whether a robotic approach could improve SP rate and effectiveness/safety profile of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP).

Methods: Matched for scheduled SP, age, sex, ASA classification, tumor size, tumor location, and pathological type, 69 patients undergoing RA-LDP and 50 undergoing C-LDP between January 2005 and May 2014 were included. Main outcome measures included SP rate, operative time (OT), blood loss, transfusion frequency, morbidity, postoperative hospital stay (PHS), and oncologic safety.

Results: Among matched patients scheduled for SP, RA-LDP was associated with significantly higher overall (95.7 vs. 39.4%) and Kimura SP rates (72.3 vs. 21.2%), shorter OT (median 120 vs. 200 min), less blood loss (median 100 vs. 300 mL), lower transfusion frequency (2.1 vs. 18.2%), and shorter mean PHS (10.2 vs. 14.5 days). Among matched patients scheduled for splenectomy, RA-LDP was associated with similar OT, blood loss, transfusion frequency, and PHS. The two approaches were similar in overall morbidity, frequency of pancreatic fistula, and oncologic outcome among patients undergoing splenectomy for malignant tumors.

Conclusions: RA-LDP was associated with a significantly better SP rate and reduced OT, blood loss, transfusion requirement, and PHS for patients undergoing SP compared to C-LDP, but offered less benefits for patients undergoing splenectomy.

Citing Articles

Evaluating the economic efficiency of open, laparoscopic, and robotic distal pancreatectomy: an updated systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Koh Y, Zhao Y, Tan I, Tan H, Chua D, Loh W Surg Endosc. 2024; 38(6):3035-3051.

PMID: 38777892 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-024-10889-6.


Postoperative outcomes and costs of laparoscopic versus robotic distal pancreatectomy: a propensity-matched analysis.

Timmerhuis H, Jensen C, Ngongoni R, Baiocchi M, DeLong J, Ohkuma R Surg Endosc. 2024; 38(4):2095-2105.

PMID: 38438677 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-024-10728-8.


International consensus guidelines on robotic pancreatic surgery in 2023.

Liu R, Abu Hilal M, Besselink M, Hackert T, Palanivelu C, Zhao Y Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr. 2024; 13(1):89-104.

PMID: 38322212 PMC: 10839730. DOI: 10.21037/hbsn-23-132.


Learning curve of robotic-assisted splenic vessel-preserving spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy by one single surgeon: a retrospective cohort study.

Huang X, Xie J, Cai J, Chen W, Chen L, Yin X BMC Surg. 2023; 23(1):382.

PMID: 38114974 PMC: 10729345. DOI: 10.1186/s12893-023-02294-y.


Local resection for solid pseudopapillary neoplasms of the pancreas shows improved postoperative gastrointestinal function and reduced mental stress: a multiquestionnaire survey from a large cohort.

Hua Y, Hong X, Dai M, Li J, Yang S, Guo J Int J Surg. 2023; 109(12):3815-3826.

PMID: 37830944 PMC: 10720864. DOI: 10.1097/JS9.0000000000000702.


References
1.
Carrere N, Abid S, Julio C, Bloom E, Pradere B . Spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy with excision of splenic artery and vein: a case-matched comparison with conventional distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy. World J Surg. 2006; 31(2):375-82. DOI: 10.1007/s00268-006-0425-6. View

2.
Giulianotti P, Sbrana F, Bianco F, Elli E, Shah G, Addeo P . Robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreatic surgery: single-surgeon experience. Surg Endosc. 2010; 24(7):1646-57. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-009-0825-4. View

3.
Czudek S . Robotic surgery - a taste of Hollywood?. Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne. 2013; 8(2):95-8. PMC: 3699778. DOI: 10.5114/wiitm.2011.33812. View

4.
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(3):201-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.suronc.2013.07.002. View

5.
Winer J, Can M, Bartlett D, Zeh H, Zureikat A . The current state of robotic-assisted pancreatic surgery. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2012; 9(8):468-76. DOI: 10.1038/nrgastro.2012.120. View