Dataset Information

Robotic versus Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy: A Meta-Analysis of Short-Term Outcomes.

ABSTRACT:

Aim

To compare the safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RADP) and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP).

Methods

A literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library database up to June 30, 2015 was performed. The following key words were used: pancreas, distal pancreatectomy, pancreatic, laparoscopic, laparoscopy, robotic, and robotic-assisted. Fixed and random effects models were applied. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

Results

Seven non-randomized controlled trials involving 568 patients met the inclusion criteria. Compared with LDP, RADP was associated with longer operating time, lower estimated blood loss, a higher spleen-preservation rate, and shorter hospital stay. There was no significant difference in transfusion, conversion to open surgery, R0 resection rate, lymph nodes harvested, overall complications, severe complications, pancreatic fistula, severe pancreatic fistula, ICU stay, total cost, and 30-day mortality between the two groups.

Conclusion

RADP is a safe and feasible alternative to LDP with regard to short-term outcomes. Further studies on the long-term outcomes of these surgical techniques are required.

Core tip

To date, there is no consensus on whether laparoscopic or robotic-assisted distal pancreatectomy is more beneficial to the patient. This is the first meta-analysis to compare laparoscopic and robotic-assisted distal pancreatectomy. We found that robotic-assisted distal pancreatectomy was associated with longer operating time, lower estimated blood loss, a higher spleen-preservation rate, and shorter hospital stay. There was no significant difference in transfusion, conversion to open surgery, overall complications, severe complications, pancreatic fistula, severe pancreatic fistula, ICU stay, total cost, and 30-day mortality between the two groups.

SUBMITTER: Zhou JY

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4790929 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRobot-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RDP) has been suggested to hold some benefits over laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) but consensus and data on specific subgroups are lacking. This systematic review and meta-analysis reports the surgical and oncological outcome and costs between RDP and LDP including subgroups with intended spleen preservation and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).MethodsStudies comparing RDP and LDP were included from PubMed, Cochrane Central Register, and Embase (inception-July 2022). Primary outcomes were conversion and unplanned splenectomy. Secondary outcomes were R0 resection, lymph node yield, major morbidity, operative time, intraoperative blood loss, in-hospital mortality, operative costs, total costs and hospital stay.ResultsOverall, 43 studies with 6757 patients were included, 2514 after RDP and 4243 after LDP. RDP was associated with a longer operative time (MD = 18.21, 95% CI 2.18-34.24), less blood loss (MD = 54.50, 95% CI - 84.49-24.50), and a lower conversion rate (OR = 0.44, 95% CI 0.36-0.55) compared to LDP. In spleen-preserving procedures, RDP was associated with more Kimura procedures (OR = 2.23, 95% CI 1.37-3.64) and a lower rate of unplanned splenectomies (OR = 0.32, 95% CI 0.24-0.42). In patients with PDAC, RDP was associated with a higher lymph node yield (MD = 3.95, 95% CI 1.67-6.23), but showed no difference in the rate of R0 resection (OR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.67-1.37). RDP was associated with higher total (MD = 3009.31, 95% CI 1776.37-4242.24) and operative costs (MD = 3390.40, 95% CI 1981.79-4799.00).ConclusionsRDP was associated with a lower conversion rate, a higher spleen preservation rate and, in patients with PDAC, a higher lymph node yield and similar R0 resection rate, as compared to LDP. The potential benefits of RDP need to be weighed against the higher total and operative costs in future randomized trials.

Project description:BackgroundBenchmarking is an important tool for quality comparison and improvement. However, no benchmark values are available for minimally invasive spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy, either laparoscopically or robotically assisted. The aim of this study was to establish benchmarks for these techniques using two different methods.MethodsData from patients undergoing laparoscopically or robotically assisted spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy were extracted from a multicentre database (2006-2019). Benchmarks for 10 outcomes were calculated using the Achievable Benchmark of Care (ABC) and best-patient-in-best-centre methods.ResultsOverall, 951 laparoscopically assisted (77.3 per cent) and 279 robotically assisted (22.7 per cent) procedures were included. Using the ABC method, the benchmarks for laparoscopically assisted and robotically assisted spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy respectively were: 150 and 207 min for duration of operation, 55 and 100 ml for blood loss, 3.5 and 1.7 per cent for conversion, 0 and 1.7 per cent for failure to preserve the spleen, 27.3 and 34.0 per cent for overall morbidity, 5.1 and 3.3 per cent for major morbidity, 3.6 and 7.1 per cent for pancreatic fistula grade B/C, 5 and 6 days for duration of hospital stay, 2.9 and 5.4 per cent for readmissions, and 0 and 0 per cent for 90-day mortality. Best-patient-in-best-centre methodology revealed milder benchmark cut-offs for laparoscopically and robotically assisted procedures, with operating times of 254 and 262.5 min, blood loss of 150 and 195 ml, conversion rates of 5.8 and 8.2 per cent, rates of failure to salvage spleen of 29.9 and 27.3 per cent, overall morbidity rates of 62.7 and 55.7 per cent, major morbidity rates of 20.4 and 14 per cent, POPF B/C rates of 23.8 and 24.2 per cent, duration of hospital stay of 8 and 8 days, readmission rates of 20 and 15.1 per cent, and 90-day mortality rates of 0 and 0 per cent respectively.ConclusionTwo benchmark methods for minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy produced different values, and should be interpreted and applied differently.