Robotic-assisted spleen preserving distal pancreatectomy: a technical review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Juo YY
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5676212 | biostudies-other | 2017
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Publications
Robotic-assisted spleen preserving distal pancreatectomy: a technical review.
Juo Yen-Yi YY King Jonathan C JC
Journal of visualized surgery 20171010
Minimally-invasive spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy is indicated for benign or borderline malignant lesions confined to the pancreatic body and tail. With the introduction of the da Vinci robotic system, preliminary case series have suggested an improved spleen preservation rate, higher rate of margin negative resections and improved lymph node yield versus the standard laparoscopic approach. In this article, we described our approach to robotic-assisted distal pancreatectomy with both ve ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Distal pancreatectomy with en-bloc splenectomy has been considered the standard technique for management of benign and malignant pancreatic disorders. However, splenic preservation has recently been advocated. The aim of this study was to review the experiences of distal pancreatectomy using the open or the laparoscopic approach and to critically discuss the need to perform splenectomy. Original articles published in the English literature of peer-reviewed medical journals were selected for detailed analysis. In patients with malignant neoplasms in the body-tail of the pancreas, splenectomy has a negative influence on long-term survival after resection. The incidence of diabetes after spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy for chronic pancreatitis is less than after en-bloc splenectomy. Spleen salvage eliminates the risk of overwhelming infections. Laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy is feasible and safe. Laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy may be preferable for the advantages of a minimally invasive approach.
| S-EPMC2023931 | biostudies-other
Project description:BACKGROUND:Although robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RADP) has been successfully performed since 2003, its advantages over open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) are still uncertain. The objective of this meta-analysis is to compare the clinical and oncologic safety and efficacy of RADP vs ODP. METHODS:Multiple databases (PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library) were searched to identify studies that compare the outcomes of RADP and ODP (up to February, 2020). Fixed and random effects models were applied according to different conditions. RESULTS:A total of 7 studies from high-volume robotic surgery centers comprising 2264 patients were included finally. Compared with ODP, RADP was associated with lower estimated blood loss, lower blood transfusion rate, lower postoperative mortality rate, and shorter length of hospital stay. No significant difference was observed in operating time, the number of lymph nodes harvested, positive margin rate, spleen preservation rate, rate of severe morbidity, incidence of postoperative pancreatic fistula, and severe postoperative pancreatic fistula (grade B and C) between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS:With regard to perioperative outcomes, RADP is a safe and feasible alternative to ODP in centers with expertise in robotic surgery. However, the evidence is limited and more randomized controlled trials are needed to further clearly define this role.
| S-EPMC7306371 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMinimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy is considered hazardous for the majority of authors and minimally distal pancreatectomy is still a debated topic. The aim of this study was to compare robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) using meta-analysis.MethodEMBASE, Medline and PubMed were searched systematically to identify full-text articles comparing robotic and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies. The meta-analysis was performed by using Review Manager 5.3.ResultsNine studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria and included 637 patients (246 robotic and 391 laparoscopic). RDP had a shorter hospital length of stay by 1 day (P = 0.01). On the other hand, LDP had shorter operative time by 30 min, although this was statistically nonsignificant (P = 0.12). RDP showed a significantly increased readmission rate (P = 0.04). There was no difference in the conversion rate, incidence of postoperative pancreatic fistula, International Study Group of Pancreatic Fistula grade B-C rate, major morbidity, spleen preservation rate and perioperative mortality. All surgical specimens of RDP reported R0 negative margins, whereas 7 specimens in the LDP group had affected margins.ConclusionsIn terms of feasibility, safety and oncological adequacy, there is no essential difference between the two techniques so far. The 30 min longer operative time of the RDP is due to the docking and undocking of the robot. The shorter length of stay by 1 day should be judged in combination with the increased 90-day readmission rate.
| S-EPMC4925795 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Distal pancreatectomy is the standard curative treatment for symptomatic benign, premalignant, and malignant disease of the pancreatic body and tail. The most obvious benefits of a laparoscopic approach to distal pancreatectomy include earlier recovery and shorter hospital stay. Spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy should be attempted in case of benign disease. Spleen preservation can be achieved preferably by preserving the splenic vessels (Kimura technique), but also by resecting the splenic vessels and maintaining vascularity through the short gastric vessels and left gastroepiploic artery (Warshaw technique). Several studies have suggested a higher rate of spleen preservation with laparoscopy. The radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy has become mainstay for treating pancreatic cancer and can be performed laparoscopically as well. Evidence on the feasibility and safety of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for cancer is scarce. Despite the obvious advantages of laparoscopic surgery, postoperative morbidity remains relatively high, mainly because of the high incidence of pancreatic fistula. For decades, surgeons have tried to prevent these fistulas but to date no strategy has been confirmed to be effective in 2 consecutive randomized studies. Pragmatic multicenter studies focusing on technical aspects of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy are lacking and should be encouraged.
| S-EPMC4512582 | biostudies-other
Project description:AimTo compare the safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RADP) and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP).MethodsA 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.ResultsSeven 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.ConclusionRADP 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 tipTo 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.
| S-EPMC4790929 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This study was designed to demonstrate non-inferiority of robot-assisted total pancreatectomy (RATP) to open total pancreatectomy (OPT) based on an intention-to-treat analysis, having occurrence of severe post-operative complications (SPC) as primary study endpoint. The two groups were matched (2:1) by propensity scores. Assuming a rate of SPC of 22.5% (non-inferiority margin: 15%; α: 0.05; β: 0.20; power: 80%), a total of 25 patients were required per group. During the study period (October 2008-December 2019), 209 patients received a total pancreatectomy. After application of exclusion and inclusion criteria, matched groups were extracted from an overall cohort of 132 patients (OPT: 107; RATP: 25). Before matching, the two groups were different with respect to prevalence of cardiac disease (24.3% versus 4.0%; p = 0.03), presence of jaundice (45.8% versus 12.0%; p = 0.002), presence of a biliary drainage (23.4% versus 0; p = 0.004), history of weight loss (28.0% versus 8.0%; p = 0.04), and vein involvement (55.1% versus 28.0%) (p = 0.03). After matching, the two groups (OTP: 50; RATP: 25) were well balanced. Regarding primary study endpoint, SPC developed in 13 patients (26.0%) after OTP and in 6 patients (24.0%) after RATP (p = 0.85). Regarding secondary study endpoints, RATP was associated with longer median operating times [475 (408.8-582.5) versus 585 min (525-637.5) p = 0.003]. After a median follow-up time of 23.7 months (10.4-71), overall survival time [22.6 (11.2-81.2) versus NA (27.3-NA) p = 0.006] and cancer-specific survival [22.6 (11.2-NA) versus NA (27.3-NA) p = 0.02] were improved in patients undergoing RATP. In carefully selected patients, robot-assisted total pancreatectomy is non-inferior to open total pancreatectomy regarding occurrence of severe post-operative complications.
| S-EPMC8184722 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:We aim to analyse the difference of clinical efficacy between middle pancreatectomy (MP) and distal pancreatectomy (DP). METHODS:A retrospective study was used to analyse 39 cases of MP and 52 cases of DP from the Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery of the Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University from February 2007 to December 2016. Furthermore, we identify randomized controlled trials or strictly designed clinical controlled trials on MP and DP. We performed a meta-analysis of the final included studies using RevMan 5.3 software to illustrate the differences in efficacy between MP and DP. RESULTS:In the MP group, the operation time and diet start time were significantly longer than DP group. However, there was no significant difference in serious complications including clinically significant pancreatic fistula (grades B and C), delayed gastric emptying, reoperative and mortality. Furthermore, compared with DP, patients in MP group could benefit from long-term post-operative exocrine and endocrine function. Finally, we performed a meta-analysis including 14 studies with a total of 1104 patients and proved that the pancreatic fistula rate, endocrine and exocrine function were significantly different in the two groups. CONCLUSION:The MP is a safe and feasible surgical method. It can well preserve the endocrine and exocrine function of pancreas and improve the life quality of patients.
| S-EPMC6593708 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Despite recent improvements in surgical technique, the morbidity of distal pancreatectomy remains high, with pancreatic fistula being the most significant postoperative complication. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) dealing with surgical techniques in distal pancreatectomy was carried out to summarize up-to-date knowledge on this topic. The Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials, Embase, Web of Science, and Pubmed were searched for relevant articles published from 1990 to December 2013. Ten RCTs were identified and included in the systematic review, with a total of 1286 patients being randomized (samples ranging from 41 to 450). The reviewers were in agreement for application of the eligibility criteria for study selection. It was not possible to carry out meta-analysis of these studies because of the heterogeneity of surgical techniques and approaches, such as varying methods of pancreas transection, reinforcement of the stump with seromuscular patch or pancreaticoenteric anastomosis, sealing with fibrin sealants and pancreatic stent placement. Management of the pancreatic remnant after distal pancreatectomy is still a matter of debate. The results of this systematic review are possibly biased by methodological problems in some of the included studies. New well designed and carefully conducted RCTs must be performed to establish the optimal strategy for pancreatic remnant management after distal pancreatectomy.
| S-EPMC4058114 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Major vascular invasion represents one of the most frequent reasons to consider pancreatic adenocarcinomas unresectable, although in the last decades, demolitive surgeries such as distal pancreatectomy with celiac axis resection (DP-CAR) have become a therapeutical option. A meta-analysis of studies comparing DP-CAR and standard DP in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma was conducted. Moreover, a systematic review of studies analyzing oncological, postoperative and survival outcomes of DP-CAR was conducted. Twenty-four articles were selected for the systematic review, whereas eleven were selected for the meta-analysis, for a total of 1077 patients. Survival outcomes between the two groups were similar in terms of 1 year overall survival (OS) (odds ratio (OR) 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34 to 1.31, p = 0.24). Patients who received DP-CAR were more likely to have T4 tumors (OR 28.45, 95% CI 10.46 to 77.37, p < 0.00001) and positive margins (R+) (OR 2.28, 95% CI 1.24 to 4.17, p = 0.008). Overall complications (OR, 1.72, 95% CI, 1.15 to 2.58, p = 0.008) were more frequent in the DP-CAR group, whereas rates of pancreatic fistula (OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.65, p = 0.41) were similar. DP-CAR was not associated with higher mortality compared to standard DP; however, overall morbidity was higher. Celiac axis involvement should no longer be considered a strict contraindication to surgery in patients with locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Considering the different baseline tumor characteristics, DP-CAR may need to be compared with palliative therapies instead of standard DP.
| S-EPMC8073522 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:How the oncologic outcomes after robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) compare to those after laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) remains unknown. METHODS:Using the National Cancer Database (NCDB), we analyzed all patients undergoing LDP or RDP for resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma over a 4-year period (2010-2013). RESULTS:Of the 704 eligible patients, 605 (86%) underwent LDP and 99 (14%) underwent RDP. The median follow-up for patients was 25 months. There were no differences in the two groups with respect to sociodemographic, clinicopathologic, or treatment characteristics. On comparing LDP versus RDP, there was no difference in the margin-positive rate (15% vs 16%; P?=?0.84); lymph nodes examined (12 vs 11; P?=?0.67); overall survival (hazard ratio [HR], 1.1, 95% confidence intervals [CI], 0.7 to 1.7; 28 vs 25 months; P?=?0.71); hospital stay (6 vs 5 days; P?=?0.14); time to chemotherapy (50 vs 52 days; P?=?0.65); 30-day readmission (9.4% vs 9.1%; P?=?0.92); and mortality (1% vs 0%; P?=?0.28). Patients?undergoing LDP had a significantly higher conversion rate to open or minimally invasive pancreatic cancer resections compared with RDP (27% vs 10%; P?<?0.001). CONCLUSION:The early national experience with RDP demonstrates similar oncologic outcomes to LDP, with a significantly lower conversion rate.
| S-EPMC6386178 | biostudies-literature