Perioperative and oncologic outcomes of open, laparoscopic, and robotic distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma

Utility of ligamentum teres hepatis flap reinforcement to prevent postoperative pancreatic fistulas in robotic distal pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND

Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is a significant contributor to morbidity and mortality after robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP). Ligamentum teres hepatis (LTH) reinforcement of the pancreatic remnant may reduce the incidence of POPF.

METHODS

Patients ≥18 years old, who underwent RDP at the University of Massachusetts Memorial Medical Center from 01/01/2018-08/31/2022. Primary endpoint was POPF incidence. Secondary outcomes included peri- and postoperative variables.

RESULTS

Thirty-three patients underwent RDP, of which LTH reinforcement was used in 21 (64 ​%) cases. Six (18 ​%) patients developed a POPF. No association was identified between LTH flap reinforcement and POPF (OR 1.18, 95 ​% CI 0.18 to 7.85, p ​= ​0.87). There were no peri- or postoperative complications related to ligamentum teres flap creation.

CONCLUSIONS

LTH reinforcement of the pancreatic remnant can be safely performed during RDP. Further studies are needed to assess the utility of this intervention to mitigate the risk of pancreatic fistula formation following RDP.

The impact of cirrhosis on short and long postoperative outcomes after distal pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND

The impact of cirrhosis on the postoperative outcomes of distal pancreatectomy is yet to be reported. We aimed to evaluate the outcomes of distal pancreatectomy in patients with cirrhosis.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective, multicentric study patients with cirrhosis who underwent planned distal pancreatectomy between 2008 and 2020 in French high volume centers. Patients with cirrhosis were matched 1:4 for demographic, surgical, and histologic criteria with patients without cirrhosis. The primary endpoint was severe morbidity (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III). The secondary endpoints were postoperative complications, specifically related to cirrhosis and pancreatic surgery, and survival for patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

RESULTS

Overall, 32 patients with cirrhosis were matched with 128 patients without cirrhosis. Most patients (93.5%) had Child-Pugh A cirrhosis. The severe morbidity rate after distal pancreatectomy was higher in patients with cirrhosis than in those without cirrhosis (28.13% vs 25.75%, P = .11. The operative time was significantly longer in the cirrhotic group compared with controls (P = .01). However, patients with and without cirrhosis had comparable blood loss and conversion rates. Postoperatively, the two groups had similar rates of pancreatic fistula, hemorrhage, reoperation, postoperative mortality, and survival rates at 1, 3, and 5 years.

CONCLUSION

The current study suggests that distal pancreatectomy in high-volume centers is feasible for patients with compensated cirrhosis.

Oncological outcomes in minimally invasive vs. open distal pancreatectomy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Background

Advancements in surgical techniques have improved outcomes in patients undergoing pancreatic surgery. To date there have been no meta-analyses comparing robotic and laparoscopic approaches for distal pancreatectomies (DP) in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC). This systematic review and network meta-analysis aims to explore the oncological outcomes of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP), robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) and open distal pancreatectomy (ODP).

Methods

A systematic search was conducted for studies reporting laparoscopic, robotic or open surgery for DP. Frequentist network meta-analysis of oncological outcomes (overall survival, resection margins, tumor recurrence, examined lymph nodes, administration of adjuvant therapy) were performed.

Results

Fifteen studies totalling 9,301 patients were included in the network meta-analysis. 1,946, 605 and 6,750 patients underwent LDP, RDP and ODP respectively. LDP (HR: 0.761, 95% CI: 0.642-0.901, p = 0.002) and RDP (HR: 0.757, 95% CI: 0.617-0.928, p = 0.008) were associated with overall survival (OS) benefit when compared to ODP. LDP (HR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.793-1.27, p = 0.968) was not associated with OS benefit when compared to RDP. There were no significant differences between LDP, RDP and ODP for resection margins, tumor recurrence, examined lymph nodes and administration of adjuvant therapy.

Conclusion

This study highlights the longer OS in both LDP and RDP when compared to ODP for patients with PDAC.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/, PROSPERO (CRD42022336417).

Comparison of perioperative and oncologic outcomes after open, laparoscopic, and robotic distal pancreatectomy: a single-center retrospective study

As minimally invasive surgery gains grounds, surgeons are switching more towards laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) and robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) as opposed to open distal pancreatectomy (ODP). Through this study, we aimed at exploring the differences in perioperative and oncologic outcomes among the three surgical methods. We retrospectively collected data from 303 patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy (DP) at a single high-volume institution between June 2015 and December 2021. We equally compared the perioperative and oncologic outcomes in patients who underwent ODP, LDP, and RDP by analyzing clinicopathologic and survival data. We consecutively included 303 cases in the study: open = 147 (48.5%), laparoscopic = 50 (16.5%), and robotic = 106 (35.0%). The median tumor size was significantly larger in the ODP group (P < 0.001) compared to the others. Cases in the RDP group experienced a longer duration of surgery (P < 0.001), smaller amount of blood loss (P < 0.001), smaller amount of blood transfusion (P = 0.042), and a shorter duration of hospital stay (p = 0.040) compared to cases in the ODP group. There was no significant difference observed when comparing other postoperative outcomes across the groups. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were similar across the significant differences among the three groups. The short-term postoperative and oncologic outcomes observed in the RDP and LDP groups were not inferior to those in the ODP group. The RDP has some perioperative advantages over the ODP. Therefore, RDP and LDP can safely and feasibly be performed in selected pancreatic tumors by experienced pancreatic surgeons.

Study International Multicentric Pancreatic Left Resections (SIMPLR): Does Surgical Approach Matter?

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery is increasingly preferred for left-sided pancreatic resections. The SIMPLR study aims to compare open, laparoscopic, and robotic approaches using propensity score matching analysis.

METHODS

This study included 258 patients with tumors of the left side of the pancreas who underwent surgery between 2016 and 2020 at three high-volume centers. The patients were divided into three groups based on their surgical approach and matched in a 1:1 ratio.

RESULTS

The open group had significantly higher estimated blood loss (620 mL vs. 320 mL, p < 0.001), longer operative time (273 vs. 216 min, p = 0.003), and longer hospital stays (16.9 vs. 6.81 days, p < 0.001) compared to the laparoscopic group. There was no difference in lymph node yield or resection status. When comparing open and robotic groups, the robotic procedures yielded a higher number of lymph nodes (24.9 vs. 15.2, p = 0.011) without being significantly longer. The laparoscopic group had a shorter operative time (210 vs. 340 min, p < 0.001), shorter ICU stays (0.63 vs. 1.64 days, p < 0.001), and shorter hospital stays (6.61 vs. 11.8 days, p < 0.001) when compared to the robotic group. There was no difference in morbidity or mortality between the three techniques.

CONCLUSION

The laparoscopic approach exhibits short-term benefits. The three techniques are equivalent in terms of oncological safety, morbidity, and mortality.

Role of minimally invasive surgery in the management of localized pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a review

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains a highly lethal malignancy with a minority of patients eligible for curative-intent surgical intervention. Pancreatic resections are technically demanding operations associated with considerable morbidity and mortality. Minimally invasive pancreatic resections (MIPRs), which include laparoscopic and robotic approaches, may enhance postoperative outcomes by lessening physiological impact of open surgery. A limited number of randomized-controlled trials as well as numerous retrospective reports have focused on MIPR outcomes and role in management of a variety of tumors, including PDAC. Today, MIPRs are generally considered acceptable alternatives to open surgery as a trend towards improved short-term metrics is observed. However, several questions remain regarding the oncological adequacy of MIPR's as long-term experience is less extensive compared to open techniques. This review aims to summarize existing evidence on MIPRs with a focus on PDAC.

Effect of laparoscopic and open distal pancreatectomy on postoperative wound complications in patients with pancreatic cancer: A meta-analysis

At present, it is regarded as a safe and efficient operation to treat terminal pancreatic disease. In this paper, we present a summary of the results of the clinical trials that have been conducted to evaluate the efficacy of laparoscopic and open-access pancreatic resection for pancreatic carcinoma of the end of the pancreas. Systematic review of the comparison between laparoscopy and open-access pancreatic resection was conducted. Comparative studies published before October 2023 were included. The selection of the studies was done according to a particular classification and exclusion criterion. A few of our results, which were post-surgery, were associated with injury, were compared. Where appropriate, the reliability of the data has been corroborated by a sensitive analysis. Six trials of 2075 patients with pancreatic cancer who underwent distal pancreatic resection to be included in the definitive data analysis. Among them, 447 were treated with open-access surgery and 296 were treated with laparoscope. Six trials showed that there was no statistically significant difference in the risk of postoperative wound infection in patients with pancreas cancer who received a distal pancreatectomy between laparoscopy and open surgery(OR, 1.66; 95% CI, 0.76-3.61 p = 0.20). Four trials did not reveal any statistically significant differences in the risk of postoperative haemorrhage among patients with pancreas cancer who received a distal pancreatectomy between laparoscopy and open surgery (OR, 1.84; 95% CI, 0.54-6.26 p = 0.33). Both trials did not reveal any statistically significant difference in the duration of operation for patients with pancreas cancer who received a distal pancreatectomy between laparoscopy and open surgery (MD, 13.58; 95% CI, -7.31-34.46 p = 0.2). Based on these meta-analyses, the use of laparoscopy or open surgery was not associated with an increase in the risk of postoperative infection or haemorrhage. Furthermore, the duration of the two operations did not differ significantly. These two procedures appear to be a safe and viable choice in the treatment of pancreatic carcinoma. Nevertheless, a randomized, controlled study should be performed to verify the validity of this observation.

A Comparison of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy for Benign or Malignant Lesions: A Meta-Analysis

Background: The momentum of robotic surgery is increasing, and it has great prospects in pancreatic surgery. It has been widely accepted and expanding to more and more centers. Robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) is the most recent advanced minimally invasive approach for pancreatic lesions and malignancies. However, laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) also showed good efficacy. We compared the effect of RDP with LDP using a meta-analysis. Methods: From January 2010 to June 2023, clinical trials of RDP versus LDP were determined by searching PubMed, Medline, and EMBASE. A meta-analysis was conducted to compare the effect of RDP with LDP. This meta-analysis evaluated the R0 resection rate, lymph node metastasis rate, conversion to open surgery rate, spleen preservation rate, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative pancreatic fistula, postoperative hospital stay, 90-day mortality rate, surgical cost, and total cost. Results: This meta-analysis included 38 studies. Conversion to open surgery, blood loss, and 90-day mortality in the RDP group were all significantly less than that in the LDP group (P < .05). There was no difference in lymph node resection rate, R0 resection rate, or postoperative pancreatic fistula between the two groups (P > .05). Spleen preservation rate in the LDP group was higher than that in the RDP group (P < .05). Operation cost and total cost in the RDP group were both more than that in the LDP group (P < .05). It is uncertain which group has an advantage in postoperative hospital stay. Conclusions: To some degree, RDP and LDP were indeed worth comparing in clinical practice. However, it may be difficult to determine which is absolute advantage according to current data. Large sample randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm which is better treatment. PROSPERO ID: CRD4202345576.

Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: Update of CT-Based Radiomics Applications in the Pre-Surgical Prediction of the Risk of Post-Operative Fistula, Resectability Status and Prognosis

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is the seventh leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. Surgical resection is the main driver to improving survival in resectable tumors, while neoadjuvant treatment based on chemotherapy (and radiotherapy) is the best option-treatment for a non-primally resectable disease. CT-based imaging has a central role in detecting, staging, and managing PDAC. As several authors have proposed radiomics for risk stratification in patients undergoing surgery for PADC, in this narrative review, we have explored the actual fields of interest of radiomics tools in PDAC built on pre-surgical imaging and clinical variables, to obtain more objective and reliable predictors.

METHODS

The PubMed database was searched for papers published in the English language no earlier than January 2018.

RESULTS

We found 301 studies, and 11 satisfied our research criteria. Of those included, four were on resectability status prediction, three on preoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) prediction, and four on survival prediction. Most of the studies were retrospective.

CONCLUSIONS

It is possible to conclude that many performing models have been developed to get predictive information in pre-surgical evaluation. However, all the studies were retrospective, lacking further external validation in prospective and multicentric cohorts. Furthermore, the radiomics models and the expression of results should be standardized and automatized to be applicable in clinical practice.

Effect of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy on the incidence of surgical-site wound infection: A meta-analysis

A meta-analysis was conducted to assess the impact of robotic and laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomies on postoperative surgical site wound infections. A comprehensive computerised search of databases, such as PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, and Wanfang Data, was performed to identify studies comparing robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) with laparoscopicPD. Relevant studies were searched from the inception of the database construction until April 2023. The meta-analysis outcomes were analysed using odds ratios (OR) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). The RevMan 5.4 software was used for the meta-analysis. The findings of the meta-analysis showed that patients who underwent laparoscopic PD had a significantly lower incidence of surgical-site wound (16.52% vs. 18.92%, OR: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.68-0.90, P = .0005), superficial wound (3.65% vs. 7.57%, OR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.39-0.68, P < .001), and deep wound infections (1.09% vs. 2.23%, OR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.34-0.85, P = .008) than those who received robotic PD. However, because of variations in sample size between studies, some studies suffered from methodological quality deficiencies. Therefore, further validation of this result is needed in future studies with higher quality and larger sample sizes.

Robot-Assisted Versus Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy in Patients with Resectable Pancreatic Cancer: An International, Retrospective, Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RDP) is increasingly used as an alternative to laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer but comparative multicenter studies confirming the safety and efficacy of RDP are lacking.

METHODS

An international, multicenter, retrospective, cohort study, including consecutive patients undergoing RDP and LDP for resectable pancreatic cancer in 33 experienced centers from 11 countries (2010-2019). The primary outcome was R0-resection. Secondary outcomes included lymph node yield, major complications, conversion rate, and overall survival.

RESULTS

In total, 542 patients after minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy were included: 103 RDP (19%) and 439 LDP (81%). The R0-resection rate was comparable (75.7% RDP vs. 69.3% LDP, p = 0.404). RDP was associated with longer operative time (290 vs. 240 min, p < 0.001), more vascular resections (7.6% vs. 2.7%, p = 0.030), lower conversion rate (4.9% vs. 17.3%, p = 0.001), more major complications (26.2% vs. 16.3%, p = 0.019), improved lymph node yield (18 vs. 16, p = 0.021), and longer hospital stay (10 vs. 8 days, p = 0.001). The 90-day mortality (1.9% vs. 0.7%, p = 0.268) and overall survival (median 28 vs. 31 months, p = 0.599) did not differ significantly between RDP and LDP, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In selected patients with resectable pancreatic cancer, RDP and LDP provide a comparable R0-resection rate and overall survival in experienced centers. Although the lymph node yield and conversion rate appeared favorable after RDP, LDP was associated with shorter operating time, less major complications, and shorter hospital stay. The specific benefits associated with each approach should be confirmed by multicenter, randomized trials.

Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis including patient subgroups

BACKGROUND

Robot-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).

METHODS

Studies 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.

RESULTS

Overall, 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).

CONCLUSIONS

RDP 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.

Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy on perioperative outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Robotic surgery has become a promising surgical method in minimally invasive pancreatic surgery due to its three-dimensional visualization, tremor filtration, motion scaling, and better ergonomics. Numerous studies have explored the benefits of RDP over LDP in terms of perioperative safety and feasibility, but no consensus has been achieved yet. This article aimed to evaluate the benefits and drawbacks of RDP and LDP for perioperative outcomes. By June 2022, all studies comparing RDP to LDP in the PubMed, the Embase, and the Cochrane Library database were systematically reviewed. According to the heterogeneity, fix or random-effects models were used for the meta-analysis of perioperative outcomes. Odds ratio (OR), weighted mean differences (WMD), and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. A sensitivity analysis was performed to explore potential sources of high heterogeneity and a trim and fill analysis was used to evaluate the impact of publication bias on the pooled results. Thirty-four studies met the inclusion criteria. RDP provides greater benefit than LDP for higher spleen preservation (OR 3.52 95% CI 2.62-4.73, p < 0.0001) and Kimura method (OR 1.93, 95% CI 1.42-2.62, p < 0.0001) in benign and low-grade malignant tumors. RDP is associated with lower conversion to laparotomy (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.33-0.52, p < 0.00001), and shorter postoperative hospital stay (WMD - 0.57, 95% CI - 0.92 to - 0.21, p = 0.002), but it is more costly. In terms of postoperative complications, there was no difference between RDP and LDP except for 30-day mortality (RDP versus LDP, 0.1% versus 1.0%, p = 0.03). With the exception of its high cost, RDP appears to outperform LDP on perioperative outcomes and is technologically feasible and safe. High-quality prospective randomized controlled trials are advised for further confirmation as the quality of the evidence now is not high.

Preferential Mobilization of Colonic Hepatic Flexure Facilitates Pancreaticoduodenectomy Procedures

BACKGROUND

Several studies recommend that colonic hepatic flexure (CHF) should be mobilized preliminarily in minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). However, there are little data to support that preferential mobilization of the CHF can positively affect the perioperative events of PD. We aimed to assess the effect of preferential mobilization of the CHF in PD.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent PD was performed between 2016 and 2019. Clinical characteristics, operative data, and postoperative surgical complications were recorded.

RESULTS

The study included 668 patients; 486 patients underwent open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) and 182 patients underwent laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD). Patients were divided into CHF-M (OPD, n=129; LPD, n=95) and conventional (OPD, n=357; LPD, n=87) groups according to preferential CHF mobilization. There were no differences between the groups regarding most demographics. Within patients who underwent OPD, decreased estimated blood loss (EBL) (251.2±146.4 vs. 307.3±173.5 mL, P<0.05) was observed in CHF-M group. Within patients who underwent LPD, operative time (328.7±66.3 vs. 406.5±85.5 min, P<0.001), EBL (166.8±96.4 vs. 271.8±130.7 mL, P<0.001), the incidence of clinically relevant pancreaticfistula (7.4% vs. 23.0%, P<0.05), and length of stay (12.3±5.1 vs. 16.0±7.4 d, P<0.05) were decreased in CHF-M group. Moreover, patients with high body mass index who underwent LPD showed more significant differences in operative time (336.0±67.7 vs. 431.9±79.1, P<0.001) and EBL (179.6±97.8 vs. 278.2±135.6, P<0.001) between groups.

CONCLUSION

We first demonstrated that preferential mobilization of the CHF can facilitate PD. The patients who underwent minimally invasive surgery and the patients with high body mass index may benefit more from this technique.

Robotic pancreas surgery: an overview of history and update on technique, outcomes, and financials

The use robotics in surgery is gaining momentum. This approach holds substantial promise in pancreas surgery. Robotic surgery for pancreatic lesions and malignancies has become well accepted and is expanding to more and more center annually. The number of centers using robotics in pancreatic surgery is rapidly increasing. The most studied robotic pancreas surgeries are pancreaticoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy. Most studies are in their early phases, but they report that robotic pancreas surgery is safe feasible. Robotic pancreas surgery offers several advantages over open and laparoscopic techniques. Data regarding costs of robotics versus conventional techniques is still lacking. Robotic pancreas surgery is still in its early stages. It holds promise to become the new surgical standard for pancreatic resections in the future, however, more research is still needed to establish its safety, cost effectiveness and efficacy in providing the best outcomes.

Robotic distal pancreatectomy reduces pancreatic fistula in patients without visceral obesity as compared to open distal pancreatectomy: A propensity score matching retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Several studies have suggested an association between visceral obesity and adverse perioperative outcomes in pancreatic surgery. However, no study has reported the impact of visceral obesity on robotic pancreatic surgery. This study aimed to assess the impact of preoperative visceral obesity on clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) patients following robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) or open distal pancreatectomy (ODP).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed on all patients who consecutively underwent RDP or ODP for PDAC. The visceral adipose tissue was measured on preoperative computed tomography (CT) images at the L3 vertebra level. A 1:1 propensity score matching method was used in the visceral obesity group and the nonvisceral obesity group to minimize the bias between RDP and ODP.

RESULTS

Between December 2011 and December 2018, a total of 445 patients were included. Visceral obesity (n = 219) was found to be associated with higher estimated blood loss (p = 0.033), a higher CR-POPF rate (p = 0.001), delayed drain removal (p = 0.005) and a longer length of stay (p = 0.033). In multivariable analysis, visceral obesity was an independent risk factor for CR-POPF (OR: 1.69; 95% CI 1.07-2.67, p = 0.024). Among patients without visceral obesity, the incidence of CR-POPF was lower among RDP than among ODP patients (11.27% vs. 23.87%, p = 0.028), and the difference remained after propensity score matching (9.52% vs. 26.98%, p = 0.011). However, there was no significant difference in the CR-POPF rate between RDP and ODP for visceral obesity patients.

CONCLUSION

In nonvisceral obesity patients, RDP had better perioperative outcomes than ODP, with a significantly lower CR-POPF rate. However, in visceral obesity patients, RDP showed equivalent CR-POPF rate when compared to ODP.