Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: A propensity score-matched analysis

A comprehensive analysis of robotic assisted vs. laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy using propensity score matching

Using the propensity-matched methodology, this meta-analysis and comprehensive review aimed to compare robotic distal pancreatectomy with laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy in terms of perioperative and short-term oncologic outcomes. Within the scope of this investigation, complete and total adherence to the PRISMA guidelines for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses was established. The search we conducted in PubMed, Google Scholar, and EMBASE was automated to find relevant papers that matched the tendency up to July 1, 2024. The length of time spent while operating, the rate of conversion, and the collection of lymph nodes were the primary factors that were considered. Other metrics that were taken into consideration were the approximate amount of blood loss, the length of time spent in the hospital, the need for transfusions, and the occurrence of major adverse events. In the end, there were 8 studies that involved 1649 patients. Of those patients, 758 had robotic assisted distal pancreatectomy, whereas 891 underwent laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. In comparison to laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy, the robotic assisted technique did result in higher anticipated blood loss and conversion rates; however, it also required longer durations of operation due to its lengthier duration. In terms of lymph node retrieval, the duration of hospital stay, the need for blood transfusions, and the incidence of postoperative pancreatic fistula, there were no distinctions that could be considered statistically significant between the two techniques. A realistic and risk-free surgical alternative is a distal pancreatectomy that is performed with the aid of robotic technology. When compared to laparoscopic surgery, the outcomes of robot-assisted surgery were superior in terms of conversion rates to laparotomy and less anticipated intraoperative blood loss. However, the operation took longer to complete than laparoscopic surgery.

Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for sporadic benign insulinoma: Short- and long-term outcomes

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery is the optimal treatment for insulinoma. The present study aimed to compare short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic surgery for sporadic benign insulinoma.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of patients who underwent laparoscopic or robotic surgery for insulinoma at our center between September 2007 and December 2019 was conducted. The demographic, perioperative and postoperative follow-up results were compared between the laparoscopic and robotic groups.

RESULTS

A total of 85 patients were enrolled, including 36 with laparoscopic approach and 49 with robotic approach. Enucleation was the preferred surgical procedure. Fifty-nine patients (69.4%) underwent enucleation; among them, 26 and 33 patients underwent laparoscopic and robotic surgery, respectively. Robotic enucleation had a lower conversion rate to laparotomy (0 vs. 19.2%, P = 0.013), shorter operative time (102.0 vs. 145.5 min, P = 0.008) and shorter postoperative hospital stay (6.0 vs. 8.5 d, P = 0.002) than laparoscopic enucleation. There were no differences between the groups in terms of intraoperative blood loss, the rates of postoperative pancreatic fistula and complications. After a median follow-up of 65 months, two patients in the laparoscopic group developed a functional recurrence and none of the patients in the robotic group had a recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic enucleation can reduce the conversion rate to laparotomy and shorten operative time, which might lead to a reduction in postoperative hospital stay.

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.

Short-Term Outcomes of Conventional Laparoscopic versus Robot-Assisted Distal Pancreatectomy for Malignancy: Evidence from US National Inpatient Sample, 2005-2018

BACKGROUND

The primary treatment for pancreatic cancer is surgical resection, and laparoscopic resection offers benefits over open surgery. This study aimed to compare the short-term outcomes of robot-assisted vs. conventional laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy.

METHODS

Data of adults ≥ 20 years old with pancreatic cancer who underwent conventional laparoscopic or robot-assisted laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy were extracted from the United States (US) Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) 2005-2018 database. Comorbidities and complications were identified through the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes. Short-term outcomes were compared using logistic regression and included length of hospital stay (LOS), perioperative complications, in-hospital mortality, unfavorable discharge, and total hospital costs.

RESULTS

A total of 886 patients were included; 27% received robot-assisted, and 73% received conventional laparoscopic surgery. The mean age of all patients was 65.3 years, and 52% were females. Multivariable analysis revealed that robot-assisted surgery was associated with a significantly reduced risk of perioperative complications (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.45-0.83) compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery. Specifically, robot-assisted surgery was associated with a significantly decreased risk of VTE (aOR = 0.35, 95% CI: 0.14-0.83) and postoperative blood transfusion (aOR = 0.37, 95% CI: 0.23-0.61). Robot-assisted surgery was associated with a significantly shorter LOS (0.76 days shorter, 95% CI: -1.43--0.09) but greater total hospital costs (18,284 USD greater, 95% CI: 4369.03-32,200.70) than conventional laparoscopic surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the higher costs, robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy is associated with decreased risk of complications and shorter hospital stays than conventional laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy.

Prince and princesses: The current status of robotic surgery in surgical oncology

Robotic surgery has experienced a dramatic increase in utilization across general surgery over the last two decades, including in surgical oncology. Although urologists and gynecologists were the first to show that this technology could be utilized in cancer surgery, the robot is now a powerful tool in the treatment of gastrointestinal, hepato-pancreatico-biliary, colorectal, endocrine, and soft tissue malignancies. While long-term outcomes are still pending, short-term outcomes have showed promise for this technologic advancement of cancer surgery.

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.

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.