Comprehensive comparative analysis of cost-effectiveness and perioperative outcomes between open, laparoscopic, and robotic distal pancreatectomy

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

BACKGROUND

This study compared the cost-effectiveness of open (ODP), laparoscopic (LDP), and robotic (RDP) distal pancreatectomy (DP).

METHODS

Studies reporting the costs of DP were included in a literature search until August 2023. Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted, and surface under cumulative ranking area (SUCRA) values, mean difference (MD), odds ratio (OR), and 95% credible intervals (CrIs) were calculated for outcomes of interest. Cluster analysis was performed to examine the similarity and classification of DP approaches into homogeneous clusters. A decision model-based cost-utility analysis was conducted for the cost-effectiveness analysis of DP strategies.

RESULTS

Twenty-six studies with 29,164 patients were included in the analysis. Among the three groups, LDP had the lowest overall costs, while ODP had the highest overall costs (LDP vs. ODP: MD - 3521.36, 95% CrI - 6172.91 to - 1228.59). RDP had the highest procedural costs (ODP vs. RDP: MD - 4311.15, 95% CrI - 6005.40 to - 2599.16; LDP vs. RDP: MD - 3772.25, 95% CrI - 4989.50 to - 2535.16), but incurred the lowest hospitalization costs. Both LDP (MD - 3663.82, 95% CrI - 6906.52 to - 747.69) and RDP (MD - 6678.42, 95% CrI - 11,434.30 to - 2972.89) had significantly reduced hospitalization costs compared to ODP. LDP and RDP demonstrated a superior profile regarding costs-morbidity, costs-mortality, costs-efficacy, and costs-utility compared to ODP. Compared to ODP, LDP and RDP cost $3110 and $817 less per patient, resulting in 0.03 and 0.05 additional quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), respectively, with positive incremental net monetary benefit (NMB). RDP costs $2293 more than LDP with a negative incremental NMB but generates 0.02 additional QALYs with improved postoperative morbidity and spleen preservation. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggests that LDP and RDP are more cost-effective options compared to ODP at various willingness-to-pay thresholds.

CONCLUSION

LDP and RDP are more cost-effective than ODP, with LDP exhibiting better cost savings and RDP demonstrating superior surgical outcomes and improved QALYs.

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

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) has established advantages over the open approach. The costs associated with robotic DP (RDP) versus laparoscopic DP (LDP) make the robotic approach controversial. We sought to compare outcomes and cost of LDP and RDP using propensity matching analysis at our institution.

METHODS

Patients undergoing LDP or RDP between 2000 and 2021 were retrospectively identified. Patients were optimally matched using age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists status, body mass index, and tumor size. Between-group differences were analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test for continuous data, and the McNemar's test for categorical data. Outcomes included operative duration, conversion to open surgery, postoperative length of stay, pancreatic fistula rate, pseudocyst requiring intervention, and costs.

RESULTS

298 patients underwent MIDP, 180 (60%) were laparoscopic and 118 (40%) were robotic. All RDPs were matched 1:1 to a laparoscopic case with absolute standardized mean differences for all matching covariates below 0.10, except for tumor type (0.16). RDP had longer operative times (268 vs 178 min, p < 0.01), shorter length of stay (2 vs 4 days, p < 0.01), fewer biochemical pancreatic leaks (11.9% vs 34.7%, p < 0.01), and fewer interventional radiological drainage (0% vs 5.9%, p = 0.01). The number of pancreatic fistulas (11.9% vs 5.1%, p = 0.12), collections requiring antibiotics or intervention (11.9% vs 5.1%, p = 0.12), and conversion rates (3.4% vs 5.1%, p = 0.72) were comparable between the two groups. The total direct index admission costs for RDP were 1.01 times higher than for LDP for FY16-19 (p = 0.372), and 1.33 times higher for FY20-22 (p = 0.031).

CONCLUSIONS

Although RDP required longer operative times than LDP, postoperative stays were shorter. The procedure cost of RDP was modestly more expensive than LDP, though this was partially offset by reduced hospital stay and reintervention rate.

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.

Which Factors Are Associated with Distal Pancreatectomy Outcomes' Optimization with the Application of an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Program?

Background: Distal pancreatectomy (DP) represents the best therapeutic option for patients with body-tail pancreatic neoplasms (PNs). The enhanced recovery after surgery protocol is widely used for treating patients with PN to speed up postoperative recovery. This study aims to describe our institute's experience in the application of fast recovery protocol in a cohort of patients treated with DP, identifying predictors facilitating a decrease in the length of hospital stay. Patient and Methods: Were retrospectively enrolled 60 consecutive cases of DP performed from January 2016 to June 2022 in patients treated with enhanced recovery protocol, 25% of them were treated with spleen preserving procedure. Single-variable logistic regression models were used to evaluate the potential association between patient characteristics and the probability of postoperative complications. Standard linear regression models were used for length of stay, number of postoperative days (PODs) from surgery to full bowel function recovery, and PODs to the interruption of intravenous analgesia administration. Results: Thirty-four (57%) patients underwent open surgery and 26 (43%) laparoscopic surgery. Patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery and spleen-preserving procedures experienced a lower complication rate (P = .037), shorter length of stay, and time of analgesic requirements. With single-variable logistic regression models patients treated with laparoscopic surgery had statistically significant higher recovery times in terms of nasogastric tube removal (P = .004) and early enteral nutrition (P = .001). Conclusion: Continual refinement with enhanced recovery protocol for treating PN patients based on perioperative counseling and surgical decision-making is crucial to reduce patient morbidity and time for recovery.

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.

Minimally Invasive Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery at a Large Regional Health System: Assessing the Safety of Program Expansion

BACKGROUND

Complex, minimally invasive hepatopancreatobiliary surgery (MIS HPB) is safe at high-volume centers, yet outcomes during early implementation are unknown. We describe our experience during period of rapid growth in an MIS HPB program at a large regional health system.

METHODS

During an increase in MIS HPB (60% greater from preceding year), hospital records of patients who underwent HPB surgery between 1/1/2019 and 12/31/2020 were reviewed. Operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), conversion rates, length of stay (LOS), and perioperative outcomes were assessed.

RESULTS

267 patients' cases were reviewed. The population was 62 ± 13 years, 50% female, 90% white. MIS was more frequently performed for hepatic than pancreatic resections (59% vs 21%, P < .001). Open cases were more frequently performed for invasive malignancy in both pancreatic (70% vs 40%, P < .018) and hepatic (87% vs 70%, P = .046) resections. There was no difference in operative time between MIS and open surgery (293[218-355]min vs 296[199-399]min, P = .893). When compared to open, there was a shorter LOS (4[2-6]d vs 7[6-10]d, P < .001) and lower readmission rate (21% vs 37%, P = .005) following MIS. Estimated blood loss was lower in MIS liver resections, particularly when performed for benign disease (200[63-500]mL vs 600[200-1200]mL, P = .041). Overall 30-day mortality was similar between MIS and open surgery (1.0% vs 1.8%, P = 1.000).

DISCUSSION

During a surgical expansion phase within our regional health system, MIS HPB offered improved perioperative outcomes when compared to open surgery. These data support the safety of implementation even during intervals of rapid programmatic growth.

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.

Laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomy: the choice and the future

INTRODUCTION

Distal pancreatectomy (DP) is currently well established as a minimally invasive surgery (MIS) procedure, using either a laparoscopic (LDP) or robotic (RDP) approach.

METHODS

Out of 83 DP performed between January 2018 and March 2022, 57 cases (68.7%) were performed using MIS: 35 LDP and 22 RDP (da Vinci Xi). We have assessed the experience with the two techniques and analyzed the value of the robotic approach. Cases of conversion have been examined in detail.

RESULTS

The mean operative times for LDP and RDP were 201.2 (SD 47.8) and 247.54 (SD 35.8) minutes, respectively (P = NS). No differences were observed in length of hospital stay or conversion rate: 6 (5-34) vs. 5.6 (5-22) days, and 4 (11.4%) vs. 3 (13.6%) cases, respectively (P = NS). The readmission rate was 3/35 patients (11.4%) treated with LDP and 6/22 (27.3%) cases of RDP (P = NS). There were no differences in morbidity (Dindo-Clavien ≥ III) between the two groups. Mortality was one case in the robotic group (a patient with early conversion due to vascular involvement). The rate of R0 resection was greater and statistically significant in the RDP group (77.1% vs. 90.9%) (P = .04).

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) is a safe and feasible procedure in selected patients. Surgical planning and stepwise implementation based on prior experience help surgeons successfully perform technically demanding procedures. RDP could be the approach of choice in distal pancreatectomy, and it is not inferior to LDP.

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.

Figures do matter: A literature review of 4587 robotic pancreatic resections and their implications on training

BACKGROUND

The use of robotic assistance in minimally invasive pancreatic resection is quickly growing.

METHODS

We present a systematic review of the literature regarding all types of robotic pancreatic resection (RPR). Our aim is to show for which procedures there is enough experience to permit safe training and provide an estimation of how many centers could serve as teaching institutions.

RESULTS

Sixty-four studies reporting on 4587 RPRs were analyzed. A total of 2598 pancreatoduodenectomies (PD) were reported by 28 centers from Europe (6/28; 21.4%), the Americas (11/28; 39.3%), and Asia (11/28; 39.3%). Six studies reported >100 robot PD (1694/2598; 65.2%). A total of 1618 distal pancreatectomies (DP) were reported by 29 centers from Europe (10/29; 34.5%), the Americas (10/29; 34.5%), and Asia (9/29; 31%). Five studies reported >100 robotic DP (748/1618; 46.2%). A total of 154 central pancreatectomies were reported by six centers from Europe (1/6; 16.7%), the Americas (2/6; 33.3%), and Asia (3/6; 50%). Only 49 total pancreatectomies were reported. Finally, 168 enucleations were reported in seven studies (with a mean of 15.4 cases per study). A single center reported on 60 enucleations (35.7%). Results of each type of robotic procedure are also presented.

CONCLUSIONS

Experience with RPR is still quite limited. Despite high case volume not being sufficient to warrant optimal training opportunities, it is certainly a key component of every successful training program and is a major criterion for fellowship accreditation. From this review, it appears that only PD and DP can currently be taught at few institutions worldwide.

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.

Robotic versus open pancreatic surgery: a propensity score-matched cost-effectiveness analysis

Background

Robotic pancreatic surgery (RPS) is associated with high intraoperative costs compared to open pancreatic surgery (OPS). However, it remains unclear whether several advantages of RPS such as reduced surgical trauma and a shorter postoperative recovery time could lead to a reduction in total costs outweighing the intraoperative costs. The study aimed to compare patients undergoing OPS and RPS with regards to cost-effectiveness in a propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis.

Methods

Patients undergoing OPS and RPS between 2017 and 2019 were included in this monocentric, retrospective analysis. The controlling department provided financial data (costs and revenues, net loss/profit). A propensity score-matched analysis was performed or OPS and RPS (matching criteria: age, American society of anesthesiologists (ASA) score, gender, body mass index (BMI), and type of pancreatic resection) with a caliper 0.2.

Results

In total, 272 eligible OPS cases were identified, of which 252 met all inclusion criteria and were thus included in the further analysis. The RPS group contained 92 patients. The matched cohorts contained 41 patients in each group. Length of hospital stay (LOS) was significantly shorter in the RPS group (12 vs. 19 days, p = 0.003). Major postoperative morbidity (Dindo/Clavien ≥ 3a) and 90-day mortality did not differ significantly between OPS and RPS (p > 0.05). Intraoperative costs were significantly higher in the RPS group than in the OPS group (7334€ vs. 5115€, p < 0.001). This was, however, balanced by other financial categories. The overall cost-effectiveness tended to be better when comparing RPS to OPS (net profit—RPS: 57€ vs. OPS: − 2894€, p = 0.328). Binary logistic regression analysis revealed major postoperative complications, longer hospital stay, and ASA scores < 3 were linked to the risk of net loss (i.e., costs > revenue).

Conclusions

Surgical outcomes of RPS were similar to those of OPS. Higher intraoperative costs of RPS are outweighed by advantages in other categories of cost-effectiveness such as decreased lengths of hospital stay.

Minimally Invasive Techniques for Pancreatic Resection

There is increasing interest in the role of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for pancreatectomy. Prospective data indicate significant advantages for MIS when performed for left-sided pancreatic pathologies and may be deemed as the standard of care. However, there is reluctance in implementing this technique to pancreaticoduodenectomy because of the complexity of the operation and the mixed results from randomized trials. A detailed description of the technical aspects of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy is presented in this article in addition to a summary of the most important prospective and cohort studies. We also provide insights into patient selection and the learning curve of MIS surgery for pancreatectomy.

The current status and future directions of robotic pancreatectomy

Robotic surgery has emerged as an alternative to laparoscopic surgery and it has also been applied to pancreatectomy. With the increase in the number of robotic pancreatectomies, several studies comparing robotic pancreatectomy and conventional open or laparoscopic pancreatectomy have been published. However, the use of robotic pancreatectomy remains controversial. In this review, we aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of the current status of robotic pancreatectomy. Various aspects of robotic pancreatectomy and conventional open or laparoscopic pancreatectomy are compared, including the benefits, limitations, oncological efficacy, learning curves, and costs. Both robotic pancreatoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy have favorable or comparable outcomes to conventional procedures, and robotic pancreatectomy has the potential to be an alternative to open or laparoscopic procedures. However, there are still several disadvantages to robotic platforms, such as prolonged operative duration and the high cost of the procedure. These disadvantages will be improved by developing instruments, overcoming the learning curve, and increasing the number of robotic pancreatectomies. In addition, robotic pancreatectomy is still in the introductory period in most centers and should only be used in accordance with strict indications.

Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies: A systematic review and meta-analysis on costs and perioperative outcome

AIM

The aim of this meta-analysis is to compare perioperative outcomes and costs of robotic and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (RDP and LDP).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In accordance with the PRISMA guidelines, we searched Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane and Web of Science for reports published before December 2020.

RESULTS

The literature search identified 11 papers (1 187 patients). RDP showed a lower conversion rate (odds ratio: 2.56, 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 1.31 to 5.00) with no significant differences in bleeding and operative time, complications ≥ Clavien-Dindo grade III, pancreatic fistulas and length of stay. Despite RDP presenting higher costs in all included studies, none of these differences were significant. However, RDP showed higher total costs than LDP (standardized mean differences [SMD]: -1.18, 95% CI: -1.97 to -0.39). A subgroup analysis according to the continent of origin showed that studies coming from Asian research groups kept showing significant differences (SMD: -2.62, 95% CI: -3.38 to -1.85), while Western groups did not confirm these findings.

CONCLUSION

Based on low-quality evidence, despite some potential technical advantages, RDP still seems to be costlier than LDP.

Robotic gastrointestinal surgery: learning curve, educational programs and outcomes

The use of the robotic platform for gastrointestinal surgery was introduced nearly 20 years ago. However, significant growth and advancement has occurred primarily in the last decade. This is due to several advantages over traditional laparoscopic surgery allowing for more complex dissections and reconstructions. Several randomized controlled trials and retrospective reviews have demonstrated equivalent oncologic outcomes compared to open surgery with improved short-term outcomes. Unfortunately, there are currently no universally accepted or implemented training programs for robotic surgery and robotic surgery experience varies greatly. Additionally, several limitations to the robotic platform exist resulting in a distinct learning curve associated with various procedures. Therefore, implementation of robotic surgery requires a multidisciplinary team approach with commitment and investment from clinical faculty, operating room staff and hospital administrators. Additionally, there is a need for wider distribution of educational modules to train more surgeons and reduce the associated learning curve. This article will focus on the implementation of the robotic platform for surgery of the pancreas, stomach, liver, colon and rectum with an emphasis on the associated learning curve, educational platforms to develop proficiency and perioperative outcomes.

State of the art robotic distal pancreatectomy: a review of the literature

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy has become increasingly used in practice. While laparoscopic approach is the most commonly used technique, robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) has emerged as a safe, feasible and effective approach for distal pancreatectomy. Most studies have shown that RDP improved perioperative surgical outcomes and has equivalent oncologic outcomes to open technique. Widespread adoption is limited by a steep learning curve, higher costs and the need for institutional training protocols in place for safe integration of the platform into practice.

Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: multicentre analysis

BACKGROUND

The role of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy is still unclear, and whether robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) offers benefits over laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is unknown because large multicentre studies are lacking. This study compared perioperative outcomes between RDP and LDP.

METHODS

A multicentre international propensity score-matched study included patients who underwent RDP or LDP for any indication in 21 European centres from six countries that performed at least 15 distal pancreatectomies annually (January 2011 to June 2019). Propensity score matching was based on preoperative characteristics in a 1 : 1 ratio. The primary outcome was the major morbidity rate (Clavien-Dindo grade IIIa or above).

RESULTS

A total of 1551 patients (407 RDP and 1144 LDP) were included in the study. Some 402 patients who had RDP were matched with 402 who underwent LDP. After matching, there was no difference between RDP and LDP groups in rates of major morbidity (14.2 versus 16.5 per cent respectively; P = 0.378), postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C (24.6 versus 26.5 per cent; P = 0.543) or 90-day mortality (0.5 versus 1.3 per cent; P = 0.268). RDP was associated with a longer duration of surgery than LDP (median 285 (i.q.r. 225-350) versus 240 (195-300) min respectively; P < 0.001), lower conversion rate (6.7 versus 15.2 per cent; P < 0.001), higher spleen preservation rate (81.4 versus 62.9 per cent; P = 0.001), longer hospital stay (median 8.5 (i.q.r. 7-12) versus 7 (6-10) days; P < 0.001) and lower readmission rate (11.0 versus 18.2 per cent; P = 0.004).

CONCLUSION

The major morbidity rate was comparable between RDP and LDP. RDP was associated with improved rates of conversion, spleen preservation and readmission, to the detriment of longer duration of surgery and hospital stay.

Evaluation of cost-effectiveness among open, laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) is still a matter of debate. This study compares the cost-effectiveness of open (ODP), laparoscopic (LDP) and robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP).

METHODS

Pubmed, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases were searched. Studies comparing cost-effectiveness of ODP and MIDP were included.

RESULTS

A total of 1052 titles were screened and 16 articles were included in the study, 2431 patients in total. LDP resulted the most cost-efficient procedure, with a mean total cost of 14,682 ± 5665 € and the lowest readmission rates. ODP had lower surgical procedure costs, 3867 ± 768 €. RDP was the safest approach regarding hospital stay costs (5239 ± 1741 €), length of hospital stay, morbidity, clinically relevant pancreatic fistula and reoperations.

CONCLUSION

In this meta-analysis MIDP resulted as the most cost-effective approach. LDP seems to be protective against high costs, but RDP seems to be safer.

Minimally invasive (laparoscopic and robot-assisted) versus open approach for central pancreatectomies: a single-center experience

BACKGROUND

There continues to be an interest in minimally invasive approaches to pancreatic surgery. At our institution, there has been a progressive change from an open to minimally invasive surgery (MIS) (laparoscopic, robotic, or laparoscopic-robotic) approach for central pancreatectomies (CP). The aim of this study was to evaluate surgical outcomes with open CP (O-CP) versus minimally invasive CP (MI-CP).

METHODS

A retrospective medical review of patients who underwent CP between 1993 and 2018 at Yonsei University Health System, Seoul, Korea was performed. Short-term perioperative outcomes were compared between O-CP and MI-CP.

RESULTS

Thirty-one CPs (11 open, 20 MIS) were identified during the study period. No difference was observed in admission days between O-CP and MI-CP (21.2 vs. 16.7 days, p = 0.340), although operating time was significantly increased in the MI-CP group (296.8 vs. 374.8 min, p = 0.036). Blood loss was significantly less in MI-CP vs. O-CP (807.1 vs. 214.0 mls, p = 0.001), with no difference in post-operative new-onset diabetes (9% vs. 5%). The overall post-operative pancreatic fistula rate was 25.8%, and no significant difference between O-CP and MI-CP or complication rates (45% vs. 40%) was observed.

CONCLUSION

Despite increased operative time, MI-CP is feasible and comparable to conventional O-CP with regard to surgical outcomes in well-selected patients.

Proposed training pathway with initial experience to set up robotic hepatobiliary and pancreatic service

Although robot-assisted hepatobiliary and pancreatic (HPB) surgery has gained momentum over the last 2 decades, only a handful of units in the world perform major robotic resections. Adaptation of robotic surgery in the UK lags behind its European counterparts and this is mainly because of cost implications in a publicly funded National Health Service (NHS). We describe our experience of setting up a robotic HPB programme with clinical outcomes and propose a training pathway that would help prospective centres in setting up their own robotic HPB service with robust clinical governance oversight. After gaining colleagues' and departmental support, approval from the hospital clinical governance, finance department and new intervention procedure committee was sought. A team of two consultant surgeons, three assistants and three theatre staff went through a structured training programme sponsored mainly by the industry. Surgeon training consisted of online modules, simulation, wet lab, cadaveric training, case observations, proctored procedures followed by independent practice. All major cases were recorded and videos reviewed to improve performance. A total of 111 procedures were successfully completed with robotic assistance between April 2018 and March 2020. The programme started with robot-assisted cholecystectomy as index procedure and progressed on to more complex liver and pancreatic resections including major hepatectomy and Whipple's procedure. The training pathway followed by our team has been effective in setting up a safe robotic HPB programme and could be considered as a roadmap to start new Robotic HPB services.

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy: a case-matched cost-analysis between robot-assisted surgery and direct manual laparoscopy

Background

Few studies have reported a structured cost analysis of robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP), and none have compared the relative costs between the robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) and the direct manual laparoscopy (DML) in this setting. The aim of the present study is to address this issue by comparing surgical outcomes and costs of RDP and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies (LDP).

Methods

Eighty-eight RDP and 47 LDP performed between January 2008 and January 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. Three comparable groups of 35 patients each (Si-RDP-group, Xi-RDP group, LDP-group) were obtained matching 1:1 the RDP-groups with the LDP-group. Overall costs, including overall variable costs (OVC) and fixed costs were compared using generalized linear regression model adjusting for covariates.

Results

The conversion rate was significantly lower in the Si-RDP-group and Xi-RDP-group: 2.9% and 0%, respectively, versus 14.3% in the LDP-group (p = 0.045). Although not statistically significant, the mean operative time was lower in Xi-RDP-group: 226 min versus 262 min for Si-RDP-group and 247 min for LDP-group. The overall post-operative complications rate and the length of hospital stay (LOS) were not significantly different between the three groups. In LDP-group, the LOS of converted cases was significantly longer: 15.6 versus 9.8 days (p = 0.039). Overall costs of LDP-group were significantly lower than RDP-groups, (p < 0.001). At multivariate analysis OVC resulted no longer statistically significantly different between LDP-group and Xi-RDP-group (p = 0.099), and between LDP-group and the RDP-groups when the spleen preservation was indicated (p = 0.115 and p = 0.261 for Si-RDP-group and Xi-RDP-group, respectively).

Conclusions

RAS is more expensive than DML for DP because of higher acquisition and maintenance costs. The flattening of these differences considering only the variable costs, in a high-volume multidisciplinary center for RAS, suggests a possible optimization of the costs in this setting. RAS might be particularly indicated for minimally invasive DP when the spleen preservation is scheduled.

Minimally invasive pancreatic surgery—will robotic surgery be the future?

Due to the complexity of the procedures and the texture of the organ itself, pancreatic surgery remains a challenge in the field of visceral surgery. During the past decade, a minimally invasive approach to pancreatic surgery has gained distribution in clinical routine, extending from left-sided procedures to pancreatic head resections. While a laparoscopic approach has proven beneficial for many patients with left-sided pancreatic pathologies, the complex reconstruction in pancreas head resections remains worrisome with the laparoscopic approach. The robotic technique was established to overcome such technical constraints while preserving the advantages of the laparoscopic approach. Even though robotic systems are still in development, especially in pancreatoduodenectomy, the current literature demonstrates the feasibility of this approach and stable clinical and oncological outcomes compared to the open technique, albeit only under the condition of such operations being performed by specialist teams in a high-volume setting (>20 robotic pancreaticoduodenectomies per year). The aim of this review is to analyze the current evidence regarding a minimally invasive approach to pancreatic surgery and to review the potential of a robotic approach. Presently, there is still a scarcity of sound evidence and long-term oncological data regarding the role of minimally invasive and robotic pancreatic surgery in the literature, especially in the setting of pancreaticoduodenectomy.

[Postpancreatectomy hemorrhage]

Surgical treatment of pancreatic diseases is always associated with a large number of complications. Postoperative hemorrhage is a specific complication of pancreatic surgery requiring a clear classification and surgical strategy. According to literature data, postoperative hemorrhage occurs in 3-30% of cases. Incidence of hemorrhages depends on intraoperative, anamnestic, histological and postoperative factors. Early postoperative hemorrhage (within 24 hours after surgery) is usually a consequence of technical errors in intraoperative hemostasis, perioperative coagulation disorders. The mechanism of delayed bleeding is more complex and often associated with various arrosive factors: pancreatic fistula, biliary fistula, abscess. Currently, there is no a single treatment algorithm for patients with postpancreatectomy hemorrhage. According to various researchers, contrast-enhanced CT is preferred for diagnosis. In recent years, the role of endovascular hemostasis has significantly increased. This problem requires further study and development of a single treatment and diagnostic algorithm that will reduce mortality in these patients.

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

The utilization of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) is increasing, yet debate remains regarding its oncologic safety in the setting of pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Herein we present our institutional experience with robotic (RDP), laparoscopic (LDP), and open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) in the setting of PDAC.Retrospective review of a prospectively collected single institutional database of patients undergoing consecutive ODP, LDP, and RDP for left-sided PDAC between January 2008 and December 2019 at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) was done. Perioperative and postoperative outcomes were compared using non-parametric testing and Fischer exact or chi-squared testing. Kaplan-Meier survival curves for disease-free survival and overall survival were compared by Log-Rank sum test. Backward Cox-proportional hazard regression analysis was used to determine if the operative approach was an independent predictor of recurrence and overall survival.Over 12 years, 146 consecutive distal pancreatectomies for PDAC were performed, of which 28.1% ODP, 60.3% RDP, and 11.6% LDP. There were no statistical differences in patients' baseline characteristics, including gender, comorbidities, prior abdominal surgeries, and AJCC^8th stage (p > 0.05). Postoperatively, there was no difference in the frequency of major complications (p = 0.414), CR-POPF (p = 0.563), or DGE (p = 0.179). The median overall survival was 28.4 months for ODP, 34.6 months for RDP, and 32.5 months for LDP (Log Rank p = 0.914). On multivariate Cox proportional hazard analysis, the surgical approach was not associated with overall survival. This comparative analysis suggests a non-inferiority of RDP platforms, compared to LDP and classic ODP. The merits of MIS pancreatic surgery in the setting of PDAC should be evaluated in future prospective studies with care to analyze RDP outcomes separately from LDP.

Oncologic Outcomes of Robotic Left Pancreatectomy for Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: A Single-Center Comparison to Laparoscopic Resection

BACKGROUND

Feasibility and safety of robotic surgery for pancreatic disease has been well demonstrated; however, there is scarce literature on long-term oncologic outcomes. We compared perioperative and oncologic outcomes between robotic left pancreatectomy (RLP) and laparoscopic left pancreatectomy (LLP) for pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

METHODS

A retrospective review evaluated left pancreatectomies performed for pancreatic adenocarcinoma from 2009 to 2019 in a tertiary institution. Baseline characteristics, operative and oncologic outcomes were compared between RLP and LLP.

RESULTS

There were 75 minimally invasive left pancreatectomy cases for pancreatic adenocarcinoma identified of which 33 cases were done robotically and 42 laparoscopically. Baseline characteristics demonstrated no difference in gender, age, BMI, T stage, N stage, neoadjuvant, or adjuvant chemotherapy. An analysis of operative variables demonstrated no difference in blood loss, increased duration, and higher lymph node yield with RLP (20 vs 12; P = .0029). Postoperatively, both cohorts had 30% pancreatic fistulas and no difference in complications. There were no differences in length of stay (LOS), 30- or 90-day readmission rates, or 90-day mortality. The analysis of oncologic outcomes demonstrated similar R0 resections (RLP: 72% vs OLP: 67%), recurrence rates (RLP: 36% vs OLP: 41%), and time to recurrence (RLP: 324 vs OLP 218 days). There was increased survival in the RLP cohort that was not significant (32 vs 19 months).

CONCLUSION

This analysis demonstrates RLP is at least equivalent to LLP in perioperative and oncologic outcomes. The significantly higher lymph node yield and trend toward an improved survival suggests oncologic advantage. Randomized controlled studies are needed to clarify benefit.

100 Robotic Distal Pancreatectomies: The Future at Hand

INTRODUCTION

This study was undertaken to examine 100 consecutive robotic distal pancreatectomies with splenectomies, and to compare our outcomes to predicted outcomes as calculated using the American college of surgeons national surgical quality improvement program (ACS NSQIP) Surgical Risk Calculator and to the outcomes contained within NSQIP.

METHODS

Outcomes were compared with predicted outcomes, calculated using the ACS NSQIP Surgical Risk Calculator, and with outcomes documented in NSQIP for distal pancreatectomy. For illustrative purposes, data are presented as median (mean ± SD).

RESULTS

Patients who underwent robotic distal pancreatectomy were of age 67 (63 ± 13.4) years with a BMI of 29 (29 ± 6.3) kg/m², with 49% being women. Operative duration was 242 (265 ± 112.2) minutes and estimated blood loss was 110 (211 ± 233.9) mL. Predicted outcomes were similar to those reported in NSQIP. Our actual outcomes were significantly superior to the predicted outcomes for serious complication, any complication, surgical site infection, sepsis, and length of stay. Compared to NSQIP outcomes, our actual outcomes for serious complication, any complication, surgical site infection, sepsis, and delayed gastric emptying were significantly superior. Twelve percent of operations were converted to "open." There were 3 deaths within 30 days, similar to predicted outcomes. Deaths were due to sepsis (2) and respiratory failure (1).

CONCLUSION

Our patients' predicted outcomes were the same as national outcomes; our patients were not a select group. However, their actual outcomes were like or significantly superior than those predicted by NSQIP or reported in NSQIP. We believe that the robot has the future of distal pancreatectomy with or without splenectomy.

Robotic-assisted versus open distal pancreatectomy for benign and low-grade malignant pancreatic tumors: a propensity score-matched study

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to compare the short-term outcomes of open and robotic-assisted distal pancreatectomy (ODP and RDP) for benign and low-grade malignant tumors.

METHODS

The patients who underwent RDP and ODP for benign or low-grade malignant pancreatic tumors at our center were included. After PSM at a 1:1 ratio, the perioperative variations in the two cohorts were compared.

RESULTS

After 1:1 PSM, 219 cases of RDP and ODP were recorded. The RDP cohort showed advantages in the operative duration [120 (90-150) min vs 175 (130-210) min, P < 0.001], estimated blood loss [50 (30-175) ml vs 200 (100-300) ml, P < 0.001], spleen preservation rate (63.5% vs 26.5%, P < 0.001), infection rate (4.6% vs 12.3%, P = 0.006), and gastrointestinal function recovery [3 (2-4) vs. 3 (3-5), P = 0.019]. There were no significant differences in postoperative pancreatic fistula, postoperative hemorrhage, and delayed gastric emptying. Multivariate analysis showed that RDP (HR 0.24; 95% CI 0.16-0.36, P < 0.001), age (HR 1.02; 95% CI 1.00-1.03, P = 0.033), tumor size (HR 1.28; 95% CI 1.17-1.40, P < 0.001), pathological inflammatory neoplasm type (HR 5.12; 95% CI 2.22-11.81, P < 0.001), and estimated blood loss (HR 1.003; 95% CI 1.001-1.004, P < 0.001) were independent predictors of spleen preservation; RDP (HR 0.27; 95% CI 0.17-0.43, P < 0.001), age (HR 1.02; 95% CI 1.00-1.03, P = 0.022), elevated CA 19-9 level (HR 2.55; 95% CI 1.02-6.39, P = 0.046), tumor size (HR 1.44; 95% CI 1.29-1.61, P < 0.001), pathological inflammatory neoplasm type (HR 4.48; 95% CI 1.69-11.85, P = 0.003), and estimated blood loss (HR 1.003; 95% CI 1.001-1.004, P < 0.001) were independent predictors of spleen preservation with the Kimura technique.

CONCLUSION

RDP has advantages in the operative time, blood loss, spleen preservation, infection rate, and gastrointestinal function recovery over ODP in treating benign and low-grade malignant pancreatic tumors. The robotic-assisted approach was an independent predictor of spleen preservation and use of the Kimura technique.

Robotic Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Liver Resections: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Theoretical advantages of robotic surgery compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery include improved instrument dexterity, 3D visualization, and better ergonomics. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine advantages of robotic surgery over laparoscopic surgery in patients undergoing liver resections.

METHOD

A systematic literature search was conducted for studies comparing robotic assisted or totally laparoscopic liver resection. Meta-analysis of intraoperative (operative time, blood loss, transfusion rate, conversion rate), oncological (R0 resection rates), and postoperative (bile leak, surgical site infection, pulmonary complications, 30-day and 90-day mortality, length of stay, 90-day readmission and reoperation rates) outcomes was performed using a random effects model.

RESULT

Twenty-six non-randomized studies including 2630 patients (950 robotic and 1680 laparoscopic) were included, of which 20% had major robotic liver resection and 14% had major laparoscopic liver resection. Intraoperatively, robotic liver resection was associated with significantly less blood loss (mean: 286 vs 301 mL, p < 0.001) but longer operating time (mean: 281 vs 221 min, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in conversion rates or transfusion rates between robotic liver resection and laparoscopic liver resection. Postoperatively, there were no significant differences in overall complications, bile leaks, and length of hospital stay between robotic liver resection and laparoscopic liver resection. However, robotic liver resection was associated with significantly lower readmission rates than laparoscopic liver resection (odds ratio: 0.43, p = 0.005).

CONCLUSION

Robotic liver resection appears to offer some advantages compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery, although both techniques appear equivalent. Importantly, the quality of evidence is generally limited to cohort studies and a high-quality randomized trial comparing both techniques is needed.

Up-to-date comparison of robotic-assisted versus open distal pancreatectomy: A PRISMA-compliant meta-analysis

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.

Long-term oncologic outcomes of robotic and open pancreatectomy in a national cohort of pancreatic adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

Robotic pancreatectomy is gaining momentum; however, limited data exist on the long-term survival of this approach for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). The objective of this study is to compare the long-term oncologic outcomes of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) and robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) to open surgery in patients with PDAC.

STUDY DESIGN

Robotic and open pancreatectomy for stages I-III PDAC were obtained from the 2010 to 2016 National Cancer Database.

RESULTS

We identified 17 831 pancreaticoduodenectomies and 2718 distal pancreatectomies of which 626 (4%) and 332 (12%) were robotic, respectively. There was no difference in median overall survival between RPD (22.0 months) and open pancreatoduodenectomy (21.8 months; logrank P = .755). The adjusted hazard ratio [HR] was 1.014 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.903-1.139). The median overall survival for RDP (35.3 months) was higher than open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) (24.9 months; logrank P = .001). The adjusted HR suggests a benefit to RDP compared to ODP (HR, 0.744; 95% CI: 0.632-0.868) CONCLUSION: In a national cohort of resected pancreatic adenocarcinoma, the robotic platform was associated with similar long-term survival for pancreaticoduodenectomy, but improved survival for distal pancreatectomy.

Robotic Pancreatic Surgery for Solid, Cystic, and Mixed Lesions

Robotic surgery is flourishing worldwide. Pancreatic cancer is the fourth leading cause of cancer death in the United States. Most pancreatic operations are undertaken for the management of pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Therefore, it is essential for all physicians caring for patients with cancer to understand the role and importance of molecular tumor markers. This article details our technique and application of the robotic platform to robotic pancreatectomy. The use of the robot does not change the nature of pancreatic operations, but it is our belief that it will improve patient outcomes and, possibly, survival by reducing perioperative complications.

Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic distal pancreatic resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery offers theoretical advantages to conventional laparoscopic surgery including improved instrument dexterity, 3D visualization and better ergonomics. This review aimed to determine if these theoretical advantages translate into improved patient outcomes in patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy through laparoscopic (LDP) or robotic (RDP) approaches.

METHOD

A systematic literature search was conducted for studies reporting minimally invasive surgery for distal pancreatectomy. Meta-analysis of intraoperative (blood loss, operating times, conversion and R0 resections) and postoperative outcomes (overall complications, pancreatic fistula, length of hospital stay) was performed using random effects models.

RESULT

Twenty non-randomised studies including 3112 patients (793 robotic and 2319 laparoscopic) were considered appropriate for inclusion. LDP had significantly shorter operating time than RDP (mean: 28, p < 0.001) but no significant difference in blood loss (mean: 52 mL, p = 0.07). RDP was associated with significantly lower conversion rates than LDP (OR 0.48, p < 0.001), but no difference in spleen preservation rate and R0 resection. There were no significant differences in overall and major complications, overall and high-grade pancreatic fistula. However, RDP was associated with a shorter length of hospital stay (mean: 1, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Robotic distal pancreatectomy appears to offer some advantages compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery, although both techniques appear equivalent. Importantly, the quality of evidence is generally limited to cohort studies and a high-quality randomised trial comparing both techniques are needed.

Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) offers theoretical advantages to conventional laparoscopic surgery including improved instrument dexterity, 3D visualization and better ergonomics. This review aimed to determine if these theoretical advantages translate into improved patient outcomes comparing patients having either robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy or laparoscopic (LPD) equivalent.

METHOD

A systematic literature search was conducted for studies reporting minimally invasive surgery for pancreaticoduodenectomy either robotic assisted or totally laparoscopic. Meta-analysis of intra-operative (blood loss, operating times, conversion and R0 resections) and postoperative outcomes (overall complications, pancreatic fistula, length of hospital stay) was performed using a random effects model.

RESULT

This review identified 44 studies, of which six were non-randomised comparative studies including 3462 patients (1025 robotic and 2437 laparoscopic). Intraoperatively, RPD was associated with significantly lower conversion rates (OR 0.45, p < 0.001) and transfusion rates (OR: 0.60, p = 0.002) compared to LPD. However, no significant difference in blood loss (mean: 220 vs 287 mL, p = 0.1), operating time (mean: 405 vs 418 min, p = 0.3) was noted. Postoperatively RPD was associated with a shorter hospital stay (mean: 12 vs 11 days, p < 0.001) but no significant difference was noted in postoperative complications, incidence of pancreatic fistulae and R0 resection rates.

CONCLUSION

RPD appears to offer some advantages compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery, although both approaches appear to offer equivalent clinical outcomes. Importantly, the quality of evidence is generally limited to cohort studies and a high-quality randomised trial comparing both techniques is needed.