Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2015 Jun;29(6):1425-32.
doi: 10.1007/s00464-014-3819-9. Epub 2014 Aug 27.

Laparoscopic robot-assisted versus open total pancreatectomy: a case-matched study

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Laparoscopic robot-assisted versus open total pancreatectomy: a case-matched study

Ugo Boggi et al. Surg Endosc. 2015 Jun.

Abstract

Background: The enhanced dexterity offered by robotic assistance could be excessive for distal pancreatectomy but not enough to improve the outcome of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy. Total pancreatectomy retains the challenges of uncinate process dissection and digestive reconstruction, but avoids the risk of pancreatic fistula, and could be a suitable operation to highlight the advantages of robotic assistance in pancreatic resections.

Methods: Eleven laparoscopic robot-assisted total pancreatectomies (LRATP) were compared to 11 case-matched open total pancreatectomies. All operations were performed by one surgeon during the same period of time. Robotic assistance was employed in half of the patients, based on robot availability at the time of surgery. Variables examined included age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, body mass index, estimated blood loss, need for blood transfusions, operative time, tumor type, tumor size, number of examined lymph nodes, margin status, post-operative complications, 90-day or in-hospital mortality, length of hospital stay, and readmission rate.

Results: No LRATP was converted to conventional laparoscopy, hand-assisted laparoscopy or open surgery despite two patients (18.1 %) required vein resection and reconstruction. LRATP was associated with longer mean operative time (600 vs. 469 min; p = 0.014) but decreased mean blood loss (220 vs. 705; p = 0.004) than open surgery. Post-operative complications occurred in similar percentages after LRATP and open surgery. Complications occurring in most patients (5/7) after LRATP were of mild severity (Clavien-Dindo grade I and II). One patient required repeat laparoscopic surgery after LRATP, to drain a fluid collection not amenable to percutaneous catheter drainage. One further patient from the open group required repeat surgery because of bleeding. No patient had margin positive resection, and the mean number of examined lymph nodes was 45 after LRATP and 36 after open surgery.

Conclusions: LRATP is feasible in selected patients, but further experience is needed to draw final conclusions.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. HPB (Oxford). 2011 Jul;13(7):454-8 - PubMed
    1. Surg Endosc. 2012 Mar;26(3):598-606 - PubMed
    1. Transplantation. 2012 Jan 27;93(2):201-6 - PubMed
    1. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2007 Dec;17(6):524-7 - PubMed
    1. Surgery. 2009 Nov;146(5):869-81 - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources