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 Nov;29(11):3163-70.
doi: 10.1007/s00464-014-4043-3. Epub 2015 Jan 1.

A prospective non-randomised single-center study comparing laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomy

Affiliations
Comparative Study

A prospective non-randomised single-center study comparing laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomy

Giovanni Butturini et al. Surg Endosc. 2015 Nov.

Abstract

Background: Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is increasing in popularity thanks to the benefits that have been recently demonstrated by many authors. The Da Vinci(®) Surgical System could overcome some limits of laparoscopy, helping the surgeons to perform safer and faster difficult procedures. Nowadays, prospective clinical trials comparing LDP to robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) are lacking. The aim of this study is to present a prospective comparison between the two techniques.

Methods: Since November 2011, all patients suitable for minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy were assigned either to LDP or RDP, depending on the availability of the Da Vinci(®) Surgical System for our Surgical Unit. Demographics, clinical, and intra- and postoperative data, including estimated costs of the procedure, were prospectively collected. Follow-up included cross-sectional imaging ended on April 2014.

Results: Twenty-two patients underwent RDP and 21 LDP; patients' characteristics were similar. The median operative time was longer and procedures' cost was double in RDP group. The conversion to open rate and the median length of postoperative hospital stay were 4.5 % and 7 days, respectively, in both groups. Pancreatic fistula developed in 57.1 % (12/21) and 50 % (11/22) of LDP and RDP, respectively (p = 0.870), being grade A the most frequent. Mortality was nil and an R0 resection was achieved in all Patients. The overall number of lymph nodes harvested was similar between the two groups.

Conclusions: Both RDP and LDP are valid techniques for the treatment of distal pancreatic tumors. The advantages of RDP are claimed by many but still under investigation. Some of these advantages are more subjective than objective, and it seems difficult to demonstrate a real superiority of one technique over the other in a standardized fashion. In our experience, laparoscopy has not been abandoned in favor of the robot: we continue to perform both approaches choosing upon single patient's characteristics.

Keywords: Distal pancreatectomy; Laparoscopy; Pancreatic surgery; Prospective study; Robot-assisted surgery; Robotic surgery.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Surg Endosc. 2010 Jul;24(7):1646-57 - PubMed
    1. Surg Endosc. 2011 May;25(5):1642-51 - PubMed
    1. Ann Surg. 2007 Jul;246(1):77-82 - PubMed
    1. Surg Endosc. 2011 Oct;25(10):3364-72 - PubMed
    1. Ann Surg. 2012 Jun;255(6):1048-59 - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources