Four-Day Robotic Whipple: Early Discharge after Robotic Pancreatoduodenectomy
- PMID: 36728297
- DOI: 10.1097/XCS.0000000000000560
Four-Day Robotic Whipple: Early Discharge after Robotic Pancreatoduodenectomy
Abstract
Background: The authors aimed to assess the safety of an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) and early discharge pathway in a robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) program and compared outcomes with an open PD control cohort to identify the synergistic effects of robotic surgery and an ERAS pathway on lengths of stay (LOS).
Study design: Consecutive patients undergoing open or robotic PD from a single surgeon between March 2020 and July 2022 were identified. Logistic regression models were used for adjusted analyses of postoperative outcomes.
Results: There were 134 consecutive PD patients, of which 40 (30%) were performed robotically. Pancreatic adenocarcinoma was the most common indication in both open (56%) and robotic (55%, p = 0.51) groups, with a similar proportion of them being borderline resectable or locally advanced tumors (78% vs 82% in robotic group, p = 0.82). The LOS was significantly shorter in the robotic PD group (median, 5 [IQR 4 to 7] days) when compared with the open PD group (median, 6 [IQR 5 to 8] days, p < 0.001). LOS of 4 days or fewer were observed in 40% of the robotic PD group compared with only 3% of patients in the open PD group (p < 0.001). There was no difference in the overall readmission rate (10% vs 12% in the robotic PD group, p = 0.61). On multivariable logistic regression, robotic PD was independently associated with higher odds of LOS of 4 days or fewer (odds ratio 22.4, p = 0.001) when compared with open PD.
Conclusions: An ERAS and early discharge pathway could be safely implemented in a robotic PD program. Patients undergoing robotic PD have significantly shorter length of stay without increased complication or readmission rate compared with open PD, with 40% of patients undergoing robotic PD achieving a LOS of 4 days or fewer.
Copyright © 2023 by the American College of Surgeons. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Comment in
-
Invited Commentary.J Am Coll Surg. 2023 Jun 1;236(6):1179-1180. doi: 10.1097/XCS.0000000000000694. Epub 2023 Mar 27. J Am Coll Surg. 2023. PMID: 36971359 No abstract available.
References
-
- Gleeson EM, Pitt HA, Mackay TM, et al. Failure to rescue after pancreatoduodenectomy. Ann Surg 2021;274:459–466.
-
- Fong ZV, Ferrone CR, Thayer SP, et al. Understanding hospital readmissions after pancreaticoduodenectomy: can we prevent them? A 10-year contemporary experience with 1,173 patients at the Massachusetts General Hospital. J Gastrointest Surg 2014;18:137–44; discussion 144-5.
-
- van Hilst J, de Graaf N, Abu Hilal M, et al. The landmark series: Minimally invasive pancreatic resection. Ann Surg Oncol 2021;28:1447–1456.
-
- van Hilst J, de Rooij T, Bosscha K, et al. Laparoscopic versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic or periampullary tumours (LEOPARD-2): A multicentre, patient-blinded, randomised controlled phase 2/3 trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019;4:199–207.
-
- Poves I, Burdío F, Morató O, et al. Comparison of perioperative outcomes between laparoscopic and open approach for pancreatoduodenectomy: The PADULAP randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 2018;268:731–739.
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical