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
. 2024 May;38(5):2602-2610.
doi: 10.1007/s00464-024-10783-1. Epub 2024 Mar 18.

Comparing oncologic and surgical outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy in patients with pancreatic cancer: a propensity-matched analysis

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Comparing oncologic and surgical outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy in patients with pancreatic cancer: a propensity-matched analysis

Chase J Wehrle et al. Surg Endosc. 2024 May.

Abstract

Introduction: Minimally invasive Pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD), or the Whipple procedure, is increasingly utilized. No study has compared laparoscopic (LPD) and robotic (RPD) approaches, and the impact of the learning curve on oncologic, technical, and post-operative outcomes remains relatively understudied.

Methods: The National Cancer Database was queried for patients undergoing LPD or RPD from 2010 to 2020 with a diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. Outcomes were compared between approaches using propensity-score matching (PSM); the impact of annual center-level volume of MIPD was also assessed by dividing volume into quartiles.

Results: A total of 3,342 patients were included. Most (n = 2,716, 81.3%) underwent LPD versus RPD (n = 626, 18.7%). There was a high rate (20.2%, n = 719) of positive margins. Mean length-of-stay (LOS) was 10.4 ± 8.9 days. Thirty-day mortality was 2.8% (n = 92) and ninety-day mortality was 5.7% (n = 189). PSM matched 625 pairs of patients receiving LPD or RPD. After PSM, there was no differences between groups based on age, sex, race, CCI, T-stage, neoadjuvant chemo/radiotherapy, or type of PD. After PSM, there was a higher rate of conversion to open (HR = 0.68, 95%CI = 0.50-0.92)., but there was no difference in LOS (HR = 1.00, 95%CI = 0.92-1.11), 30-day readmission (HR = 1.08, 95% CI = 0.68-1.71), 30-day (HR = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.39-1.56) or 90-day mortality (HR = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.42-1.16), ability to receive adjuvant therapy (HR = 1.15, 95% CI = 0.92-1.44), nodal harvest (HR = 1.01, 95%CI = 0.94-1.09) or positive margins (HR = 1.19, 95% CI = 0.89-1.59). Centers in lower quartiles of annual volume of MIPD demonstrated reduced nodal harvest (p = 0.005) and a higher rate of conversion to open (p = 0.038). Higher-volume centers had a shorter LOS (p = 0.012), higher rate of initiation of adjuvant therapy (p = 0.042), and, most strikingly, a reduction in 90-day mortality (p = 0.033).

Conclusion: LPD and RPD have similar surgical and oncologic outcomes, with a lower rate of conversion to open in the robotic cohort. The robotic technique does not appear to eliminate the "learning curve", with higher volume centers demonstrating improved outcomes, especially seen at minimum annual volume of 5 cases.

Keywords: Laparoscopic surgery; Minimally invasive surgery; Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma; Pancreatoduodenectomy; Robotic surgery.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Drs. Chase J. Wehrle, Jenny H. Chang, Abby R. Gross, Kimberly Woo, Robert Naples, Kathryn A. Stackhouse, Fadi Dahdaleh, Toms Augustin, Daniel Joyce, Robert Simon, R. Matthew Walsh and Samer A. Naffouje have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Chronological trends of LPD and RPD during the study period of 2010–2020. LPD laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy, RPD robotic pancreatoduodenectomy
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Comparison of short-term quality outcomes between the matched LPD and RPD groups
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Impact of annual institutional MIPD volume on technical metrics. MIPD minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy. *Statistically significant
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Impact of annual institutional MIPD volume on postoperative metrics. MIPD minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy. *Statistically significant

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Brozzetti S, et al. Surgical treatment of pancreatic head carcinoma in elderly patients. Arch Surg. 2006;141(2):137–142. doi: 10.1001/archsurg.141.2.137. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Michalski CW, Weitz J, Büchler MW. Surgery insight: surgical management of pancreatic cancer. Nat Clin Pract Oncol. 2007;4(9):526–535. doi: 10.1038/ncponc0925. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Whipple AO. The rationale of radical surgery for cancer of the pancreas and ampullary region. Ann Surg. 1941;114(4):612–615. doi: 10.1097/00000658-194111440-00008. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Whipple AO, Parsons WB, Mullins CR. Treatment of carcinoma of the ampulla of vater. Ann Surg. 1935;102(4):763–779. doi: 10.1097/00000658-193510000-00023. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Gagner M, Pomp A. Laparoscopic pylorus-preserving pancreatoduodenectomy. Surg Endosc. 1994;8(5):408–410. doi: 10.1007/BF00642443. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms