Effect of robotic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy on postoperative length of hospital stay and complications for pancreatic head or periampullary tumours: a multicentre, open-label randomised controlled trial.
Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2024;
9:428-437. [PMID:
38428441 DOI:
10.1016/s2468-1253(24)00005-0]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/17/2023] [Revised: 01/15/2024] [Accepted: 01/17/2024] [Indexed: 03/03/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND
The flexibility of the robotic system in resection and reconstruction provides potential benefits in pancreaticoduodenectomy. Increasingly, robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) has been reported with favourable outcomes, but high-level evidence is still scarce. We aimed to compare the short-term postoperative outcomes of RPD with those of open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD), and hypothesised that postoperative length of hospital stay would be shorter after RPD than after OPD.
METHODS
This multicentre, open-label randomised controlled trial was conducted at three high-volume hospitals in China. Patients were considered for participation in this trial if they were aged 18-75 years, had a resectable benign, premalignant, or malignant tumour in the pancreatic head or periampullary region; and were suitable for both RPD and OPD. Patients with distant metastases were excluded. Block randomisation was done with random block sizes of four, stratified by centre. Allocation was concealed via individual, sequentially numbered, opaque sealed envelopes. Eligible patients were randomly assigned to the RPD group or the OPD group in a 1:1 ratio by a masked research assistant. Surgeons and patients were not masked to trial group, but data collectors, postoperative outcome assessors, and data analysts were. All patients underwent RPD or OPD according to previously reported techniques. Participating surgeons had surpassed the learning curves of at least 40 RPD and 60 OPD procedures. The primary outcome was postoperative length of hospital stay, which was analysed in the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population. This trial is registered with the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2200056809) and is complete.
FINDINGS
Between March 5 and Dec 20, 2022, 292 patients were screened for eligibility, of whom 164 were enrolled and randomly assigned to the RPD group (n=82) or the OPD group (n=82). 161 patients who underwent surgical resection were included in the mITT analysis (81 in the RPD group and 80 in the OPD group). 94 (58%) participants were male and 67 (42%) were female. Postoperative length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the RPD group than in the OPD group (median 11·0 days [IQR 9·0 to 19·5] vs 13·5 days [11·5 to 18·0]; median difference -2·0 [95% CI -4·0 to 0·0]; p=0·029). During a follow-up period of 90 days, six (7%) of 81 patients in the RPD group and five (6%) of 80 patients in the OPD group required readmission. Reasons for readmission were intra-abdominal haemorrhage (one in each group), vomiting (two in the RPD group and one in the OPD group), electrolyte disturbance (one in each group), and fever (two in each group). There were two (1%) in-hospital deaths within 90 days of surgery, one in each group. The postoperative 90-day mortality rate (difference -0·02% [-5·6 to 5·5]; p=1·00) and the incidence of severe complications (ie, Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3; difference -1·5% [-14·5 to 11·4]; p=0·82) were similar between the two groups.
INTERPRETATION
For surgeons who had passed the learning curve, RPD was safe and feasible with the advantage of shorter postoperative length of hospital stay than OPD. Future research should focus on the medium-term and long-term outcomes between RPD and OPD.
FUNDING
None.
Collapse