A single institution experience with robotic and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies

Postoperative outcomes and costs of laparoscopic versus robotic distal pancreatectomy: a propensity-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) has established advantages over the open approach. The costs associated with robotic DP (RDP) versus laparoscopic DP (LDP) make the robotic approach controversial. We sought to compare outcomes and cost of LDP and RDP using propensity matching analysis at our institution.

METHODS

Patients undergoing LDP or RDP between 2000 and 2021 were retrospectively identified. Patients were optimally matched using age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists status, body mass index, and tumor size. Between-group differences were analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test for continuous data, and the McNemar's test for categorical data. Outcomes included operative duration, conversion to open surgery, postoperative length of stay, pancreatic fistula rate, pseudocyst requiring intervention, and costs.

RESULTS

298 patients underwent MIDP, 180 (60%) were laparoscopic and 118 (40%) were robotic. All RDPs were matched 1:1 to a laparoscopic case with absolute standardized mean differences for all matching covariates below 0.10, except for tumor type (0.16). RDP had longer operative times (268 vs 178 min, p < 0.01), shorter length of stay (2 vs 4 days, p < 0.01), fewer biochemical pancreatic leaks (11.9% vs 34.7%, p < 0.01), and fewer interventional radiological drainage (0% vs 5.9%, p = 0.01). The number of pancreatic fistulas (11.9% vs 5.1%, p = 0.12), collections requiring antibiotics or intervention (11.9% vs 5.1%, p = 0.12), and conversion rates (3.4% vs 5.1%, p = 0.72) were comparable between the two groups. The total direct index admission costs for RDP were 1.01 times higher than for LDP for FY16-19 (p = 0.372), and 1.33 times higher for FY20-22 (p = 0.031).

CONCLUSIONS

Although RDP required longer operative times than LDP, postoperative stays were shorter. The procedure cost of RDP was modestly more expensive than LDP, though this was partially offset by reduced hospital stay and reintervention rate.

A Comparison of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy for Benign or Malignant Lesions: A Meta-Analysis

Background: The momentum of robotic surgery is increasing, and it has great prospects in pancreatic surgery. It has been widely accepted and expanding to more and more centers. Robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) is the most recent advanced minimally invasive approach for pancreatic lesions and malignancies. However, laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) also showed good efficacy. We compared the effect of RDP with LDP using a meta-analysis. Methods: From January 2010 to June 2023, clinical trials of RDP versus LDP were determined by searching PubMed, Medline, and EMBASE. A meta-analysis was conducted to compare the effect of RDP with LDP. This meta-analysis evaluated the R0 resection rate, lymph node metastasis rate, conversion to open surgery rate, spleen preservation rate, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative pancreatic fistula, postoperative hospital stay, 90-day mortality rate, surgical cost, and total cost. Results: This meta-analysis included 38 studies. Conversion to open surgery, blood loss, and 90-day mortality in the RDP group were all significantly less than that in the LDP group (P < .05). There was no difference in lymph node resection rate, R0 resection rate, or postoperative pancreatic fistula between the two groups (P > .05). Spleen preservation rate in the LDP group was higher than that in the RDP group (P < .05). Operation cost and total cost in the RDP group were both more than that in the LDP group (P < .05). It is uncertain which group has an advantage in postoperative hospital stay. Conclusions: To some degree, RDP and LDP were indeed worth comparing in clinical practice. However, it may be difficult to determine which is absolute advantage according to current data. Large sample randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm which is better treatment. PROSPERO ID: CRD4202345576.

Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis including patient subgroups

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RDP) has been suggested to hold some benefits over laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) but consensus and data on specific subgroups are lacking. This systematic review and meta-analysis reports the surgical and oncological outcome and costs between RDP and LDP including subgroups with intended spleen preservation and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).

METHODS

Studies comparing RDP and LDP were included from PubMed, Cochrane Central Register, and Embase (inception-July 2022). Primary outcomes were conversion and unplanned splenectomy. Secondary outcomes were R0 resection, lymph node yield, major morbidity, operative time, intraoperative blood loss, in-hospital mortality, operative costs, total costs and hospital stay.

RESULTS

Overall, 43 studies with 6757 patients were included, 2514 after RDP and 4243 after LDP. RDP was associated with a longer operative time (MD = 18.21, 95% CI 2.18-34.24), less blood loss (MD = 54.50, 95% CI - 84.49-24.50), and a lower conversion rate (OR = 0.44, 95% CI 0.36-0.55) compared to LDP. In spleen-preserving procedures, RDP was associated with more Kimura procedures (OR = 2.23, 95% CI 1.37-3.64) and a lower rate of unplanned splenectomies (OR = 0.32, 95% CI 0.24-0.42). In patients with PDAC, RDP was associated with a higher lymph node yield (MD = 3.95, 95% CI 1.67-6.23), but showed no difference in the rate of R0 resection (OR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.67-1.37). RDP was associated with higher total (MD = 3009.31, 95% CI 1776.37-4242.24) and operative costs (MD = 3390.40, 95% CI 1981.79-4799.00).

CONCLUSIONS

RDP was associated with a lower conversion rate, a higher spleen preservation rate and, in patients with PDAC, a higher lymph node yield and similar R0 resection rate, as compared to LDP. The potential benefits of RDP need to be weighed against the higher total and operative costs in future randomized trials.

Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy on perioperative outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Robotic surgery has become a promising surgical method in minimally invasive pancreatic surgery due to its three-dimensional visualization, tremor filtration, motion scaling, and better ergonomics. Numerous studies have explored the benefits of RDP over LDP in terms of perioperative safety and feasibility, but no consensus has been achieved yet. This article aimed to evaluate the benefits and drawbacks of RDP and LDP for perioperative outcomes. By June 2022, all studies comparing RDP to LDP in the PubMed, the Embase, and the Cochrane Library database were systematically reviewed. According to the heterogeneity, fix or random-effects models were used for the meta-analysis of perioperative outcomes. Odds ratio (OR), weighted mean differences (WMD), and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. A sensitivity analysis was performed to explore potential sources of high heterogeneity and a trim and fill analysis was used to evaluate the impact of publication bias on the pooled results. Thirty-four studies met the inclusion criteria. RDP provides greater benefit than LDP for higher spleen preservation (OR 3.52 95% CI 2.62-4.73, p < 0.0001) and Kimura method (OR 1.93, 95% CI 1.42-2.62, p < 0.0001) in benign and low-grade malignant tumors. RDP is associated with lower conversion to laparotomy (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.33-0.52, p < 0.00001), and shorter postoperative hospital stay (WMD - 0.57, 95% CI - 0.92 to - 0.21, p = 0.002), but it is more costly. In terms of postoperative complications, there was no difference between RDP and LDP except for 30-day mortality (RDP versus LDP, 0.1% versus 1.0%, p = 0.03). With the exception of its high cost, RDP appears to outperform LDP on perioperative outcomes and is technologically feasible and safe. High-quality prospective randomized controlled trials are advised for further confirmation as the quality of the evidence now is not high.

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy: Laparoscopic versus robotic approach-A cohort study

Background and Aims

There is no consensus on the superiority of robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) over laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP).

Methods

Data of patients undergoing RDP and LDP were prospectively collected and compared.

Results

There were 65 RDP and 112 LDP. RDP took a shorter operation time than LDP. Overall, DP with splenectomy took a longer operation time than that with spleen preservation. This difference was only significant in LDP group. In both RDP and LDP groups, splenectomy was associated with increased blood loss, as compared with spleen preservation. No significant differences were observed in surgical morbidity between RDP and LDP. The hospital cost in RDP was almost double that of LDP, with a median of 13,404 versus 7765 USD.

Conclusion

LDP is comparable to RDP in regard to surgical outcomes. LDP with spleen preservation is highly recommended whenever possible and feasible for benign or low malignant lesions in terms of lower costs and less blood loss.

Propensity-Score Matched Analyses Comparing Clinical Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Versus Open Distal Pancreatectomies: A Single-Center Experience

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) is being adopted increasingly worldwide. This study aimed to compare the short-term outcomes of patients who underwent MIDP versus open distal pancreatectomy (ODP).

METHODS

A retrospective review of all patients who underwent a DP in our institution between 2005 and 2019 was performed. Propensity score matching based on relevant baseline factors was used to match patients in the ODP and MIDP groups in a 1:1 manner. Outcomes reported include operative duration, blood loss, postoperative length of stay, morbidity, mortality, postoperative pancreatic fistula rates, reoperation and readmission.

RESULTS

In total, 444 patients were included in this study. Of 122 MIDP patients, 112 (91.8%) could be matched. After matching, the median operating time for MIDP was significantly longer than ODP [260 min (200-346.3) vs 180 (135-232.5), p < 0.001], while postoperative stay for MIDP was significantly shorter [median 6 days (5-8) versus 7 days (6-9), p = 0.015]. There were no significant differences noted in any of the other outcomes measured. Over time, we observed a decrease in the operation times of MIDP performed at our institution.

CONCLUSION

Adoption of MIDP offers advantages over ODP in terms of a shorter postoperative hospital stay, without an increase in morbidity and/or mortality but at the expense of a longer operation time.

Minimally Invasive Versus Open Radical Antegrade Modular Pancreatosplenectomy: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (RAMPS) was introduced to improve the tangential resection margin rates and N1 node clearance following resection of malignancies of the pancreatic body and tail. Owing to its technical complexity, minimally invasive RAMPS (MI-RAMPS) has only been reported by a few centers worldwide. We performed this meta-analysis to compare both short- and long-term outcomes between open RAMPS (O-RAMPS) and minimally invasive RAMPS (MI-RAMPS).

METHODS

A systematic search of the electronic databases PubMed, Medline (via PubMed), Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), EMBASE, Scopus and Web of Science was performed to identify eligible studies published in the English language regardless of study design. The outcomes of interest were operation time, estimated blood loss, transfusion rates, overall complications, Grade B/C post-operative pancreatic fistula (POPF) rates, post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), delayed gastric emptying (DGE), length of stay (LOS), R0 resection rates, lymph node (LN) yield and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

Five non-randomized studies comprising of a total 229 patients (89 MI-RAMPS, 140 O-RAMPS) were included for analysis. Intra-operative blood loss was observed to be significantly reduced in MI-RAMPS as compared to O-RAMPS (MD -256.16, P < 0.001), while LN yield was higher in O-RAMPS as compared to MI-RAMPS (MD -2.73, P = 0.02). There were no statistically significant differences observed for the other perioperative, oncologic and survival outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis provides early evidence to suggest that MI-RAMPS may produce comparable short- and long-term outcomes to O-RAMPS, when undertaken by appropriately skilled surgeons in well-selected patients. Further large-scale prospective studies are required to corroborate these findings.