metricas
covid
Buscar en
Cirugía Española (English Edition)
Toda la web
Inicio Cirugía Española (English Edition) Laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomy: the choice and the future
Journal Information
Vol. 101. Issue 11.
Pages 765-771 (November 2023)
Visits
43
Vol. 101. Issue 11.
Pages 765-771 (November 2023)
Original article
Full text access
Laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomy: the choice and the future
Pancreatectomía corporocaudal laparoscópica y robótica, de elección y de futuro
Visits
43
Francisco Espin Alvareza,
Corresponding author
fjespin.germanstrias@gencat.cat

Corresponding author.
, María Isabel García-Domingob, Manel Cremades Péreza, Fernando Pardo Arandaa, Laura Vidal Piñeiroa, Eric Herrero Fonollosab, Jordi Navinés Lópeza, Alba Zárate Pinedoa, Judith Camps-Lasab, Esteban Cugat Andorràa,b
a Unidad de Cirugía de Hepatobiliopancreática, Hospital Universitari Germans Trias i Pujol, Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, Badalona, Spain
b Unidad de Cirugía de Hepatobiliopancreática, Hospital Universitari Mútua de Terrassa, Universitat de Barcelona, Terrassa, Spain
This item has received
Article information
Abstract
Full Text
Bibliography
Download PDF
Statistics
Tables (3)
Table 1. Baseline characteristics and demographic variables.
Table 2. Result for main and secondary variables.
Table 3. Comparative analysis between approach and conversion.
Show moreShow less
Additional material (1)
Figures (1)
Abstract
Introduction

Distal pancreatectomy (DP) is currently well established as a minimally invasive surgery (MIS) procedure, using either a laparoscopic (LDP) or robotic (RDP) approach.

Methods

Out of 83 DP performed between January 2018 and March 2022, 57 cases (68.7%) were performed using MIS: 35 LDP and 22 RDP (da Vinci Xi). We have assessed the experience with the two techniques and analyzed the value of the robotic approach. Cases of conversion have been examined in detail.

Results

The mean operative times for LDP and RDP were 201.2 (SD 47.8) and 247.54 (SD 35.8) minutes, respectively (P = NS). No differences were observed in length of hospital stay or conversion rate: 6 (5−34) vs. 5.6 (5−22) days, and 4 (11.4%) vs. 3 (13.6%) cases, respectively (P = NS). The readmission rate was 3/35 patients (11.4%) treated with LDP and 6/22 (27.3%) cases of RDP (P = NS).

There were no differences in morbidity (Dindo-Clavien ≥ III) between the two groups. Mortality was one case in the robotic group (a patient with early conversion due to vascular involvement). The rate of R0 resection was greater and statistically significant in the RDP group (77.1% vs. 90.9%) (P = .04).

Conclusion

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) is a safe and feasible procedure in selected patients. Surgical planning and stepwise implementation based on prior experience help surgeons successfully perform technically demanding procedures. RDP could be the approach of choice in distal pancreatectomy, and it is not inferior to LDP.

Keywords:
Surgery
Pancreas
Distal pancreatectomy
Laparoscopy
Robotic surgery
Robotic surgical procedures
Pancreatic neoplasms
Minimally invasive surgery
Resumen
Introducción

La pancreatectomía distal (PD) mínimamente invasiva (MIS) está actualmente bien establecida, ya sea mediante técnica laparoscópica (PDL) o robótica (PDR).

Métodos

De 83 PD realizadas entre enero de 2018 y marzo de 2022 se realizaron 57 casos (68,7%) mediante MIS, 35 PDL y 22 PDR (da Vinci Xi). Se evalúa la experiencia de ambos procedimientos y el valor del abordaje robótico. Se analizan en detalle los casos de conversión.

Resultados

El tiempo quirúrgico medio en las PDL y PDR fue de 201,2 (DE 47,8) y 247,54 (DE 35,8) minutos, p = ns. No se observaron diferencias en estancia hospitalaria ni en tasa de conversión, 6 (5−34) vs. 5,6 (5−22) días y 4 (11,4%) vs. 3 (13,6%) casos, respectivamente, p = ns. La tasa de reingresos fue de 3/35 (11,4%) y 6/22 (27,3%) casos, PDL vs. PDR respectivamente, p = ns.

No existieron diferencias en morbilidad (Dindo-Clavien ≥ III) entre ambos grupos. La mortalidad fue de un caso en el grupo robótico (un paciente con conversión precoz por afectación vascular). La tasa de resecciones R0 fue mayor en el grupo robótico (77,1% vs. 90,9%) alcanzando la significación estadística, p = 0.04.

Conclusión

La PDMIS es un procedimiento seguro y factible en pacientes seleccionados. Una planificación quirúrgica y la implementación escalonada basada en la experiencia previa ayudan a afrontar procedimientos técnicamente exigentes. Se sugiere que la PDR podría ser el abordaje de elección en la pancreatectomía corporocaudal, no siendo inferior a la PDL.

Palabras clave:
Cirugía
Páncreas
Laparoscopia
Cirugía robótica
Cáncer de páncreas
Cirugía mínimamente invasiva
Full Text
Introduction

The first laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy was performed in 1994.1 Since then, the spread of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) of the pancreas has been slow and irregular.2–3 In recent years, robotic surgery has emerged, although few hospitals in our setting have adopted this technique.4–6

It has been demonstrated that minimally invasive pancreatic procedures, especially laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) as well as robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP), provide better and faster postoperative recovery while sustaining the oncological results achieved in open surgery.7,8 In 2019, the international consensus accepted that both techniques can be used indistinctly with a level of evidence 1B. However, in cases of malignant pathology (adenocarcinoma), the experts and 95% of the “audience” agreed that it is necessary to increase the level of evidence.1,9,10

The volume of patients treated at a hospital greatly affects the results, and the total numbers of pancreatic resections and pancreatic MIS9 are considered relevant factors. What is more controversial is whether experience in laparoscopic surgery improves learning in robotic surgery.11

Although series conducted at medical centers with high volumes of robotic procedures and multicenter studies have obtained promising results, their data are not conclusive.12,13 Meanwhile, the 3 randomized controlled trials currently underway have still not published any definitive results.14–16

At the Miami consensus meeting, it was stated that there is no clear evidence of the superiority of RDP over LDP. Instead, the approach to use should be determined by the training and experience of the surgeons and resources available at each medical center.7

This study analyzes a consecutive series of patients who underwent minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (LDP and RDP), and the short-term results are presented. All procedures were performed in the same time period and by the same surgical group certified in robotic surgery. The study objective was to evaluate the feasibility, safety and oncological results of both techniques, as well as the postoperative morbidity and mortality rates. The value of robotic surgery in distal pancreatectomy will also be discussed.

MethodsStudy design

We have conducted a prospective, non-randomized study at 2 tertiary hospitals in the Barcelona metropolitan area (Hospital Universitari Germans Trias i Pujol and Hospital Universitari Mútua de Terrassa), with a combined reference population of 1 200 000 inhabitants. We analyzed the results of distal pancreatectomies (DP) performed with the laparoscopic and robotic approaches. In the RDP cases, the da Vinci Xi robotic system (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) was used in all cases.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

The study included all patients who had undergone elective minimally-invasive DP for either benign or malignant disease. The exclusion criteria were: previous treatment with neoadjuvant therapy, and presence of tumors of the neck/body of the pancreas with possible vascular involvement, as these procedures were performed using an open approach.

Study population

From January 2018 to April 2022, 311 pancreatic surgeries were performed at these medical centers, 168 of which (54%) were performed using MIS. Out of the 83 DP carried out in this period, 57 cases were analyzed (35 LDP and 22 RDP).

Main variables

The main variables studied were: operative time, hospital stay, conversion rate, severe morbidity (Dindo-Clavien ≥ III17), cumulative morbidity estimated using the CCI18 (comprehensive complication index) scale, and 30-day/90-day associated mortality rates.

For this study, we have followed the consensus document on the standardization of terminology in minimally invasive pancreatic surgery.19 Conversion was defined as the change in surgical technique, either from robotic to laparoscopic surgery or from laparoscopy to laparotomy to continue or complete the procedure.

We have avoided using the terms “purely robotic” or “combined robotic”, as these cases were considered robotic procedures.

Secondary variables

Secondary variables included: pancreatic fistulae, postoperative bleeding, resection margin, and 30-day/90-day readmission rates.

Pancreatic fistulae and postoperative bleeding were defined by the definitions established by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS).20,21

R0 was defined by a distance from the tumor margin >1 mm, R1 if the distance from the tumor margin was <1 mm, and R2 if there was a macroscopic tumor in the resection margin.22

Statistical analysis

This was carried out following an intention-to-treat analysis using SPSS software (version 25). The distribution of normality was studied using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, and the variables were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U and chi-squared tests. P values <.05 were considered statistically significant.

Results

During the study period, 83 distal pancreatectomies were performed: 26 patients were treated with laparotomy, and the remaining 57 with a minimally invasive approach (35 LDP and 22 RDP).

Patient characteristics

There were no significant differences between the 2 groups for age, sex, BMI or ASA. In the laparoscopic group, 48.6% (n = 17) of the patients were ASA 2, and 51.4% (n = 18) were ASA 3. In the robotic group, 4.6% (n = 1) were ASA 1, 63.6% (n = 14) ASA 2, and 31.8% (n = 7) ASA 3.

The spleen was preserved in 2 cases of RDP.

The diagnosis of ductal carcinoma was 40% in LDP and 40.9% in RDP. The second most frequent diagnosis was IPMN (31.5% and 21.7%, respectively) (Table 1).

Table 1.

Baseline characteristics and demographic variables.

  LDP (n = 35)  RDP (n = 22)  P 
Sex (M/F)  19/16  8/14  0.274 
Age  65.9 (SD 4.7)  64.73 (SD 3.8)  0.310 
BMI (kg/m227.6 (SD 4.7)  26.88 (SD 3.8)  1.000 
Type of surgery      0.216 
Pancreatectomy + splenectomy  34 (97.2%)  16 (72.7%)   
Spleen preservation  2 (9.1%)   
RAMPS  1 (2.8%)  4 (18.2%)   
ASA physical status      0.109 
1 (4.9%)   
17 (48.6%)  14 (63.6%)   
18 (51.4%)  7 (31.8%)   
 
Tumor size, radiology study (mm)  32.9 (12−54)  27.6 (10−34)  0.213 
Tumor size, pathology study (mm)  35.4 (SD 21)  28.32 (SD 19)  0.411 
Histology diagnosis      0.430 
Ductal carcinoma  14 (40%)  9 (40.9%)   
IPMN  11 (31.5%)  5 (22.7%)   
pNET  7 (20%)  4 (18.2%)   
Pan MET  1 (2.8%)  2 (9.1%)   
Other  2 (5.7%)  2 (9.1%)   

LDP, laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy; RDP, robotic distal pancreatectomy; M/F, Males/Females; BMI, body mass index; ASA, American Society of Anesthesiologists; IPMN, intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm; pNET, pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor; Pan MET, pancreatic metastasis; SD, standard deviation (interquartile range and percentages).

Main variables

No significant differences were found between the operating times of the 2 surgical approaches. Mean operating times were 201.2 min in LDP and 247.54 min in RDP.

Mean hospital stay was 6 days (5−34) in the LDP group and 5.6 days (5−22) in the RDP group, with no significant differences.

Conversion to open surgery was necessary in 4 cases (11.4%) in the LDP group: 3 cases due to lack of progression, and one case due to difficult mobilization of the specimen (60-mm tumor). Three cases (13.6%) were converted in the RDP group: 2 because the portal-splenic confluence was encompassed, and one case due to involvement of the common hepatic artery.

There were no conversions from robotic to laparoscopic procedures, urgent conversions, or planned conversions. In all cases, the decision to convert was made due to difficult dissection and/or non-progression with risk of serious complications.

Morbidity was similar between the groups, and 2 patients in each group presented a significant complication in the Dindo–Clavien classification. The median CCI complication rate was 8.9 (0–20.6) for the LDP group and 20.9 (0–26.2) for RDP, with no statistical differences.

One patient from each group required reoperation: in the RDP group due to undetected gastric perforation, and for hemorrhage in the LDP group.

One patient from the RDP group with comorbidity required early conversion to open surgery due to extensive vascular involvement. This patient died during the immediate postoperative period due to pseudomonas-related pneumonia and multiple organ failure (Table 2).

Table 2.

Result for main and secondary variables.

  LDP (n = 35 )  RDP (n = 22)  P 
Operative time (min), mean  201.2 (SD 47.8)  247.54 (SD 35.8)  0.486 
Conversion ratea  4 (11.4%)  3 (13.6%)  0.853 
Total isolated lymph nodes  7.6 (5−10)  10.32 (7−15)  0.100 
Total isolated lymph nodes (adenocarcinoma)  n = 14 6.2 (4−13)  n=9 12.8 (4−16)  0.082 
N0  3 (14.3%)  2 (22.2%)   
N1  7 (50%)  5 (55.6%)   
N2  4 (28.7%)  2 (22.2%)   
Clavien–Dindo ≥ III  2 (6.4%)  2 (8.7%)  0.666 
Tumor marginb      0.04 
R0  27 (77.1%)  20 (90.9%)   
R1  8 (22.9 %)  2 (9.1%)   
Tumor margin (mm)  8.75 (2−30)  20.85 (5−30)   
Tumor margin (<1 mm)  6 (17.1%)  2 (9.1%)   
Postoperative pancreatic fistula      0.126 
B (%)  2 (6.4%)  5 (22.7%)   
C (%)  2 (6.4%)  1 (4.3%)   
Postoperative bleeding      0.356 
B/C  1 (3.2%)  1 (4.3%)   
Surgical site infection      0.853 
Superficial  1 (3.2%)  1 (4.3%)   
Deep  3 (3%)  2 (8.7%)   
Organ-space  1 (3.2%)  1 (4.3%)   
Hospital stay (day), median (interquartile)  6 (5−34)  5.6 (5−22)   
Readmission rate  3 (8.6%)  6 (27.3%)  0.126 
Reoperation  1 (3.2%)  1 (4.3%)   
Mortality  1 (4.3%)   

LDP, laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy; RDP, robotic distal pancreatectomy; SD, standard deviation (interquartile range and percentages).

a

Conversion rate (6 cases due to lack of progression in the technique; one RDP case due to venous vascular involvement).

b

R1 = tumor margin <1 mm from most proximal resection margin.

Secondary variables

The robotic group obtained a higher rate of R0 resection (90.9%; n = 20) compared to the laparoscopic group (77.1%; n = 27), and this difference was statistically significant (P = .04).

The mean total number of isolated lymph nodes in the laparoscopic approach (7.6; range 5−10) was lower compared to RDP (10.3; range 7−15), which did not reach statistical significance.

The pancreatic fistula rate was 12.8% (n = 4) in the LDP patient group, specifically 2 grade B and 2 grade C fistulae. In the robotic group, the rate was 27% (n = 6), including 5 grade B fistulae B and only one grade C pancreatic fistula. No significant differences were found between the groups.

One patient in each group (3.2% in LDP and 4.3% in RDP) presented grade B or C postoperative hemorrhage.

The readmission rate was lower in the LDP group (8.6%, n = 3), including one case due to nosocomial pneumonia and 2 due to postoperative collection. One case required reoperation due to severe organ-space infection, and another required external drainage. All patients progressed favorably.

In the RDP group, 6 patients (27.3%) required readmission: 2 cases due to atelectasis/pneumonia, and 4 due to postoperative collections. Two of these cases were resolved with drainage and the remainder with antibiotic treatment (Table 2).

Analysis of converted cases

Mean operative time for all pancreatectomies without conversion was 217.3 min. In the converted laparoscopy group, mean operative time was 245 min, and in the converted robotic group it was 265 min.

Hospital stay was similar in all groups regardless of whether conversion was required or not. There were no significant differences in terms of postoperative complications between the various groups: laparoscopic without conversion, 2 patients (6.4%); robotic without conversion, 1 patient (6.2%); laparoscopic with conversion, no postoperative complications; and robotic with conversion, 1 patient (12.5%).

When we compared the groups with versus without conversion to open surgery, no differences were found in the incidence of pancreatic fistulae, readmission rate, or R0 rate (Table 3).

Table 3.

Comparative analysis between approach and conversion.

  MIDP (n = 50)  LDP (n = 31)  RDP (n = 19)  LDP Conva (n = 4)  RDP Conva (n = 3) 
Operative time (min)  217.34 (120−210)  193.1 (200−300)  247.9 (190−310)  245 (220−290)  265 (200−300) 
Hospital stay (days)(SD)  6 (SD 2)  6 (3−12)  5.3 (3−14)  6 (4−11)  7.6 (4−12) 
Clavien–Dindo ≥ III  4 (8%)  2 (6.4%)  1 (5.2%)  1 (12.5%) 
Postoperative pancreatic fistula
B (%)  6 (12)  2 (6.4)  4 (21)  1 (33.3%) 
C (%)  2 (4)  2 (6.4)  1 (33.3%) 
Tumor marginb
R0  42 (84%)  24 (77.4%)  18 (94.8%)  3 (75%)  2 (66.7%) 
R1  8 (16%)  7 (22.6%)  1 (5.2%)  1 (25%)  1 (33.3%) 
Total lymph nodes isolated  9.1 (SD 2.3)  7.6 (2−15)  10.7 (2−24)  7.3 (2−14)  8 (4−13) 
Readmission rate  8 (16%)  3 (9.6%)  5 (26.3%)  1 (33.3%) 
Reoperation  2 (4%)  1 (3.2%)  1 (5.2%) 
Mortality  1 (33.3%) 

MIDP, minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy; LDP, laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy; RDP, robotic distal pancreatectomy.

a

Results expressed as median and range. In parenthesis, (interquartile range and percentages).

b

R1 = tumor margin <1 mm from most proximal resection margin.

Discussion

Several studies have shown significant advantages of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy over the open approach.23–25 Two randomized controlled trials (RCT) have confirmed the results of previously published series. The first RCT compared both robotic and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies with open surgery,8 demonstrating a difference in functional recovery that was statistically significant in favor of the minimally invasive approach (4 vs. 6 days of hospital stay). The second RCT compared LDP with open surgery,8 with a hospital stay of 5 vs. 6 days and a conversion rate of 3.4%. In our series, we have observed a hospital stay of 5–6 days in both groups, which is similar to those reports.

The longer operative time of LDP becomes considerably shorter as the learning curve is overcome, which takes between 10–37 cases according to published studies.26,27 In our series, LDP presents an operating time that is consistent with the literature, with low morbidity and adequate oncological results, and 41% of cases are operated on for adenocarcinoma.

An interesting publication analyzed 1807 patients who received chemotherapy after distal pancreatectomy (open vs. MIS), and minimally invasive DP (51 LDP/454 RDP) was associated with a higher rate of adjuvant chemotherapy.28 We believe this could be because minimally invasive surgery is associated with faster recovery due to a less aggressive procedure. This is relevant since the complete treatment for pancreatic cancer is surgery + chemotherapy, and increasing the number of cases with complete treatment could improve overall survival.

Robotic distal pancreatectomy adds to the advantages of laparoscopic surgery: better vision, greater precision in dissection, and vascular control. All these factors, as well as the similarity with the natural movements of the hands, results in a shorter learning curve. However, its use is still less frequent than the laparoscopic approach.29,30

In our experience, RDP obtains results similar to LDP, with very similar hospital stay and morbidity. Although the operating time was slightly longer, the R0 rate in cases of pancreatic adenocarcinoma was considerably higher in the robotic group, probably due to the previously described advantages, highlighting the ease and precision of dissection. This fact would lead to a higher rate of splenic preservation, which seems to be the trend in this series.

The conversion rates observed are similar between both procedures and are in accordance with the series mentioned: 11.4% for LDP and 13.6% for RDP. These data support the fact that robotic learning is faster and easier; while the laparoscopic surgery learning curve of the surgical group had been finalized, the patients included in the robotic group were the initial cases of the series. This indicates that robotic surgery is good for both the patient and the surgeon.

It is well known that unplanned conversion has higher morbidity and mortality rates.31,32 Although we do not consider the death in the RDP group of the series attributable to the robotic technique, early conversion to open surgery was due to extensive vascular involvement in a patient with significant comorbidities.

Regarding the economic cost of robotic surgery, various authors indicate an increased cost of more than 6000 euros when used for RDP.33,34 However, when postoperative recovery, hospital stay and quality of life are considered cumulatively, the cost of the robotic procedure is similar and even lower in the case of DP due to adenocarcinoma.30,35 We should emphasize that most of these data come from high-volume medical centers. Therefore, the current cost-effective analysis may not be applicable to lower-volume hospitals.

In our case, the incorporation of the robotic platform in hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery was initiated within a previously established robotic surgery program, using all the available technology.

We currently believe that minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy is the approach of choice for both benign and malignant pathologies. Despite the lack of randomized studies, the lower surgical impact, shorter hospital stay, fewer complications, and better functional recovery would make it possible to administer adjuvant therapy in patients requiring it.

Although the benefits of RDP are not clear, and our series has not demonstrated any advantages over the laparoscopic approach, a shorter learning curve with greater oncological radicality extends the benefit for patients to the surgeon.

As put forth by a recent and interesting editorial by Azagra et al.,36 we agree that, “Moving from laparoscopic to robotic” surgery seems “to be a natural evolution,” in which the surgical equipment drags the surgeon along, while the standardization of the technique with that equipment becomes key to the process.

With greater experience and the development of robotic surgery skills, it is possible to increase the number of cases with preserved pancreatic parenchyma, without the need for extensive pancreatectomies. The ability of the robotic platform to incorporate artificial intelligence, 3D modeling and augmented reality will enhance its added value in the future.

Our experience in RDP allows us to affirm that the previous step of training in laparoscopic surgery is not essential and that the jump from open to robotic surgery is feasible.

In our opinion, and especially at the beginning of the learning curve, proper case selection is essential. This means starting with patients whose tumors are far from the neck of the pancreas and have no involvement of the posterior plane, later progressing to cases of splenic preservation37 and RAMPS.38,39

Conclusions

In a selected group of patients, minimally invasive DP is safe and effective when performed by groups experienced in pancreatic surgery and minimally invasive surgery.

The added value provided by the robotic approach includes better vision, greater precision in dissection, and vascular control, which in our experience probably results in a shorter learning curve.

In this series, the robotic approach presents a similar hospital stay, with the same morbidity rate, and is oncologically adequate in cases of malignancy, with a higher R0 rate.

With more experience, RDP will likely be the quality standard. Future randomized multicenter studies are needed to confirm this hypothesis.

Appendix A
Supplementary data

The following is Supplementary data to this article:

References
[1]
M. Gagner, A. Pomp, M.F. Herrera.
Early experience with laparoscopic resections of islet cell tumors.
Surgery., 120 (1996), pp. 1051-1054
[2]
D. Riviere, S.K. Gurusamy, D.A. Kooby, C.M. Vollmer, M. Besselink, B.R. Davidson, et al.
Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic cancer.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev., (2016), pp. 1-64
[3]
R. Venkat, B.H. Edil, R.D. Schulick, A.O. Lidor, M.A. Makary, C.L. Wolfgang, et al.
Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is associated with significantly less overall morbidity compared to the open technique: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
[4]
A.H. Zureikat, A.J. Moser, B.A. Boone, D.L. Bartlett, M. Zenati, H.J. Zeh.
250 Robotic pancreatic resections safety and feasibility.
Ann Surg, 258 (2013), pp. 554-559
[5]
G.P. Guerrini, A. Lauretta, C. Belluco, D. Azoulay.
Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: an up-to-date metaanalysis.
[6]
L. Milone, D. Daskalaki, X. Wang, P.C. Giulianotti.
State of the art of robotic pancreatic surgery.
[7]
H.J. Asbun, A.L. Moekotte, F.L. Vissers, F. Kunzler, F. Cipriani, A. Alseidi, et al.
The Miami international evidenve-based guidelines on minimally invasive pancreas resection.
[8]
T. de Rooij, J. van Hilst, H. van Santvoort, D. Boerma, P. Van der Boezem, F. Daams, et al.
Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy (LEOPARD): a multicenter patient-blinded randomized controlled trial.
[9]
J. van Hilst, M. Korrel, T. de Rooij, S. Lof, O.R. Busch, B.G. Koerkamp, et al.
Oncologic outcomes of minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Eur J Surg Oncol., 45 (2019), pp. 719-727
[10]
N.T. van Heek, K.F.D. Kuhlmann, R.J. Scholten, S.S.M. de Castro, O.R. Busch, T.M. van Gulik, et al.
Hospital volume and mortality after pancreatic resection: a systematic review and an evaluation of intervention in the Netherlands.
[11]
A.L. Moekotte, A. Rawashdeh, H.J. Asbun, F.J. Coimbra, B.H. Edil, N. Jarufe, et al.
Safe implementation of minimally invasive pancreas resection: a systematic review.
[12]
P.C. Müller, C. Kuemmerli, A. Cizmic, S.M. Sinz, P. Probst, M. de Santibanes, et al.
Learning curves in open, laparoscopic, and robotic pancreatic surgery.
Ann Surg, Open 3 (2022), pp. e111
[13]
C. Haney, E. Karadza, E. Limen, M. Santibañes, B. Kinny-Köster, P. Müller, et al.
Training and learning curves in minimally invasive pancreatic surgery: from simulation to mastery.
J Pancreatol., 3 (2020), pp. 101-110
[14]
J. van Hilst, M. Korrel, S. Lof, T. de Rooij, F. Vissers, B. Al-Sarireh, et al.
Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (DIPLOMA): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.
[15]
B. Björnsson, P. Sandström, A.L. Larsson, C. Hjalmarsson, T. Gasslander.
Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy (LAPOP): study protocol for a single center, nonblinded, randomized controlled trial.
[16]
Manish S. Bhandare, Amir Parray, Vikram A. Chaudhari, Shailesh V. Shrikhande.
Minimally invasive surgery for pancreatic cancer-are we there yet? - a narrative review.
Chin Clin Oncol, 11 (2022), pp. 3
[17]
D. Dindo, N. Demartines, P.A. Clavien.
Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey.
[18]
K. Slankamenac, R. Graf, J. Barkun, M.A. Puhan, P.A. Clavien.
The comprehensive complication index: a novel continuous scale to measure surgical morbidity.
Ann Surg., 258 (2013), pp. 1-7
[19]
A.L. Montagnini, B.I. Røsok, H.J. Asbun, J. Barkun, M.G. Besselink, U. Boggi, et al.
Standardizing terminology for minimally invasive pancreatic resection.
HPB (Oxford)., 19 (2017), pp. 182-189
[20]
C. Bassi, G. Marchegiani, C. Dervenis, M. Sarr, M.A. Hilal, M. Adham, et al.
The 2016 update of the International Study Group (ISGPS) definition and grading of postoperative pancreatic fistula: 11 years after.
Surgery., 161 (2017), pp. 584-591
[21]
M.N. Wente, J.A. Veit, C. Bassi, C. Dervenis, A. Fingerhut, D.J. Gouma, et al.
Postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH)—an International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) definition.
Surgery., 142 (2007), pp. 20-25
[22]
C.S. Verbeke, D. Letich, K.V. Menon, M.J. McMahon, P.J. Guillou, A. Anthoney.
Redefining the R1 resection in pancreatic cancer.
Br J Surg., 93 (2006), pp. 1232-1237
[23]
O. Kantor, D.S. Bryan, M.S. Talamonti, W. Lutfi, S. Sharpe, D.J. Winchester, et al.
Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for cancer provides oncologic outcomes and overall survival identical to open distal pancreatectomy.
J Gastrointest Surg, 21 (2017), pp. 1620-1625
[24]
M. Raoof, P.H.G. Ituarte, Y. Woo, S.G. Warner, G. Singh, Y. Fong, et al.
Propensity score-matched comparison of oncological outcomes between laparoscopic and open distal pancreatic resection.
Br J Surg, 105 (2018), pp. 578-586
[25]
K.S. Chan, Z.K. Wang, N. Syn, B.K.P. Goh.
Learning curve of laparoscopic and robotic pancreas resections: a systematic review.
Surgery, 170 (2021), pp. 194-206
[26]
N. Napoli, E.F. Kauffmann, V.G. Perrone, M. Miccoli, S. Brozzetti, U. Boggi.
The learning curve in robotic distal pancreatectomy.
Updates in Surgery, 67 (2015), pp. 257-264
[27]
K.L. Anderson Jr., M.A. Adam, S. Thomas, S.A. Roman, J.A. Sosa.
Impact of minimally invasive vs. open distal pancreatectomy on use of adjuvant chemoradiation for pancreatic adenocarcinoma.
Am J Surg, 213 (2017), pp. 601-605
[28]
P. Gavriilidis, C. Lim, B. Menahem, E. Lahat, C. Salloum, D. Azoulay.
Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy - the first meta-analysis.
[29]
S.B. Xu, C.K. Jia, J.R. Wang, R. Zhang, Y.P. Mou.
Do patients benefit more from robot assisted approach than conventional laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy? A meta-analysis of perioperative and economic outcomes.
J Formos Med Assoc, 118 (2019), pp. 268-278
[30]
J.D. Beane, H.A. Pitt, S.C. Dolejs, M.E. Hogg, H.J. Zeh, A.H. Zureikat.
Assessing the impact of conversion on outcomes of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy and pancreatoduodenectomy.
[31]
F. Guerra, G. Giuliani, D. Coletta.
The risk of conversion in minimally invasive oncological abdominal surgery. Meta-analysis of randomized evidence comparing traditional laparoscopic versus robot-assisted techniques.
Langenbecks Arch Surg, 406 (2021), pp. 607-612
[32]
R.M. Higgins, M.J. Frelich, M.E. Bosler, J.C. Gould.
Cost analysis of robotic versus laparoscopic general surgery procedures.
Surg Endosc, 31 (2017), pp. 185-192
[33]
D.R. Magge, M.S. Zenati, A. Hamad, et al.
Comprehensive comparative analysis of cost-effectiveness and perioperative outcomes between open, laparoscopic, and robotic distal pancreatectomy.
HPB (Oxford), 20 (2018), pp. 1172-1180
[34]
W.B. Lyman, M. Passeri, A. Sastry, A. Cochran, D.A. Iannitti, D. Vrochides, et al.
Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic left pancreatectomy at a high-volume, minimally invasive center.
Surg Endosc, 33 (2019), pp. 2991-3000
[35]
T.B. Tran, M.M. Dua, D.J. Worhunsky, et al.
The first decade of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy in the United States: costs and outcomes using the nationwide inpatient sample.
Surg Endosc, 30 (2016), pp. 1778-1783
[36]
J.S. Azagra, B. Pascotto, L.G. Gonzalez, V. de Blasi, E. Rosso, M. Goergen.
Moving from laparoscopic to robotic pancreatoduodenectomy: same to be a natural evolution.
Dig Med Res, 5 (2022), pp. 21
[37]
W. Kimura, M. Yano, S. Sugawara, S. Okazaki, T. Sato, T. Moriya, et al.
Spleen preserving distal pancreatectomy with conservation of the splenic artery and vein: techniques and its significance.
J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci., 17 (2010), pp. 813-823
[38]
S.M. Strasberg, J.A. Drebin, D. Linehan.
Radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy.
Surgery, 133 (2003), pp. 521-527
[39]
J.B. Mitchem, N. Hamilton, F. Gao, W.G. Hawkins, D.C. Linehan, M.S. Strasberg.
Long-term results of resection of adenocarcinoma of the body and tail of the pancreas using radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy procedure.
J Am Coll Surg, 214 (2012), pp. 46-52
Copyright © 2023. AEC
Download PDF
Article options
es en pt

¿Es usted profesional sanitario apto para prescribir o dispensar medicamentos?

Are you a health professional able to prescribe or dispense drugs?

Você é um profissional de saúde habilitado a prescrever ou dispensar medicamentos

Quizás le interese:
10.1016/j.cireng.2021.08.001
No mostrar más