SpringerLink
Log in

Short-term perioperative outcomes after robot-assisted and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Robotic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Robotic surgery offers potential technical advantages that may facilitate pancreatic resection. The aim of this study was to evaluate the learning curve and short-term perioperative outcomes in patients who underwent laparoscopic and robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy. All perioperative variables were evaluated and compared retrospectively between laparoscopic (LDP) (n = 23) and robot-assisted (RDP) (n = 11) distal pancreatectomy. The mean total operative time was shorter in LDP (194 vs. 225 min; p = 0.017). All other perioperative criteria were similar between LDP and RDP patients (blood loss, transfusion rate, conversion, pancreatic fistula, postoperative morbidity, and duration of hospitalization). Non-adjusted CUSUM curve for composite events including operative time, conversion, postoperative morbidity and reoperation rates showed that the RDP learning curve corresponded to the first seven consecutive patients. During early experience, RDP was associated with longer operative time but similar short-term perioperative outcomes compared to conventional distal pancreatectomy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Vijan SS, Ahmed KA, Harmsen WS, Que FG, Reid-Lombardo KM, Nagorney DM, Donohue JH, Farnell MB, Kendrick ML (2010) Laparoscopic vs open distal pancreatectomy: a single-institution comparative study. Arch Surg 145:616–621

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Jayaraman S, Gonen M, Brennan MF, D’Angelica MI, DeMatteo RP, Fong Y, Jarnagin WR, Allen PJ (2010) Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: evolution of a technique at a single institution. J Am Coll Surg 211:503–509

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kooby DA, Gillespie T, Bentrem D, Weber SM, Bentrem DJ, Gillespie TW, Sellers JB, Merchant NB, Scoggins CR, Martin RC 3rd, Kim HJ, Ahmad S, Cho CS, Parikh AA, Chu CK, Hamilton NA, Doyle CJ, Pinchot S, Hayman A, McClaine R, Nakeeb A, Staley CA, McMasters KM, Lillemoe KD (2010) Left-sided pancreatectomy: a multicenter comparison of laparoscopic and open approaches. Ann Surg 210(779–85):786–787

    Google Scholar 

  4. Braga M, Ridolfi C, Balzano G, Castoldi R, Pecorelli N, Di Carlo V (2012) Learning curve for laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy in a high-volume hospital. Updates Surg 64:179–183

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Giulianotti PC, Sbrana F, Bianco FM, Elli EF, Shah G, Addeo P, Caravaglios G, Coratti A (2010) Robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreatic surgery: single-surgeon experience. Surg Endosc 24:1646–1657

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Giulianotti PC, Addeo P, Buchs NC, Ayloo SM, Bianco FM (2011) Robotic extended pancreatectomy with vascular resection for locally advanced pancreatic tumors. Pancreas 40:1264–1270

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Maeso S, Reza M, Mayol JA, Blasco JA, Guerra M, Andradas E, Plana MN (2010) Efficacy of the Da Vinci surgical system in abdominal surgery compared with that of laparoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg 252:254–262

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kang CM, Kim DH, Lee WJ, Chi HS (2011) Conventional laparoscopic and robot-assisted spleen-preserving pancreatectomy: does da Vinci have clinical advantages? Surg Endosc 25:2004–2009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Waters JA, Canal DF, Wiebke EA, Dumas RP, Beane JD, Aguilar-Saavedra JR, Ball CG, House MG, Zyromski NJ, Nakeeb A, Pitt HA, Lillemoe KD, Schmidt CM (2010) Robotic distal pancreatectomy: cost effective? Surgery 148:814–823

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Daouadi M, Zureikat AH, Zenati MS, Choudry H, Tsung A, Bartlett DL, Hughes SJ, Lee KK, Moser AJ, Zeh HJ (2013) Robot-assited minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy is superior to the laparoscopic technique. Ann Surg 257:128–132

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Dindo D, Demartine N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Bassi C, Dervenis C, Butturini G, Fingerhut A, Yeo C, Izbicki J, Neoptolemos J, Sarr M, Traverso W, Buchler M, International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistula Definition (2005) Postoperative pancreatic fistula: an international study group (ISGPF) definition. Surgery 138:8–13

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Noyez L (2009) Control charts, Cusum techniques and funnel plots. A review of methods for monitoring performance in healthcare. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 9:494–499

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Sa Cunha A, Rault A, Beau C, Laurent C, Collet D, Masson B (2008) A single institution prospective study of laparoscopic pancreatic resection. Arch Surg 143:289–295

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kneuertz PJ, Patel SH, Chu CK, Fisher SB, Maithel SK, Sarmiento JM, Weber SM, Staley CA, Kooby DA (2012) Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: trends and lessons learned through an 11-year experience. J Am Coll Surg 215:167–176

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Iacobone M, Citton M, Nitti D (2012) Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: up-to-date and literature review. World J Gastroenterol 18:5329–5337

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kleeff J, Diener MK, Z’Graggen, Hinz U, Wagner M, Bachmann J, Zehetner J, Müller MW, Friess H, Büchler MW (2007) Distal pancreatectomy: risk factors for surgical failure in 302 consecutive cases. Ann Surg 245:573–582

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. DeOliveira ML, Winter JM, Schafer M, Cunningham SC, Cameron JL, Yeo CJ, Clavien PA (2006) Assessment of complications after pancreatic surgery: a novel grading system applied to 633 patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy. Ann Surg 244:931–937

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Velanovich V (2006) Case-control comparison of laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy. Gastrointest Surg 10:95–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Sierzega M, Niekowal B, Kulig J, Popiela T (2007) Nutritional status affects the rate of pancreatic fistula after distal pancreatectomy: a multivariate analysis of 132 patients. J Am Coll Surg 205:52–59

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Hutchins RR, Hart RS, Pacifico M, Bradley NJ, Williamson RC (2002) Long term results of distal pancreatectomy for chronic pancreatitis in 90 patients. Ann Surg 236:612–618

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Molinari E, Bassi C, Salvia R, Butturini G, Crippa S, Talamini G, Falconi M, Pederzoli P (2007) Amylase value in drains after pancreatic resection as predictive factor of postoperative pancreatic fistula: results of a prospective study in 137 patients. Ann Surg 246:281–287

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Goh BK, Tan YM, Chung YF, Cheow PC, Ong HS, Chan WH, Chow PK, Soo KC, Wong WK, Ooi LL (2008) Critical appraisal of 232 consecutive distal pancreatectomies with emphasis on risk factors, outcome, and management of the postoperative pancreatic fistula: a 21-year experience at a single institution. Arch Surg 143:956–965

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Baker MS, Bentrem DJ, Ujiki MB, Stocker S, Talamonti MS (2009) A prospective single institution comparison of peri-operative outcomes for laparoscopic and open distal pancreatectomy. Surgery 146:635–643

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

None.

Conflict of interest

Intuitive Surgical supports L. Brunaud for teaching and research in the institution. L. Bresler is a proctor for Intuitive Surgical. Other authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Informed consent

All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000. Informed consent was obtained from all patients to be included in the study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Hepatobiliary, Digestive and Endocrine Surgery, Université de Lorraine, CHU Nancy-Brabois (Adultes), Vandoeuvre-les-Nancy, France

    Emmanuel I. Benizri, Adeline Germain, Ahmet Ayav, Laurent Bresler & Laurent Brunaud

  2. Department of General Surgery and Digestive Cancerology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nice, Hôpital de l’Archet 2, 151 Route de Saint Antoine de Ginestière, B.P. 3079, 06000, Nice Cedex 3, France

    Emmanuel I. Benizri, Jean-Louis Bernard & Daniel Benchimol

  3. Department of Surgery, New York Presbyterian Hospital, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA

    Rasa Zarnegar

  4. Université de Lorraine, Inserm, U954, Faculté de Médecine, University of Nancy, Vandoeuvre-les-Nancy, 54511, France

    Laurent Brunaud

Authors
  1. Emmanuel I. Benizri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Adeline Germain
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ahmet Ayav
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jean-Louis Bernard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Rasa Zarnegar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Daniel Benchimol
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Laurent Bresler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Laurent Brunaud
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Emmanuel I. Benizri.

Additional information

This paper was presented at the 4th worldwide congress of the Clinical Robotic Surgery Association (CRSA), September 19–27, 2012, Chicago (USA).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Benizri, E.I., Germain, A., Ayav, A. et al. Short-term perioperative outcomes after robot-assisted and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. J Robotic Surg 8, 125–132 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-013-0438-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-013-0438-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation