Abstract
Background
Function-preserving minimally invasive pancreatectomy is thought to be an ideal approach for pancreatic benign and borderline malignant lesions requiring pancreatectomy. However, it is not that easy to accomplish this goal with the conventional laparoscopic approach. It requires extensive surgeon experience and learned techniques. A robot surgical system was recently introduced to overcome these limitations and it may potentially provide precise and safe laparoscopic surgery.
Methods
Between March 2006 and July 2010, a total of 45 patients underwent laparoscopic or robot-assisted pancreatectomy performed by a single pancreatic surgeon to preserve the spleen. Twenty-five patients underwent the conventional laparoscopic approach (Lap group) and the other 20 patients underwent robot-assisted surgery (Robot group). The perioperative clinicopathologic variables (age, gender, length of resected pancreas, tumor size, tumor location, amount of bleeding, operation time, length of hospital stay, complications, mortality, and cost) were compared between the two groups, as well as the spleen preservation rate.
Results
Younger patients preferred robot-assisted surgery to conventional laparoscopic surgery (44.5 ± 15.9 vs. 56.7 ± 13.9 years, p = 0.010), and the mean operation time was longer in the Robot group (258.2 ± 118.6 vs. 348.7 ± 121.8 min, p = 0.016). The spleen-preserving rate of the Robot group was considerably superior to that of the Lap group (fail/success, 9/16 vs. 1/19, p = 0.027). However, robot surgery cost the patients about USD 8,300 (USD 8,304.8 ± 870.0), which was more than twice the amount for the Lap group (USD 3,861.7 ± 1,724.3). There were no significant differences in other clinicopathologic variables.
Conclusion
Robot-assisted pancreatic surgery could provide an increased chance for spleen preservation in spite of higher cost and longer operation time. More experiences are needed to specifically address the role of robot surgery in the advanced laparoscopic era.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Kim SC, Park KT, Hwang JW, Shin HC, Lee SS, Seo DW, Lee SK, Kim MH, Han DJ (2008) Comparative analysis of clinical outcomes for laparoscopic distal pancreatic resection and open distal pancreatic resection at a single institution. Surg Endosc 22:2261–2268
Mabrut JY, Fernandez-Cruz L, Azagra JS, Bassi C, Delvaux G, Weerts J, Fabre JM, Boulez J, Baulieux J, Peix JL, Gigot JF (2005) Laparoscopic pancreatic resection: results of a multicenter European study of 127 patients. Surgery 137:597–605
Palanivelu C, Shetty R, Jani K, Sendhilkumar K, Rajan PS, Maheshkumar GS (2007) Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: results of a prospective non-randomized study from a tertiary center. Surg Endosc 21:373–377
Teh SH, Tseng D, Sheppard BC (2007) Laparoscopic and open distal pancreatic resection for benign pancreatic disease. J Gastrointest Surg 11:1120–1125
Melotti G, Butturini G, Piccoli M, Casetti L, Bassi C, Mullineris B, Lazzaretti MG, Pederzoli P (2007) Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: results on a consecutive series of 58 patients. Ann Surg 246:77–82
Shoup M, Brennan MF, McWhite K, Leung DH, Klimstra D, Conlon KC (2002) The value of splenic preservation with distal pancreatectomy. Arch Surg 137:164–168
Cullingford GL, Watkins DN, Watts AD, Mallon DF (1991) Severe late postsplenectomy infection. Br J Surg 78:716–721
Davidson RN, Wall RA (2001) Prevention and management of infections in patients without a spleen. Clin Microbiol Infect 7:657–660
Mellemkjoer L, Olsen JH, Linet MS, Gridley G, McLaughlin JK (1995) Cancer risk after splenectomy. Cancer 75:577–583
Warshaw AL (1988) Conservation of the spleen with distal pancreatectomy. Arch Surg 123:550–553
Yoon YS, Lee KH, Han HS, Cho JY, Ahn KS (2009) Patency of splenic vessels after laparoscopic spleen and splenic vessel-preserving distal pancreatectomy. Br J Surg 96:633–640
Fernandez-Cruz L, Martinez I, Gilabert R, Cesar-Borges G, Astudillo E, Navarro S (2004) Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy combined with preservation of the spleen for cystic neoplasms of the pancreas. J Gastrointest Surg 8:493–501
Dulucq JL, Wintringer P, Stabilini C, Feryn T, Perissat J, Mahajna A (2005) Are major laparoscopic pancreatic resections worthwhile? A prospective study of 32 patients in a single institution. Surg Endosc 19:1028–1034
Ballantyne GH (2007) Telerobotic gastrointestinal surgery: phase 2—safety and efficacy. Surg Endosc 21:1054–1062
Talamini MA, Chapman S, Horgan S, Melvin WS (2003) A prospective analysis of 211 robotic-assisted surgical procedures. Surg Endosc 17:1521–1524
Ballentyne GH, Marescaux J, Giulianotti PC (2004) Primer of robotic and telerobotic surgery, Chap. 22. Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, pp 155–164
Kang CM, Chi HS, Hyeung WJ, Kim KS, Choi JS, Lee WJ, Kim BR (2007) The first Korean experience of telemanipulative robot-assisted laparoscopic cholecystectomy using the da Vinci system. Yonsei Med J 48:540–545
Gagner M, Pomp A, Herrera MF (1996) Early experience with laparoscopic resections of islet cell tumors. Surgery 120:1051–1054
Sa Cunha A, Rault A, Beau C, Collet D, Masson B (2007) Laparoscopic central pancreatectomy: single institution experience of 6 patients. Surgery 142:405–409
Palanivelu C, Rajan PS, Rangarajan M, Vaithiswaran V, Senthilnathan P, Parthasarathi R, Praveen Raj P (2009) Evolution in techniques of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a decade-long experience from a tertiary center. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 16:731–740
Melvin WS, Needleman BJ, Krause KR, Schneider C, Wolf RK, Michler RE, Ellison EC (2002) Computer-enhanced robotic telesurgery. Initial experience in foregut surgery. Surg Endosc 16:1790–1792
Lanfranco AR, Castellanos AE, Desai JP, Meyers WC (2004) Robotic surgery: a current perspective. Ann Surg 239:14–21
Kang CM, Kim HG, Kim KS, Choi JS, Lee WJ, Kim BR (2007) Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for solid pseudopapillary neoplasm of the pancreas-report of two cases. Hepatogastroenterology 54:1053–1056
Acknowledgment
The authors express their sincere gratitude for the specialized robot surgery nurses at YUHS. In spite of the relatively longer operation time, which must be exhausting for them, their devotion and helpful comments during the operation enabled us to work on this procedure. Without their active support during our robot surgery procedures, this study could not have been conducted.
Disclosures
Drs. C. M. Kang, D. H. Kim, W. J. Lee, and H. S. Chi have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kang, C.M., Kim, D.H., Lee, W.J. et al. Conventional laparoscopic and robot-assisted spleen-preserving pancreatectomy: does da Vinci have clinical advantages?. Surg Endosc 25, 2004–2009 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-010-1504-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-010-1504-1