Skip to main content
Log in

A prospective non-randomised single-center study comparing laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomy

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is increasing in popularity thanks to the benefits that have been recently demonstrated by many authors. The Da Vinci® Surgical System could overcome some limits of laparoscopy, helping the surgeons to perform safer and faster difficult procedures. Nowadays, prospective clinical trials comparing LDP to robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) are lacking. The aim of this study is to present a prospective comparison between the two techniques.

Methods

Since November 2011, all patients suitable for minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy were assigned either to LDP or RDP, depending on the availability of the Da Vinci® Surgical System for our Surgical Unit. Demographics, clinical, and intra- and postoperative data, including estimated costs of the procedure, were prospectively collected. Follow-up included cross-sectional imaging ended on April 2014.

Results

Twenty-two patients underwent RDP and 21 LDP; patients’ characteristics were similar. The median operative time was longer and procedures’ cost was double in RDP group. The conversion to open rate and the median length of postoperative hospital stay were 4.5 % and 7 days, respectively, in both groups. Pancreatic fistula developed in 57.1 % (12/21) and 50 % (11/22) of LDP and RDP, respectively (p = 0.870), being grade A the most frequent. Mortality was nil and an R0 resection was achieved in all Patients. The overall number of lymph nodes harvested was similar between the two groups.

Conclusions

Both RDP and LDP are valid techniques for the treatment of distal pancreatic tumors. The advantages of RDP are claimed by many but still under investigation. Some of these advantages are more subjective than objective, and it seems difficult to demonstrate a real superiority of one technique over the other in a standardized fashion. In our experience, laparoscopy has not been abandoned in favor of the robot: we continue to perform both approaches choosing upon single patient’s characteristics.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Merchant NB, Parikh AA, Kooby DA (2009) Should all distal pancreatectomies be performed laparoscopically? Adv Surg 43:283–300

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Milone L, Daskalaki D, Wang X, Giulianotti PC (2013) State of the art of robotic pancreatic surgery. World J Surg 37:2761–2770

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Venkat R et al (2012) Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is associated with significantly less overall morbidity compared to the open technique: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg 255:1048–1059

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Jin T et al (2012) A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing laparoscopic and open distal pancreatectomy. HPB 14:711–724

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Nigri GR et al (2011) Metaanalysis of trials comparing minimally invasive and open distal pancreatectomies. Surg Endosc 25:1642–1651

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Marangos IP et al (2012) Laparoscopic resection of exocrine carcinoma in central and distal pancreas results in a high rate of radical resections and long postoperative survival. Surgery 151:717–723

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kang CM, Lee SH, Lee WJ (2014) Minimally invasive radical pancreatectomy for left-sided pancreatic cancer: current status and future perspectives. World J Gastroenterol 20:2343–2351

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kang CM, Kim DH, Lee WJ (2010) Ten years of experience with resection of left-sided pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: evolution and initial experience to a laparoscopic approach. Surg Endosc 24:1533–1541

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Fernandez-Cruz L et al (2007) Curative laparoscopic resection for pancreatic neoplasms: a critical analysis from a single institution. J Gastrointest Surg 11:1607–1621 discussion 1621-1602

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Song KB et al (2011) Single-center experience of laparoscopic left pancreatic resection in 359 consecutive patients: changing the surgical paradigm of left pancreatic resection. Surg Endosc 25:3364–3372

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hu M et al (2014) Laparoscopic versus open distal splenopancreatectomy for the treatment of pancreatic body and tail cancer: a retrospective, mid-term follow-up study at a single academic tertiary care institution. Surg Endosc 28:2584–2591

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Daouadi M et al (2013) Robot-assisted minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy is superior to the laparoscopic technique. Ann Surg 257:128–132

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Melvin WS, Needleman BJ, Krause KR, Ellison EC (2003) Robotic resection of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech Part A 13:33–36

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Giulianotti PC et al (2003) Robotics in general surgery: personal experience in a large community hospital. Arch Surg 138:777–784

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Zeh HJ 3rd, Bartlett DL, Moser AJ (2011) Robotic-assisted major pancreatic resection. Adv Surg 45:323–340

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Giulianotti PC et al (2010) Robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreatic surgery: single-surgeon experience. Surg Endosc 24:1646–1657

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kim DH, Kang CM, Lee WJ, Chi HS (2011) The first experience of robot assisted spleen-preserving laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy in Korea. Yonsei Med J 52:539–542

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kimura W et al (2010) Spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy with conservation of the splenic artery and vein: techniques and its significance. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 17:813–823

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Melotti G et al (2007) Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: results on a consecutive series of 58 patients. Ann Surg 246:77–82

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Bassi C et al (2005) Postoperative pancreatic fistula: an international study group (ISGPF) definition. Surgery 138:8–13

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Wente MN et al (2007) Postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH): an international study group of pancreatic surgery (ISGPS) definition. Surgery 142:20–25

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Clavien PA et al (2009) The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg 250:187–196

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Waters JA et al (2010) Robotic distal pancreatectomy: cost effective? Surgery 148:814–823

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 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 

  25. Ricci C et al (2015) Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: what factors are related to the learning curve? Surg Today 45:50–56

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Braga M et al (2012) Learning curve for laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy in a high-volume hospital. Updat Surg 64:179–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Zureikat AH et al (2013) 250 robotic pancreatic resections: safety and feasibility. Ann Surg 258:554–559 discussion 559-562

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Zhou W et al (2010) Stapler vs suture closure of pancreatic remnant after distal pancreatectomy: a meta-analysis. Am J Surg 200:529–536

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Eguchi H et al (2011) A thick pancreas is a risk factor for pancreatic fistula after a distal pancreatectomy: selection of the closure technique according to the thickness. Dig Surg 28:50–56

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Hanna EM et al (2013) Robotic hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery: lessons learned and predictors for conversion. Int J Med Robot Comput Assist Surg 9:152–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Hwang HK et al (2013) Robot-assisted spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy: a single surgeon’s experiences and proposal of clinical application. Surg Endosc 27:774–781

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Strijker M et al (2013) Robot-assisted pancreatic surgery: a systematic review of the literature. HPB 15:1–10

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Dalla Bona E, Beltrame V, Liessi F, Sperti C (2012) Fatal pneumococcal sepsis eleven years after distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy for pancreatic cancer. JOP 13:693–695

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Magge D et al (2013) Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive and open distal pancreatectomy for ductal adenocarcinoma. JAMA Surg 148:525–531

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Duran H et al (2014) Does robotic distal pancreatectomy surgery offer similar results as laparoscopic and open approach? A comparative study from a single medical center. Int J Med Robot Comput Assist Surg 10:280–285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Heemskerk J, Bouvy ND, Baeten CG (2014) The end of robot-assisted laparoscopy? A critical appraisal of scientific evidence on the use of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 28:1388–1398

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Disclosures

Dr. G. Butturini, Dr. I. Damoli, Dr. L. Crepaz, Dr. G. Malleo, Dr. G. Marchegiani, Dr. D. Daskalaki, Dr. A. Esposito, Dr. S. Cingarlini, Dr. R. Salvia, and Prof. C. Bassi have no conflicts of interests or financial ties to disclose.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Giovanni Butturini.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Butturini, G., Damoli, I., Crepaz, L. et al. A prospective non-randomised single-center study comparing laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomy. Surg Endosc 29, 3163–3170 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-014-4043-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-014-4043-3

Keywords

Navigation