Back to Search Start Over

Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors :
Kamarajah SK
Bundred J
Marc OS
Jiao LR
Manas D
Abu Hilal M
White SA
Source :
European journal of surgical oncology : the journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology [Eur J Surg Oncol] 2020 Jan; Vol. 46 (1), pp. 6-14. Date of Electronic Publication: 2019 Aug 07.
Publication Year :
2020

Abstract

Background: Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) offers theoretical advantages to conventional laparoscopic surgery including improved instrument dexterity, 3D visualization and better ergonomics. This review aimed to determine if these theoretical advantages translate into improved patient outcomes comparing patients having either robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy or laparoscopic (LPD) equivalent.<br />Method: A systematic literature search was conducted for studies reporting minimally invasive surgery for pancreaticoduodenectomy either robotic assisted or totally laparoscopic. Meta-analysis of intra-operative (blood loss, operating times, conversion and R0 resections) and postoperative outcomes (overall complications, pancreatic fistula, length of hospital stay) was performed using a random effects model.<br />Result: This review identified 44 studies, of which six were non-randomised comparative studies including 3462 patients (1025 robotic and 2437 laparoscopic). Intraoperatively, RPD was associated with significantly lower conversion rates (OR 0.45, p < 0.001) and transfusion rates (OR: 0.60, p = 0.002) compared to LPD. However, no significant difference in blood loss (mean: 220 vs 287 mL, p = 0.1), operating time (mean: 405 vs 418 min, p = 0.3) was noted. Postoperatively RPD was associated with a shorter hospital stay (mean: 12 vs 11 days, p < 0.001) but no significant difference was noted in postoperative complications, incidence of pancreatic fistulae and R0 resection rates.<br />Conclusion: RPD appears to offer some advantages compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery, although both approaches appear to offer equivalent clinical outcomes. Importantly, the quality of evidence is generally limited to cohort studies and a high-quality randomised trial comparing both techniques is needed.<br /> (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd, BASO ~ The Association for Cancer Surgery, and the European Society of Surgical Oncology. All rights reserved.)

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
1532-2157
Volume :
46
Issue :
1
Database :
MEDLINE
Journal :
European journal of surgical oncology : the journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
31409513
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2019.08.007