Early experience with robotic pancreatoduodenectomy versus open pancreatoduodenectomy: nationwide propensity-score-matched analysis
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER:
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10898866 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Feb
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveThis study aimed to compare robotic pancreatoduodenectomy with vein resection (PD-VR) based on the incidence of severe postoperative complications (SPC).BackgroundRobotic pancreatoduodenectomy has been gaining momentum in recent years. Vein resection is frequently required in this operation, but no study has compared robotic and open PD-VR using a matched analysis.MethodsThis was an intention-to-treat study designed to demonstrate the noninferiority of robotic to open PD-VR (2011-2021) based on SPC. To achieve a power of 80% (noninferiority margin:10%; α error: 0.05; ß error: 0.20), a 1:1 propensity score-matched analysis required 35 pairs.ResultsOf the 151 patients with PD-VR (open = 115, robotic = 36), 35 procedures per group were compared. Elective conversion to open surgery was required in 1 patient with robotic PD-VR (2.9%). One patient in both groups experienced partial vein thrombosis. SPC occurred in 7 (20.0%) and 6 patients (17.1%) in the robotic and open PD-VR groups, respectively (P = 0.759; OR: 1.21 [0.36-4.04]). Three patients died after robotic PD-VR (8.6%) and none died after open PD-VR (P = 0.239). Robotic PD-VR was associated with longer operative time (611.1 ± 13.9 minutes vs 529.0 ± 13.0 minutes; P < 0.0001), more type 2 vein resection (28.6% vs 5.7%; P = 0.0234) and less type 3 vein resection (31.4% vs 71.4%; P = 0.0008), longer vein occlusion time (30 [25.3-78.3] minutes vs 15 [8-19.5] minutes; P = 0.0098), less blood loss (450 [200-750] mL vs 733 [500-1070.3] mL; P = 0.0075), and fewer blood transfusions (intraoperative: 14.3% vs 48.6%; P = 0.0041) (perioperative: 14.3% vs 60.0%; P = 0.0001).ConclusionsIn this study, robotic PD-VR was noninferior to open PD-VR for SPC. Robotic and open PD-VR need to be compared in randomized controlled trials.
| S-EPMC11191888 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMesopancreas dissection (MPD) level 3 in combined robotic/open pancreatoduodenectomy (CR/OPD) is technique-demanding. This study aims to clarify the feasibility and justification of MPD level 3.MethodsPropensity score matching (PSM) analysis was conducted for 208 patients with pancreatic head cancer undergoing CR/OPD with or without MPD level 3. The comparison focused on surgical and oncological outcomes.ResultsAfter PSM, each group comprised 86 patients. Surgical outcomes were comparable between these two groups, except longer operation time for MPD level 3 (+), median: 10.5 vs. 9.5 h, p = 0.002. MPD level 3 (+) group exhibited higher lymph node yield, median: 20 vs. 17, p < 0.001, and curative (R0) resection rate, 89.5% vs. 69.8%, p = 0.001, compared to MPD level 3 (-) group. Among the entire cohort, no significant survival difference was observed between the MPD Level 3 (+) and (-) groups. Survival outcome for R0 resection after CR/OPD was notably better than those for R2 resection, 5-year survival: 34.0% vs. 0, p = 0.038. However, within the curative (R0) resection cohort, no survival difference was observed between the MPD level 3 (+) and MPD level 3 (-) groups.ConclusionMPD level 3 in CR/OPD is technically feasible without increasing the surgical risks but takes one hour extra operating time. Incorporation of MPD level 3 does not confer a survival advantage within the curative (R0) resection cohort. The primary focus should continue to be on achieving curative (R0) resection to maximize the survival benefits for pancreatic head cancer.
| S-EPMC11794409 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeInternational guidelines suggest the use of lapro-endoscopic technique for primary unilateral inguinal hernia (IHR) because of lower postoperative pain and reduction in chronic pain. It is unclear if the primary benefit is due to the minimally invasive approach, the posterior mesh position or both. Further research evaluating posterior mesh placement using open preperitoneal techniques is recommended. A potential benefit of open preperitoneal repair is the avoidance of general anesthesia, as these repairs can be performed under local anesthesia. This study compares clinical and patient-reported outcomes after unilateral laparo-endoscopic, robotic, and open posterior mesh IHRs.MethodsWe performed a propensity score matched analysis of patients undergoing IHR between 2012 and 2021 in the Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative registry. 10,409 patients underwent a unilateral IHR via a posterior approach. Hernia repairs were performed via minimally invasive surgery (MIS) which includes laparoscopic and robotic transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP), laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal (TEP), or open transrectus preperitoneal/open preperitoneal (TREPP/OPP) approaches. Propensity score matching (PSM) utilizing nearest neighbor matching accounted for differences in baseline characteristics and possible confounding variables between groups. We matched 816 patients in the MIS cohort with 816 patients in the TREPP/OPP group. Outcomes included patient reported quality of life, hernia recurrence, and postoperative opioid use.ResultsImprovement was seen after TREPP/OPP as compared to MIS IHR in EuraHS at 30 days (Median(IQR) 7.0 (2.0-16.64) vs 10 (2.0-24.0); OR 0.69 [0.55-0.85]; p = 0.001) and 6 months (1.0 (0.0-4.0) vs 2.0 (0.0-4.0); OR 0.63 [0.46-85]; p = 0.002), patient-reported opioid use at 30-day follow-up (18% vs 45% OR 0.26 [0.19-0.35]; p < 0.001), and rates of surgical site occurrences (0.8% vs 4.9% OR 0.16 [0.06-0.35]; p < 0.001). There were no differences in EuraHS scores and recurrences at 1 year.ConclusionsThis study demonstrates a potential benefit of open posterior mesh placement over MIS repair in short-term quality of life and seroma formation with equivalent rates of hernia recurrence. Further study is needed to better understand these differences and determine the reproducibility of these findings outside of high-volume specialty centers.
| S-EPMC9931785 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThis study aimed to compare the short-term outcomes of open and robotic-assisted distal pancreatectomy (ODP and RDP) for benign and low-grade malignant tumors.MethodsThe patients who underwent RDP and ODP for benign or low-grade malignant pancreatic tumors at our center were included. After PSM at a 1:1 ratio, the perioperative variations in the two cohorts were compared.ResultsAfter 1:1 PSM, 219 cases of RDP and ODP were recorded. The RDP cohort showed advantages in the operative duration [120 (90-150) min vs 175 (130-210) min, P < 0.001], estimated blood loss [50 (30-175) ml vs 200 (100-300) ml, P < 0.001], spleen preservation rate (63.5% vs 26.5%, P < 0.001), infection rate (4.6% vs 12.3%, P = 0.006), and gastrointestinal function recovery [3 (2-4) vs. 3 (3-5), P = 0.019]. There were no significant differences in postoperative pancreatic fistula, postoperative hemorrhage, and delayed gastric emptying. Multivariate analysis showed that RDP (HR 0.24; 95% CI 0.16-0.36, P < 0.001), age (HR 1.02; 95% CI 1.00-1.03, P = 0.033), tumor size (HR 1.28; 95% CI 1.17-1.40, P < 0.001), pathological inflammatory neoplasm type (HR 5.12; 95% CI 2.22-11.81, P < 0.001), and estimated blood loss (HR 1.003; 95% CI 1.001-1.004, P < 0.001) were independent predictors of spleen preservation; RDP (HR 0.27; 95% CI 0.17-0.43, P < 0.001), age (HR 1.02; 95% CI 1.00-1.03, P = 0.022), elevated CA 19-9 level (HR 2.55; 95% CI 1.02-6.39, P = 0.046), tumor size (HR 1.44; 95% CI 1.29-1.61, P < 0.001), pathological inflammatory neoplasm type (HR 4.48; 95% CI 1.69-11.85, P = 0.003), and estimated blood loss (HR 1.003; 95% CI 1.001-1.004, P < 0.001) were independent predictors of spleen preservation with the Kimura technique.ConclusionRDP has advantages in the operative time, blood loss, spleen preservation, infection rate, and gastrointestinal function recovery over ODP in treating benign and low-grade malignant pancreatic tumors. The robotic-assisted approach was an independent predictor of spleen preservation and use of the Kimura technique.
| S-EPMC8057962 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMinimally invasive right posterior sectionectomy (RPS) is a technically challenging procedure. This study was designed to determine outcomes following robotic RPS (R-RPS) and laparoscopic RPS (L-RPS).MethodsAn international multicentre retrospective analysis of patients undergoing R-RPS versus those who had purely L-RPS at 21 centres from 2010 to 2019 was performed. Patient demographics, perioperative parameters, and postoperative outcomes were analysed retrospectively from a central database. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed, with analysis of 1 : 2 and 1 : 1 matched cohorts.ResultsThree-hundred and forty patients, including 96 who underwent R-RPS and 244 who had L-RPS, met the study criteria and were included. The median operating time was 295 minutes and there were 25 (7.4 per cent) open conversions. Ninety-seven (28.5 per cent) patients had cirrhosis and 56 (16.5 per cent) patients required blood transfusion. Overall postoperative morbidity rate was 22.1 per cent and major morbidity rate was 6.8 per cent. The median postoperative stay was 6 days. After 1 : 1 matching of 88 R-RPS and L-RPS patients, median (i.q.r.) blood loss (200 (100-400) versus 450 (200-900) ml, respectively; P < 0.001), major blood loss (> 500 ml; P = 0.001), need for intraoperative blood transfusion (10.2 versus 23.9 per cent, respectively; P = 0.014), and open conversion rate (2.3 versus 11.4 per cent, respectively; P = 0.016) were lower in the R-RPS group. Similar results were found in the 1 : 2 matched groups (66 R-RPS versus 132 L-RPS patients).ConclusionR-RPS and L-RPS can be performed in expert centres with good outcomes in well selected patients. R-RPS was associated with reduced blood loss and lower open conversion rates than L-RPS.
| S-EPMC8743054 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAlthough laparoscopic liver resection has become the standard for minor resections, evidence is lacking for more complex resections such as the right posterior sectionectomy (RPS). We aimed to compare surgical outcomes between laparoscopic (LRPS) and open right posterior sectionectomy (ORPS).MethodsAn international multicenter retrospective study comparing patients undergoing LRPS or ORPS (January 2007-December 2018) was performed. Patients were matched based on propensity scores in a 1:1 ratio. Primary endpoint was major complication rate defined as Accordion ≥ 3 grade. Secondary endpoints included blood loss, length of hospital stay (LOS) and resection status. A sensitivity analysis was done excluding the first 10 LRPS patients of each center to correct for the learning curve. Additionally, possible risk factors were explored for operative time, blood loss and LOS.ResultsOverall, 399 patients were included from 9 centers from 6 European countries of which 150 LRPS could be matched to 150 ORPS. LRPS was associated with a shorter operative time [235 (195-285) vs. 247 min (195-315) p = 0.004], less blood loss [260 (188-400) vs. 400 mL (280-550) p = 0.009] and a shorter LOS [5 (4-7) vs. 8 days (6-10), p = 0.002]. Major complication rate [n = 8 (5.3%) vs. n = 9 (6.0%) p = 1.00] and R0 resection rate [144 (96.0%) vs. 141 (94.0%), p = 0.607] did not differ between LRPS and ORPS, respectively. The sensitivity analysis showed similar findings in the previous mentioned outcomes. In multivariable regression analysis blood loss was significantly associated with the open approach, higher ASA classification and malignancy as diagnosis. For LOS this was the open approach and a malignancy.ConclusionThis international multicenter propensity score-matched study showed an advantage in favor of LRPS in selected patients as compared to ORPS in terms of operative time, blood loss and LOS without differences in major complications and R0 resection rate.
| S-EPMC8523385 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLaparoscopy has been widely adopted in elective abdominal surgery but is still sparsely used in emergency settings. The study investigated the effect of laparoscopic emergency surgery using a population database.MethodsData for all patients from December 2013 to November 2018 were retrieved from the NELA national database of emergency laparotomy for England and Wales. Laparoscopically attempted cases were matched 2 : 1 with open cases for propensity score derived from a logistic regression model for surgical approach; included co-variates were age, gender, predicted mortality risk, and diagnostic, procedural and surgeon variables. Groups were compared for mortality. Secondary endpoints were blood loss and duration of hospital stay.ResultsOf 116 920 patients considered, 17 040 underwent laparoscopic surgery. The most common procedures were colectomy, adhesiolysis, washout and perforated ulcer repair. Of these, 11 753 were matched exactly to 23 506 patients who had open surgery. Laparoscopically attempted surgery was associated with lower mortality (6.0 versus 9.1 per cent, P < 0.001), blood loss (less than 100 ml, 64.4 versus 52.0 per cent, P < 0.001), and duration of hospital stay (median 8 (i.q.r. 5-14) versus 10 (7-18) days, P < 0.001). Similar trends were seen when comparing only successful laparoscopic cases with open surgery, and also when comparing cases converted to open surgery with open surgery.ConclusionIn appropriately selected patients, laparoscopy is associated with superior outcomes compared with open emergency surgery.
| S-EPMC10364898 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The safety of laparoscopic gastrectomy compared with that of open surgery for the treatment of early gastric cancer (EGC) is unidentified on a national scale. We aimed to compare the morbidity between laparoscopic and open gastrectomies for pathological T1 gastric cancer based on nationwide survey data. Data of 14,076 patients who underwent gastric cancer surgery obtained from the 2019 Korean Gastric Cancer Association-led nationwide survey were used. For patients with pathological T1 gastric cancer, the clinical characteristics were compared between the laparoscopic and open gastrectomy groups. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to match the baseline characteristics of the groups. Among the 7765 patients with pathological T1 gastric cancer who underwent open or laparoscopic gastrectomy, 612 pairs were matched. After balancing the baseline characteristics, the laparoscopic gastrectomy group had a significantly longer operative time, less blood loss, greater number of harvested lymph nodes, shorter hospital stays, and comparable morbidity, compared with the open gastrectomy group (P < 0.001, P < 0.001, P < 0.001, P = 0.001, and P = 0.709, respectively). The surgical approach was not a risk factor for postoperative complication in logistic regression analysis. The PSM analysis with the 2019 Korean nationwide survey data demonstrated that laparoscopic gastrectomy showed comparable morbidity with open gastrectomy for EGC.
| S-EPMC10624863 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEarly-onset gastric cancer (EOGC) is a distinct subtype of gastric cancer with increasing incidence, characterized by unique clinical and pathological features. This propensity score-matched retrospective cohort study aims to compare the perioperative safety and outcomes of EOGC patients who underwent laparoscopic versus robotic radical gastrectomy, providing a scientific basis for surgical treatment of EOGC.Materials and methodsWe included 252 patients diagnosed with EOGC at or before the age of 45, who underwent robotic or laparoscopic radical gastrectomy between January 2015 and April 2021. After propensity score matching, 47 patients in the robotic surgery group and 94 in the laparoscopic surgery group were compared. The study evaluated intraoperative and postoperative outcomes, pathological results, and long-term survival.ResultsThe robotic surgery group showed less intraoperative bleeding (50 ml vs. 100 ml, p = 0.042) and shorter postoperative hospital stays (6 days vs. 7 days, p = 0.008) compared to the laparoscopic group. The number of positive lymph nodes was higher in the robotic group (median 2 vs. 1, p = 0.016), but the number of lymph nodes harvested did not significantly differ. No significant differences were found in overall survival (3-year OS: 65.9% vs. 62.5%, p = 0.596) and disease-free survival (3-year DFS: 61.4% vs. 61.7%, p = 0.765) between the two groups.ConclusionsRobotic resection for EOGC is non-inferior to laparoscopic surgery in terms of perioperative outcomes and long-term prognosis. This study suggests that robotic surgery may be a viable option for the treatment of EOGC.
| S-EPMC11866809 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundControversies exist among liver surgeons regarding clinical outcomes of the laparoscopic versus the robotic approach for major complex hepatectomies. The authors therefore designed a study to examine and compare the perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic left hepatectomy or extended left hepatectomy (L-LH/L-ELH) versus robotic left hepatectomy or extended left hepatectomy (R-LH/R-ELH) using a large international multicenter collaborative database.MethodsAn international multicenter retrospective analysis of 580 patients undergoing L-LH/L-ELH or R-LH/R-ELH at 25 specialized hepatobiliary centers worldwide was undertaken. Propensity score-matching (PSM) was used at a 1:1 nearest-neighbor ratio according to 15 perioperative variables, including demographics, tumor characteristics, Child-Pugh score, presence of portal hypertension, multiple resections, histologic diagnosis, and Iwate difficulty grade.ResultsBefore the PSM, 190 (32 %) patients underwent R-LH/R-ELH, and 390 (68 %) patients underwent L-LH/L-ELH. After the matching, 164 patients were identified in each arm without significant differences in demographics, preoperative variables, medical history, tumor pathology, tumor characteristics, or Iwate score. Regarding intra- and postoperative outcomes, the rebotic approach had significantly less estimated blood loss (EBL) (100 ml [IQR 200 ml] vs 200 ml [IQR 235 ml]; p = 0.029), fewer conversions to open operations (n = 4 [2.4 %] vs n = 13, [7.9 %]; p = 0.043), and a shorter hospital stay (6 days [IQR 3 days] vs 7 days [IQR 3.3 days]; p = 0.009).ConclusionBoth techniques are safe and feasible in major hepatic resections. Compared with L-LH/L-ELH, R-LH/R-ELH is associated with less EBL, fewer conversions to open operations, and a shorter hospital stay.
| S-EPMC9649869 | biostudies-literature