• Brian K P Goh, Chung Yip Chan, Hui-Ling Soh, Ser Yee Lee, Peng-Chung Cheow, Pierce K H Chow, London L P J Ooi, and Alexander Y F Chung.
• Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Transplantation Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore.
• Int J Med Robot. 2017 Mar 1; 13 (1).

BackgroundThis study aims to compare the early perioperative outcomes of robotic-assisted laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP).MethodsThe clinicopathologic features of 45 consecutive patients who underwent minimally-invasive distal pancreatectomy from 2006 to 2015 were retrospectively reviewed.ResultsThirty-nine patients who met our study criteria were included. Eight patients underwent RDP and 31 had LDP. There were 10 (25.6%) open conversions. Six (15.4%) patients had major (> grade 2) morbidities and there was no in-hospital mortality. There were 14 (35.9%) grade A and 9 (23.1%) grade B pancreatic fistulas. Comparison between RDP and LDP demonstrated no significant difference between the patients' baseline characteristics except there was increased frequency of spleen-preserving pancreatectomies (3 (37.5%) vs 25 (80.6%), P=0.016) and splenic-vessel preservation (5 (62.5%) vs 4 (12.9%), P=0.003) in RDP. Comparison between outcomes demonstrated that RDP was associated with a longer median operation time (452.5 (range, 300-685) vs 245 min (range, 85-430), P=0.001) and increased frequency of the procedure completed purely laparoscopically (8 (100%) vs 18 (58.1%), P=0.025).ConclusionsRDP can be safely adopted and is equivalent to LDP in most perioperative outcomes. It is also associated with a decreased frequency of the need for hand-assistance laparoscopic surgery or open conversion but needed a longer operation time. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

29 keywords...

hide…