Skip to content

Advertisement

You're viewing the new version of our site. Please leave us feedback.

Learn more

BMC Surgery

Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: an up-to-date meta-analysis

BMC SurgeryBMC series – open, inclusive and trusted201717:105

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12893-017-0301-3

Received: 4 June 2017

Accepted: 1 November 2017

Published: 9 November 2017

Abstract

Background

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) reduces postoperative morbidity, hospital stay and recovery as compared with open distal pancreatectomy. Many authors believe that robotic surgery can overcome the difficulties and technical limits of LDP thanks to improved surgical manipulation and better visualization. Few studies in the literature have compared the two methods in terms of surgical and oncological outcome. The aim of this study was to compare the results of robotic (RDP) and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy.

Methods

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted of control studies published up to December 2016 comparing LDP and RDP. Two Reviewers independently assessed the eligibility and quality of the studies. The meta-analysis was conducted using either the fixed-effect or the random-effect model.

Results

Ten studies describing 813 patients met the inclusion criteria. This meta-analysis shows that the RDP group had a significantly higher rate of spleen preservation [OR 2.89 (95% confidence interval 1.78-4.71, p < 0.0001], a lower rate of conversion to open OR 0.33 (95% CI 0.12-0.92), p = 0.003] and a shorter hospital stay [MD -0.74; (95% CI -1.34 -0.15), p = 0.01] but a higher cost than the LDP group, while other surgical outcomes did not differ between the two groups.

Conclusion

This meta-analysis suggests that the RDP procedure is safe and comparable in terms of surgical results to LDP. However, even if the RDP has a higher cost compared to LDP, it increases the rate of spleen preservation, reduces the risk of conversion to open surgery and is associated to shorter length of hospital stay.

Keywords

Pancreatic cancerDistal pancreatectomyLeft pancreatectomyPancreatic resectionRobotic surgeryLaparoscopic surgeryReviewMeta-analysis

Background

Distal pancreatectomy (DP) is the mainstay surgical procedure for the treatment of body-tail tumors of the pancreas [1]. This type of surgery, generally performed through an open access, a fairly common but potentially demanding procedure, is still burdened with a significant morbidity and mortality up of 5% [2, 3].

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is a relatively new procedure as compared with the well-established open distal pancreatectomy [4, 5]. The first LDP was in fact performed by Cuscheri in 1996 [6]. Since many authors still consider LDP to be a complex operation because of technical problems linked to the vascular control and dissection of the pancreatic gland that is deeply located in the retroperitoneum, this has resulted in a delay in the spread of LDP when compared to other mini-invasive surgical operations. Thanks to the improvement of technology and the experience gained in laparoscopic surgery, it has been shown that LDP has achieved oncological results comparable to open surgery, with an overlapping rate of morbidity, but with the advantage of small surgical incisions, shorter hospital stay and faster recovery [710].

The exceptional development of computer technology and its consequent biomedical applications have enabled the creation of robotic surgery. Robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) is the most recent frontier of minimally invasive surgery applied to the surgical treatment of pancreatic tumors [11, 12]. RDP was first performed by Melvin in 2003 [13].

Robotic surgery has theoretically made it possible to overcome the disadvantages of the laparoscopic approach to the pancreas. In fact, it allows optimal viewing through a three dimensional high definition surgical view, tremor filtration, large range of motion due to an internal articulated endo-wrist, all associated with remarkable ergonomics for the surgeon who performs the procedure [14].

Nevertheless, robotic procedures seem to be longer and have higher costs without a clear advantage in terms of surgical and oncologic outcomes [14, 15]. No randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing RDP and LDP have been published on this issue, only retrospective studies [1626]. Moreover, none of these has reached a uniform conclusion in terms of efficacy and safety [27]. We therefore performed a systematic review and meta-analysis in order to compare the results of laparoscopic vs robotic distal pancreatectomy.

Methods

Literature search strategies and study selection

A systematic literature search was conducted independently by two authors (G.G. and A.L.) using the methods of the Cochrane collaboration. We searched the National library of Medicine (Medline, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/), the Cochrane central register of controlled trials (Cochrane library www.cochrane.org), and Embase (https://www.embase.com/login) for relevant articles published from January 1980 through December 2016.

The search strategy was set up using the key words or text words combined with a Mesh (Medical subject headings) database search. The terms used were: “Distal pancreatectomy”, “Pancreatectomy”, “Laparoscopic” and “robotic” with limitation of clinical studies and humans. The search was exploded using the related article term in Pubmed. In addition, the references of searched articles were manually cross-searched for additional publications, and captured citations were filtered for study design in order to identify all control studies. All data extraction was performed in duplicate. We included studies with more than five patients in each arm for comparison of clinical outcomes. Narrative reviews, case series or studies without matched groups were excluded. No unpublished data, or non-English manuscripts or data were used.

The methodological quality of case-control and cohort studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale [28]. Only studies that reached six points or more were considered qualitatively eligible for meta-analysis. To select the titles of relevant studies, abstracts and full text articles were screened.

Quality assessment of the studies and inclusion criteria

We planned to include only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in this review. However, we found no RCTs on the topic, so we performed a meta-analysis of observational studies. We included studies reported as full text, and studies published as abstract only. All studies with Robotic and Laparoscopic pancreatectomy were considered. Any etiology for distal pancreatectomy was eligible and there were no limitations because of race, gender or age. Two investigators independently reviewed the articles for eligibility and extracted data for the analysis. Any disagreement was resolved through discussion and consensus of the study team. The PRISMA criteria for reporting meta-analyses were used as guidelines in the construction of this analysis [29].

Distal pancreatectomy-related morbidities, such as pancreatic fistula (PF), bleeding rate and all Clavien-Dindo complications grade III or more were used as measures of outcome. Surgical results such as conversion rate, spleen preservation, operative time, length of hospital stay, oncological parameters, cost of operation were principal parameter analyzed in this the meta-analysis.

Data analysis was performed using the software Review Manager (RevMan) [Version 5.1. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011) and Metanalysis (Tecnopharma 2004 Italy). Results of the meta-analysis are presented as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The OR was used for dichotomous outcomes as the confirmatory effect size estimate. Continuous variables were analyzed using the weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% CI. P values of < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Heterogeneities of treatment effects between the trials were tested using Q statistics and total variation across studies was estimated by I2. A fixed-effect model was adopted if there was no statistically significant heterogeneity in this analysis. If the results of trials had heterogeneity I 2 > 50%, a random-effects model was applied, such as the DerSimonian-Laird method [30]. Potential publication bias was determined by conducting informal visual inspection of the funnel plot, but also using quantitative methods such as the test for asymmetry of the funnel plot.

Definition of complications

Pancreatic fistula (PF) was defined as an amylase-rich fluid from the drain at biochemical evaluation or abnormal communication between the drain and the pancreatic anastomosis seen with fistulography. More recent studies used the definition of pancreatic fistula proposed by the International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistula (ISGPF), where the pancreatic fistula is defined as an output of any measurable volume of fluid with an amylase content greater than 3 times the upper normal serum value via an operatively (or subsequently) placed drain on or after postoperative day 3 [31]. Postoperative morbidity was defined as any complication in agreement with the Dindo classification [32]. Perioperative mortality was defined as death during the same hospital stay or within 90 days after discharge if the patient was discharged earlier.

Results

Included studies and patient characteristics

The initial search strategy retrieved 844 publications relevant to search words (Fig. 1). After screening all titles and abstracts, a total of 34 full papers were captured, of which 24 were excluded because of missing inclusion criteria. Ten comparative studies were identified for inclusion. The features and quality of the included studies are summarized in Table 1.
Fig. 1

Prisma flow chart of the selection process

Table 1

Scale assessment of the quality of the studies

Author

Publication Year

Country

Study

Robotic distal pancreatectomy n

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy n

Newcastle – Ottawa scale

Selection/comparability/

Exposure = total score

Balzano [16]

2014

Italy

Retrospective-Multicenter

31

140

4 / 1 / 2 = 7

Butturini [25]

2015

Italy

Prospective

22

21

4 / 2 / 2 = 8

Chen [17]

2015

China

Prospective

69

50

4 / 2 / 2 = 8

Daouadi [18]

2013

USA

Retrospective

30

94

4 / 2 / 2 = 8

Duran [19]

2014

Spain

Retrospective

16

18

4 / 2 / 2 = 8

Goh [20]

2015

Singapore

Retrospective

8

31

4 / 2 / 2 = 8

Kang [22]

2011

Korea

Retrospective

20

25

4 / 2 / 2 = 8

Lai [23]

2015

China

Retrospective

17

18

4 / 1 / 2 = 7

Lee [24]

2014

USA

Retrospective

37

131

4 / 2 / 2 = 8

Waters [26]

2010

USA

Retrospective

17

18

4 / 2 / 2 = 8

Ten studies describing 813 patients were identified for the meta-analysis Table 2. A total of 267 patients underwent robotic distal pancreatectomy and 546 patients laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. The two groups were similar as regards demographics (age, body mass index (BMI), gender), comorbidities (American Society of Anesthesiologist score) and pathological characteristics. The number of patients in each study ranged from a minimum of 8 up to 140.
Table 2

Characteristic of included studies comparing robotic vs laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy, NA not reported

Author

Number of patients RDP vs LDP

Age RDP vs LDP

Female (%) RDP vs LDP

ASA (mean) RDP vs LDP

BMI RDP vs LDP

Malignant (%) RDP vs LDP

Balzano [16]

31 vs 140

Na

NA

NA

Na

18 vs 16

Butturini [25]

22 vs 21

54 vs 55

77 vs 71

1.91 vs 1.76

25.3 vs 24.1

13.6 vs 9.5

Chen [17]

69 vs 50

56.2 vs 56.5

67 vs 64

1.9 vs 1.94

24.6 vs 24.6

23.2 vs 22

Daouadi [18]

30 vs 94

59 vs 59

67 vs 65

2.9 vs 3.2

27.9 vs 29

43 vs 14

Duran [19]

16 vs 18

61 vs 58.3

44 vs 50

2 vs 1.9

Na

56 vs 44

Goh [20]

8 vs 31

57 vs 56

75 vs 62

1.2 vs 1

27.6 vs 23.9

0 vs 12.9

Kang [22]

20 vs 25

44.5 vs 56.5

60 vs 56

NA

24.1 vs 23.4

0 vs 48

Lai [23]

17 vs 18

61.2 vs 63.2

41 vs 78

NA

24.1 vs 25.7

64.7 vs 77.7

Lee [24]

37 vs 131

58 vs 58

73 vs 56

2.5 vs 3

28.7 vs 28.2

10.8 vs 14.5

Waters [26]

17 vs 18

64 vs 55

65 vs 50

2.9 vs 2.8

NA

29 vs 28

Pancreatic fistula

A fixed-effect model comparing the pancreatic fistula rate after RDP and LDP is shown in Fig. 2. At an Odds Ratio of 1 (central line) there is no difference in the rate of pancreatic fistula between the RDP and LDP groups. Values ​​greater than one represent an increased risk for pancreatic fistula in the Laparoscopic group, while a value less than 1 indicates a reduction in the risk of pancreatic fistula in favor of the Robotic group. A total of 768 patients were included in 9 articles. The rate of pancreatic fistula in the RDP group and LDP group was 30.3% (75/247) and 33.5% (175/521), respectively. The overall pooled results by meta-analysis revealed an OR 0.968 (95% confidence interval 0.66–1.39, p = 0.84). The funnel plot showed basic symmetry and the test for the asymmetry applied to the funnel plot was α = 0.24, p = 0.66 which suggested no publication bias. Specific subgroup analysis was performed in 6 studies that used a standard definition of pancreatic fistula according to the ISGPF classification. The rate of pancreatic fistula was 28.5% in (52/182) in RDP and 28.4% (98/345) in LDP. Meta-analysis showed no differences in the subgroups (OR 0.93 p = 0.75).
Fig. 2

Forest plot displaying the results of the meta-analysis regarding pancreatic fistula

Conversion rate

Eight studies involving 733 patients reported the conversion rate. The conversion Rate in the RDP and LDP groups was 8.2% (19/230) and 21.6% (109/503), respectively. Meta-analysis showed a significant difference in the rate of the conversion between the two groups, with a lower rate in the RDP group (OR 0.33; 95% CI, 0.12–0.92, p = 0.03), Fig. 3.
Fig. 3

Forest plot displaying the results of the meta-analysis regarding conversion rate

Spleen preservation rate

A total of 479 patients were included in 7 retrospective studies. Spleen conservation rate in the RDP and LDP groups was 48.9% (106/198) and 27% (76/281), respectively. Meta-analysis showed a significant difference in the rate of spleen preservation between the two groups with a higher rate in the RDP group (OR 2.89; 95% CI, 1.78–4.71, p < 0.0001), Fig. 4.
Fig. 4

Forest plot displaying the results of the meta-analysis regarding spleen preservation rate

Major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo classification ≥ III)

Nine studies involving 637 patients reported morbidity. The morbidity of the RDP and LDP groups was 16% (3/246) and 17% (67/391), respectively. Meta-analysis showed no significant difference in the rate of morbidity between the two groups (OR 1.19, 95% CI 0.73–1.91, p = 0.52), whereas 90-day mortality accounted for 1 death in both groups.

Bleeding

The bleeding rate in the RDP and LDP groups was 8.2% (13/157) and 11% (23/5208), respectively. Meta-analysis of five trials showed no significant difference in the rate between the RDP and LDP groups (OR 0.8; 95% CI 0.41–1.79, p = 0.621).

Oncologic parameters

Seven of nine studies reported the R0 margin status and six studies reported the number of harvested lymph nodes. All surgical specimens of RDP reported R0 negative margins, while 1% of LDP were diagnosed with positive margins. Five studies reported higher numbers of harvested lymph nodes in the RDP group, while two studies showed a higher number of lymph nodes in the LDP group (Table 3). Meta-analysis of the oncological variable could not be performed because of the impossibility to retrieve the standard deviation from the studies.
Table 3

Oncological characteristic of study population

Author

Lymph nodes Harvested Number LDP vs RDP

Rate of R1 resection Number of patients (% percentage) LDP vs RDP

Tumor size Centimeter (cm) LDP vs RDP

Balzano [16]

NA

NA

NA

Butturini [25]

15 (1–47 range) vs 11.5 (0–37)

0 vs 0

3.45 (1.5–1.7) vs 2.5 (0.5–9)

Chen [17]

9 vs 15

0 vs 0

3.5 (2.5–4 IQ) vs 3.5(2.1–3.5 IQ)

Daouadi [18]

9 (7–11 IQ) vs 19 (17–24 IQ)

5 (36) vs 0

3.4 ± 1.6 vs 3.1 ± 1.7

Duran [19]

5 ± 2 vs 12.5 ± 7.2

0 vs 0

4.1 ± 2.3 vs 2.9 ± 1.6

Goh [20]

NA

1(3.2) vs 1(12.5)

2.5 (0.8–7) vs 3 (1–6.9)

Kang [22]

NA

NA

3.0 ± 1.4 vs 3.5 ± 1.3

Lai [23]

NA

NA

NA

Lee [24]

10 ± 8 vs 12 ± 7

0 vs 0

NA

Waters [26]

11 vs 5

0 vs 0

3 ± 1 vs 2 ± 1

NA not reported

Length of hospital stay

Eight studies reported the length of hospital stay. The mean hospital stay was 7.18 days in the RDP group and 9.08 in the LDP group. Meta-analysis showed that the hospital stay was slightly shorter in the RDP group than in the LDP group with statistic significant difference (mean difference = -0.7495% CI -1.34 -0.15; p = 0.01), Fig. 5.
Fig. 5

Forest plot displaying the results of the meta-analysis regarding hospital stay

Cost of the operation

Three studies reported cost analysis. Meta-analysis showed that the cost of the operation was higher in RDP group (Standard mean difference 5.24, 95% CI 3.52 -6.95, p < 0.00001), Fig. 6.
Fig. 6

Forest plot displaying the results of the meta-analysis regarding cost of operation

Operative time

Eight studies reported the operative time which was respectively 262.8 min in the RDP group and 233.2 in the LDP group. The difference between the two groups was not statistic significant (mean difference = 26.91 95% CI -11.8 + 65.6; p = 0. 17), Fig. 7.
Fig. 7

Forest plot displaying the results of the meta-analysis regarding operative time

Discussion

This meta-analysis demonstrates the safety and feasibility of the robotic approach to distal pancreatectomy. Specifically, the results of our study reveal that RDP does not increase the rate of post-operative complications, is associated to higher rate of spleen preservation, reduces hospital stay and decreases conversion rate.

Many studies of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy have been published in the literature, highlighting the increasing surgical community interest in this new technique [33, 34].

Several studies have compared open versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy, demonstrating the superiority of the latter in terms of less blood loss, faster recovery and less hospital stay [10, 3537].

Robotic surgery is the latest development of mini-invasive surgery of the pancreas. This technology maintains the advantages of laparoscopic technique in terms of smaller surgical scars and faster functional recovery, but adds the specific advantages of robotic surgery; in fact, thanks to the stability of articulated instruments and magnification of the 3D high definition view, the robot allows more complex surgical operations to be performed. This added value of RDP could increase the chance to increase the rate of spleen preservation [38, 39].

This meta-analysis shows that the RDP increases the rate of splenic preservation; in fact, 7 studies indicated a better spleen preservation rate through robotic surgery. The preservation of the spleen has been shown to be important in preventing postoperative complications and particularly the overwhelming post-splenectomy infection syndrome. The preservation of the spleen, however, depends not only on technical factors but primarily on the indication for pancreatectomy. In fact, malignant tumors are not an indication for the conservation of the spleen, which is instead generally taken into account for benign or neuroendocrine tumors [40]. Two spleen-preservation surgical techniques have been described: the Kimura [41] and the Warshaw method [42]. In the Kimura’s technique the artery and splenic vein are skeletonized and preserved in order to maintain the vascular flow to the spleen. The Warshaw method consists in the section of splenic vessels while preserving short gastric vessels and left gastroepiplonic artery, which provide adequate vascular flow to the spleen. This second technique seems to increase the risk of spleen infarction. The studies considered in our review do not provide the details of the surgical technique used to preserve the spleen and therefore a comparison between the two methods has not been performed [43].

With regard to overall postoperative complications, these were similar between two groups. The most frequently reported complication was intra-abdominal fluid collection. However, severe complications, defined as Dindo-Clavien ≥ 3, were similar in the two groups, as was the reported mortality.

The pancreatic fistula is still the Achilles heel of pancreatic surgery [4446]. This complication remains a very serious problem because it increases morbidity and lengthens hospital stay. Regardless of the technique used to cut and close the pancreatic stump, the incidence of postoperative pancreatic fistula varies from 0 to 47% [47]. A recent meta-analysis compared different methods of treating pancreatic parenchyma after distal pancreatectomy, but none of the techniques used was superior to the others in reducing the incidence of pancreatic fistula [48]. In this meta-analysis, nine studies compared the rate of pancreatic fistula between RDP and LDP failing to show any significant differences. In particular, the rate of severe pancreatic fistulas grade B / C was not statistically different between the two groups.

Blood transfusion during surgery for malignant disease is associated with an increased risk of long-term relapse [49]. In the meta-analysis we did not observe statistically significant differences in the rate of blood transfusions between the two groups.

In relation to oncological parameters, we did not observe significant differences in the considered studies. It was interesting to note that the surgical margins were negative (R0) with a near 100% rate in the two groups and good lymphadenectomy was performed in both groups. However, no indication was provided by the authors regarding chemo-radiotherapy treatments with adjuvant or neoadjuvant purposes. No specific data were also available regarding disease free survival and tumor recurrence. Therefore it is not possible to draw final conclusion on the oncological adequacy of the robotic approach in this type of surgery.

Since minimally invasive surgery is typically associated with a faster recovery, the length of hospital stay is a very important index in the evaluation of this type of surgical approach [38, 50].

A shorter hospital stay was observed in the RDP group in our study. This result could be an argument in favor of robotic surgery in reducing the overall impact of the cost, which is still considered very high by several authors. Each robotic procedure generally costs from 1000 to 3000 dollars more than a laparoscopic procedure. Our meta-analysis shows that the robotic procedure is more expensive than the laparoscopic one. However, in calculating the cost of the operation Waters et al. [26] took into account the associated cost of the hospital stay. In this case, robotic surgery showed a greater economic advantage over laparoscopic surgery with an estimated cost of 10,588 and 12,986 dollars respectively for the RDP and the LDP group. It should be noted also that prices often vary considerably among the different surgical centers, even in the same country, so the this comparison may be misleading and at risk of bias.

Our systematic review summarizes most of the available evidence in this context. However, it has some limitations. Although most of the included studies showed a high methodological quality according to the Newcastle-Ottawa scale, the studies were retrospective and not randomized. The absence of randomization and the retrospective nature involves some structural bias that could lead to inaccurate or incorrect conclusions. Further prospective randomized studies are therefore needed to understand which of the two methods is superior to the other in terms of cancer, complications and long-term results.

Conclusions

This meta-analysis suggests that the RDP procedure is safe and comparable in terms of surgical results to LDP. However even if the RDP has a higher cost than the LDP, it increases the rate of preservation of the spleen, reduces the risk of conversion to open surgery and is associated to shorter length of hospital stay. Nevertheless, due to the high risk of bias of these retrospective studies, the benefits of RDP proven in our meta-analysis should be confirmed through further RCTs.

Abbreviations

C.I.: 

Confidence interval

DP: 

Distal pancreatectomy

LDP: 

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy

MD: 

Mean difference

OR: 

Odds ratio

PF: 

Pancreatic fistula

RDP: 

Robotic distal pancreatectomy

Declarations

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

The authors have no grant or financial support to report.

Availability of data and materials

No additional data are available and data sharing not applicable to this article.

Authors’ contributions

Protocol/project development: GG, AL. Data acquisition and interpretation of data: SB, CB, MO, MF. Statistics analysis of data: GG. Manuscript drafting: GG. Manuscript Revision and accountable for all aspects of the work: FB, GB, BB, GG. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Surgical Oncology. Surgical oncology Unit, National Cancer institute-Centro di Riferimento Oncologico IRCCS
(2)
Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery and Liver Transplantation Unit, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia

References

  1. Fujino Y. Perioperative management of distal pancreatectomy. World J Gastroenterol. 2015;21(11):3166–9.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Zhang YH, Zhang CW, ZM H, Hong DF. Pancreatic cancer: open or minimally invasive surgery? World J Gastroenterol. 2016;22(32):7301–10.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Wellner UF, Lapshyn H, Bartsch DK, Mintziras I, Hopt UT, Wittel U, Kramling HJ, Preissinger-Heinzel H, Anthuber M, Geissler B, et al. Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy-a propensity score-matched analysis from the German StuDoQ|pancreas registry. Int J Color Dis. 2017;32(2):273–80.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Borja-Cacho D, Al-Refaie WB, Vickers SM, Tuttle TM, Jensen EH. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. J Am Coll Surg. 2009;209(6):758–65. quiz 800View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Sulpice L, Farges O, Goutte N, Bendersky N, Dokmak S, Sauvanet A, Delpero JR and ACHBT French Pancreatectomy Study Group. Laparoscopic distal Pancreatectomy for pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: time for a randomized controlled trial? Results of an all-inclusive National Observational Study. Ann Surg. 2015;262(5):868-73.Google Scholar
  6. Cuschieri A, Jakimowicz JJ, van Spreeuwel J. Laparoscopic distal 70% pancreatectomy and splenectomy for chronic pancreatitis. Ann Surg. 1996;223(3):280–5.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Jin T, Altaf K, Xiong JJ, Huang W, Javed MA, Mai G, Liu XB, WM H, Xia Q. A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing laparoscopic and open distal pancreatectomy. HPB (Oxford). 2012;14(11):711–24.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Jusoh AC, Ammori BJ. Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy: a systematic review of comparative studies. Surg Endosc. 2012;26(4):904–13.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Riviere D, Gurusamy KS, Kooby DA, Vollmer CM, Besselink MG, Davidson BR, van Laarhoven CJ. Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016, Apr 4;4:CD011391.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Venkat R, Edil BH, Schulick RD, Lidor AO, Makary MA, Wolfgang CL. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is associated with significantly less overall morbidity compared to the open technique: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg. 2012;255(6):1048–59.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Cirocchi R, Partelli S, Coratti A, Desiderio J, Parisi A, Falconi M. Current status of robotic distal pancreatectomy: a systematic review. Surg Oncol. 2013;22(3):201–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Strijker M, van Santvoort HC, Besselink MG, van Hillegersberg R, Borel Rinkes IH, Vriens MR, Molenaar IQ. Robot-assisted pancreatic surgery: a systematic review of the literature. HPB (Oxford). 2013;15(1):1–10.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Melvin WS, Needleman BJ, Krause KR, Ellison EC. Robotic resection of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2003;13(1):33–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Jung MK, Buchs NC, Azagury DE, Hagen ME, Morel P. Robotic distal pancreatectomy: a valid option? Minerva Chir. 2013;68(5):489–97.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Magge D, Zureikat A, Hogg M, Zeh HJ 3rd. Minimally invasive approaches to pancreatic surgery. Surg Oncol Clin N Am. 2016;25(2):273–86.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Balzano G, Bissolati M, Boggi U, Bassi C, Zerbi A, Falconi M. A multicenter survey on distal pancreatectomy in Italy: results of minimally invasive technique and variability of perioperative pathways. Updat Surg. 2014;66(4):253–63.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Chen S, Zhan Q, Chen JZ, Jin JB, Deng XX, Chen H, Shen BY, Peng CH, Li HW. Robotic approach improves spleen-preserving rate and shortens postoperative hospital stay of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a matched cohort study. Surg Endosc. 2015;29(12):3507–18.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Daouadi M, Zureikat AH, Zenati MS, Choudry H, Tsung A, Bartlett DL, Hughes SJ, Lee KK, Moser AJ, Zeh HJ. Robot-assisted minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy is superior to the laparoscopic technique. Ann Surg. 2013;257(1):128–32.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Duran H, Ielpo B, Caruso R, Ferri V, Quijano Y, Diaz E, Fabra I, Oliva C, Olivares S, Vicente E. 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. 2014;10(3):280–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Goh BK, Chan CY, Soh HL, Lee SY, Cheow PC, Chow PK, Ooi LL, Chung AY. A comparison between robotic-assisted laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. Int J Med Robot. 2017;13(1) epub.Google Scholar
  21. Ito M, Asano Y, Shimizu T, Uyama I, Horiguchi A. Comparison of standard laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy with minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy using the da Vinci S system. Hepato-Gastroenterology. 2014;61(130):493–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Kang CM, Kim DH, Lee WJ, Chi HS. Conventional laparoscopic and robot-assisted spleen-preserving pancreatectomy: does da Vinci have clinical advantages? Surg Endosc. 2011;25(6):2004–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Lai EC, Tang CN. Robotic distal pancreatectomy versus conventional laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a comparative study for short-term outcomes. Front Med. 2015;9(3):356–60.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Lee SY, Allen PJ, Sadot E, D'Angelica MI, DeMatteo RP, Fong Y, Jarnagin WR, Kingham TP. Distal pancreatectomy: a single institution’s experience in open, laparoscopic, and robotic approaches. J Am Coll Surg. 2015;220(1):18–27.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Butturini G, Damoli I, Crepaz L, Malleo G, Marchegiani G, Daskalaki D, Esposito A, Cingarlini S, Salvia R, Bassi C. A prospective non-randomised single-center study comparing laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomy. Surg Endosc. 2015;29(11):3163–70.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Waters JA, Canal DF, Wiebke EA, Dumas RP, Beane JD, Aguilar-Saavedra JR, Ball CG, House MG, Zyromski NJ, Nakeeb A, et al. Robotic distal pancreatectomy: cost effective? Surgery. 2010;148(4):814–23.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Zhou JY, Xin C, Mou YP, XW X, Zhang MZ, Zhou YC, Lu C, Chen RG. Robotic versus laparoscopic distal Pancreatectomy: a meta-analysis of short-term outcomes. PLoS One. 2016;11(3):e0151189.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Stang A. Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol. 2010;25(9):603–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009;339:b2700.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002;21(11):1539–58.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Bassi C, Dervenis C, Butturini G, Fingerhut A, Yeo C, Izbicki J, Neoptolemos J, Sarr M, Traverso W, Buchler M. Postoperative pancreatic fistula: an international study group (ISGPF) definition. Surgery. 2005;138(1):8–13.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Vonlanthen R, Slankamenac K, Breitenstein S, Puhan MA, Muller MK, Hahnloser D, Hauri D, Graf R, Clavien PA. The impact of complications on costs of major surgical procedures: a cost analysis of 1200 patients. Ann Surg. 2011;254(6):907–13.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Al-Taan OS, Stephenson JA, Briggs C, Pollard C, Metcalfe MS, Dennison AR. Laparoscopic pancreatic surgery: a review of present results and future prospects. HPB (Oxford). 2010;12(4):239–43.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Mesleh MG, Stauffer JA, Asbun HJ. Minimally invasive surgical techniques for pancreatic cancer: ready for prime time? J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2013;20(6):578–82.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Edwin B, Sahakyan MA, Hilal MA, Besselink MG, Braga M, Fabre JM, Fernandez-Cruz L, Gayet B, Kim SC, Khatkov IE. Laparoscopic surgery for pancreatic neoplasms: the European association for endoscopic surgery clinical consensus conference. Surg Endosc. 2017;31(5):2023–41.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. de Rooij T, Klompmaker S, Abu Hilal M, Kendrick ML, Busch OR, Besselink MG. Laparoscopic pancreatic surgery for benign and malignant disease. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;13(4):227–38.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Kang CM, Lee SH, Lee WJ. Minimally invasive radical pancreatectomy for left-sided pancreatic cancer: current status and future perspectives. World J Gastroenterol. 2014;20(9):2343–51.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  38. Kendrick ML. Laparoscopic and robotic resection for pancreatic cancer. Cancer J. 2012;18(6):571–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Eckhardt S, Schicker C, Maurer E, Fendrich V, Bartsch DK. Robotic-assisted approach improves vessel preservation in spleen-preserving distal Pancreatectomy. Dig Surg. 2016;33(5):406–13.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Doi R. Determinants of surgical resection for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2015;22(8):610–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Kimura W, Inoue T, Futakawa N, Shinkai H, Han I, Muto T. Spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy with conservation of the splenic artery and vein. Surgery. 1996;120(5):885–90.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Warshaw AL. Conservation of the spleen with distal pancreatectomy. Arch Surg. 1988;123(5):550–3.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Baker MS, Bentrem DJ, Ujiki MB, Stocker S, Talamonti MS. A prospective single institution comparison of peri-operative outcomes for laparoscopic and open distal pancreatectomy. Surgery. 2009;146(4):635–43. discussion 643-635View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Adam U, Makowiec F, Riediger H, Trzeczak S, Benz S, Hopt UT. Distal pancreatic resection--indications, techniques and complications. Zentralbl Chir. 2001;126(11):908–12.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Wilson C, Robinson S, French J, White S. Strategies to reduce pancreatic stump complications after open or laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2014;24(2):109–17.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Mahvi D. Defining, controlling, and treating a pancreatic fistula. J Gastrointest Surg. 2009;13(7):1187–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Miyasaka Y, Mori Y, Nakata K, Ohtsuka T, Nakamura M. Attempts to prevent postoperative pancreatic fistula after distal pancreatectomy. Surg Today. 2017;47(4):416–24.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Zhou W, Lv R, Wang X, Mou Y, Cai X, Herr I. Stapler vs suture closure of pancreatic remnant after distal pancreatectomy: a meta-analysis. Am J Surg. 2010;200(4):529–36.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Partelli S, Cirocchi R, Randolph J, Parisi A, Coratti A, Falconi M. A systematic review and meta-analysis of spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy with preservation or ligation of the splenic artery and vein. Surgeon. 2016;14(2):109–18.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Nakamura M, Nakashima H. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy and pancreatoduodenectomy: is it worthwhile? A meta-analysis of laparoscopic pancreatectomy. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2013;20(4):421–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2017

Advertisement