Robotic versus open pancreatoduodenectomy: a propensity score-matched analysis based on factors predictive of postoperative pancreatic fistula
- 248 Downloads
Improvement in morbidity of pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) largely depends on the reduction in the incidence of clinically relevant (CR) postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF).
After internal validation of the clinical risk score (CRS) of POPF, and identification of other predictive factors for POPF, robotic (RPD), and open (OPD) PDs were stratified into risk categories and matched by propensity scores. The primary endpoint of this study was incidence of CR-POPF. Secondary endpoints were 90-day morbidity and mortality, and sample size calculation for randomized controlled trials (RCT).
No patient undergoing RPD was classified at negligible risk for POPF, and no CR-POPF occurred in 7 RPD at low risk. The matching process identified 48 and 11 pairs at intermediate and high risk for POPF, respectively. In the intermediate-risk group, RPD was associated with higher rates of CR-POPF (31.3% vs 12.5%) (p = 0.0026), with equivalent incidence of grade C POPF. In the high-risk group, CR-POPF occurred frequently, but in similar percentages, after either procedures. Starting from an unadjusted point estimate of the effect size of 1.71 (0.91–3.21), the pair-matched odds ratio for CR-POPF after RPD was 2.80 (1.01–7.78) for the intermediate-risk group, and 0.20 (0.01–4.17) for the high-risk group. Overall morbidity and mortality were equivalent in matched study groups. Sample size calculation for a non-inferiority RCT demonstrated that a total of 31,669 PDs would be required to randomize 682 patients at intermediate risk and 1852 patients at high risk.
In patients at intermediate risk, RPD is associated with higher rates of CR-POPF. Incidence of grade C POPF is similar in RPD and OPD, making overall morbidity and mortality also equivalent. A RCT, with risk stratification for POPF, would require an enormous number of patients. Implementation of an international registry could be the next step in the assessment of RPD.
KeywordsPancreatoduodenectomy Open pancreatoduodenectomy Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy Postoperative pancreatic fistula Propensity score
Compliance with ethical standards
Niccolò Napoli, Emanuele Federico Kauffmann, Francesca Menonna, Francesca Costa, Sara Iacopi, Gabriella Amorese, Serena Giorgi, Angelo Baggiani, and Ugo Boggi have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.
- 3.Bonjer HJ, Deijen CL, Abis GA, Cuesta MA, van der Pas MH, de Lange-de Klerk ES, Lacy AM, Bemelman WA, Andersson J, Angenete E, Rosenberg J, Fuerst A, Haglind E, COLOR II Study Group (2015) A randomized trial of laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer. N Engl J Med 372:1324–1332CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 4.Ni M, Mackenzie H, Widdison A, Jenkins JT, Mansfield S, Dixon T, Slade D, Coleman MG, Hanna GB (2016) What errors make a laparoscopic cancer surgery unsafe? An ad hoc analysis of competency assessment in the National Training Programme for laparoscopic colorectal surgery in England. Surg Endosc 30:1020–1027CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 6.Shrikhande SV, Sivasanker M, Vollmer CM, Friess H, Besselink MG, Fingerhut A, Yeo CJ, Fernandez-delCastillo C, Dervenis C, Halloran C, Gouma DJ, Radenkovic D, Asbun HJ, Neoptolemos JP, Izbicki JR, Lillemoe KD, Conlon KC, Fernandez-Cruz L, Montorsi M, Bockhorn M, Adham M, Charnley R, Carter R, Hackert T, Hartwig W, Miao Y, Sarr M, Bassi C, Büchler MW, International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) (2017) Pancreatic anastomosis after pancreatoduodenectomy: a position statement by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS). Surgery 161:584–591CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 20.Shubert CR, Wagie AE, Farnell MB, Nagorney DM, Que FG, Lombardo KMR, Truty MJ, Smoot RL, Kendrick ML (2015) Clinical risk score to predict pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy: independent external validation for open and laparoscopic approaches. J Am Coll Surg 221:689–698CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 21.Polanco PM, Zenati MS, Hogg ME, Shakir M, Boone BA, Barlett DL, Zeh HJ, Zureikat AH (2016) An analysis of risk factors for pancreatic fistula after robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy: outcomes from a consecutive series of standardized pancreatic reconstructions. Surg Endosc 30:1523–1529CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 26.Bassi C, Dervenis C, Butturini G, Fingerhut A, Yeo C, Izbicki J, Neoptolemos J, Sarr M, Traverso W, Buchler M, for the International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistula (2005) Postoperative pancreatic fistula: an international study group (ISGPF) definition. Surgery 138:8–13CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 27.Pancreas Club Calculator ISGPS leak definition. Available at: http://pancreasclub.com/calculators/isgps-calculator/
- 28.Wente MN, Bassi C, Dervenis C, Fingerhut A, Gouma DJ, Izbicki JR, Neoptolemos JP, Padbury RT, Sarr MG, Traverso LW, Yeo CJ, Büchler MW (2007) Delayed gastric emptying (DGE) after pancreatic surgery: a suggested definition by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS). Surgery 142:761–768CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 46.McMillan MT, Soi S, Asbun HJ, Ball CG, Bassi C, Beane JD, Behrman SW, Berger AC, Bloomston M, Callery MP, Christein JD, Dixon E, Drebin JA, Fernandez-del Castillo C, Fisher WE, Ven Fong Z, House MG, Hughes SJ, Kent TS, Kunstman JW, Malleo G, Miller BC, Salem RR, Soares K, Valero V, Wolfgang CL, Vollmer CM (2016) Risk-adjusted outcomes of clinically relevant pancreatic fistula following pancreatoduodenectomy: a model for performance evaluation. Ann Surg 264:344–352CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 50.Halloran CM, Platt K, Gerard A, Polydoros F, O’Reilly DA, Gomez D, Smith A, Neoptolemos JP, Soonwalla Z, Taylor M, Blazeby JM, Ghaneh P (2016) PANasta Trial; Cattell Warren versus Blumgart techniques of panreatico-jejunostomy following pancreato-duodenectomy: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials 17:30CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar