Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 32, Issue 6, pp 2907–2913 | Cite as

Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: oncological outcomes

  • Ibrahim Nassour
  • Michael A. Choti
  • Matthew R. Porembka
  • Adam C. Yopp
  • Sam C. Wang
  • Patricio M. Polanco



Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) is being performed with increasing frequency for pancreatic cancer, but the most oncologically efficacious surgical platform, whether robotic or laparoscopic, is yet to be determined. Currently, there are no national studies comparing the oncological outcomes between robotic (RPD) and laparoscopic (LPD) pancreaticoduodenectomy.


This was a retrospective study using the National Cancer Database between 2010 and 2013. We compared the perioperative, pathological, and mid-term oncological outcomes between RPD and LPD.


There were 1623 MIPD cases, of which 90% were LPD and 10% were RPD. Most LPD (63%) and RPD (51%) cases were performed at institutions with a volume of ≤ 5 MIPDs per year. There were no differences in patient- and tumor-related factors between the groups. The majority of treated tumors were adenocarcinoma (90.1% for RPD and 89.1% for LPD). RPDs were more likely to be performed at academic centers (89.1%) compared to LPDs (68.1%, P < 0.001) and at higher-volume centers (median MIPD/year of 4.7 for RPD vs 3.6 for LPD, P < 0.001). There was no difference in the median number of examined lymph nodes, margin status, median length of stay, 90-day mortality, or 30-day readmission between groups. There was no difference in median overall survival for pancreatic adenocarcinoma between LPD (20.7 months) and RPD (22.7 months; log-rank P = 0.445). The 1- and 3-year overall survival rates were 74 and 31% for LPD and 71 and 33% for RPD.


In this national cohort of patients, LPD and RPD were associated with equivalent perioperative, pathological, and mid-term oncological outcomes.


Pancreaticoduodenectomy Laparoscopic Robotic Oncological outcome 



The authors would like to thank Dave Primm for his help in editing this manuscript and Helen Mayo from the UTSW Health Sciences Digital Library and Learning Center for assistance with literature searches.


Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health under award number UL1TR001105. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH.

Compliance with ethical standards


Ibrahim Nassour, Michael A. Choti, Matthew R. Porembka, Adam C. Yopp, Sam C.Wang, and Patricio M. Polanco have no other conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.


  1. 1.
    Song KB, Kim SC, Hwang DW, Lee JH, Lee DJ, Lee JW, Park K-M, Lee Y-J (2015) Matched case-control analysis comparing laparoscopic and open pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy in patients with periampullary tumors. Ann Surg 262:146–155CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tran TB, Dua MM, Worhunsky DJ, Poultsides GA, Norton JA, Visser BC (2016) The first decade of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy in the United States: costs and outcomes using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample. Surg Endosc 30:1778–1783CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Adam MA, Choudhury K, Dinan MA, Reed SD, Scheri RP, Blazer DG, Roman S (2015) Minimally invasive versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for cancer. Ann Surg 262:372–377CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Croome KP, Farnell MB, Que FG, Reid-Lombardo KM, Truty MJ, Nagorney DM, Kendrick M (2014) Total laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Ann Surg 260:633–640CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sharpe SM, Talamonti MS, Wang CE, Prinz RA, Roggin KK, Bentrem DJ, Winchester DJ, Marsh RD, Stocker SJ, Baker MS (2015) Early national experience with laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for ductal adenocarcinoma: a comparison of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy and open pancreaticoduodenectomy from the National Cancer Data Base. J Am Coll Surg 221:175–184CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baker EH, Ross SW, Seshadri R, Swan RZ, Iannitti DA, Vrochides D, Martinie JB (2016) Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy: comparison of complications and cost to the open approach. Int J Med Robot 12:554–560CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Stauffer JA, Coppola A, Villacreses D, Mody K, Johnson E, Li Z, Asbun HJ (2016) Laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma: long-term results at a single institution. Surg Endosc 31:2233–2241CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zureikat AH, Postlewait LM, Liu Y, Gillespie TW, Weber SM, Abbott DE, Ahmad SA, Maithel SK, Hogg ME, Zenati M, Cho CS, Salem A, Xia B, Steve J, Nguyen TK, Keshava HB, Chalikonda S, Walsh RM, Talamonti MS, Stocker SJ, Bentrem DJ, Lumpkin S, Kim HJ, Zeh HJ 3rd, Kooby DA (2016) A multi-institutional comparison of perioperative outcomes of robotic and open pancreaticoduodenectomy. Ann Surg 264:640–649Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tee MC, Croome KP, Shubert CR, Farnell MB, Truty MJ, Que FG, Reid-Lombardo KM, Smoot RL, Nagorney DM, Kendrick ML (2015) Laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy does not completely mitigate increased perioperative risks in elderly patients. HPB (Oxford) 17:909–918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    McMillan MT, Zureikat AH, Hogg ME, Kowalsky SJ, Zeh HJ, Sprys MH, Vollmer CM Jr (2016) A propensity score–matched analysis of robotic vs open pancreatoduodenectomy on incidence of pancreatic fistula. JAMA Surg 152:327–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Asbun HJ, Stauffer JA (2012) Laparoscopic vs open pancreaticoduodenectomy: overall outcomes and severity of complications using the Accordion Severity Grading System. J Am Coll Surg 215:810–819CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nassour I, Wang SC, Christie A, Augustine MM, Porembka MR, Yopp AC, Choti MA, Mansour JC, Xie XJ, Polanco PM, Minter RM (2017) Minimally invasive versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: a propensity-matched study from a national cohort of patients. Ann Surg.
  13. 13.
    Nassour I, Wang SC, Porembka MR, Yopp AC, Choti MA, Augustine MM, Polanco PM, Mansour JC, Minter RM (2017) Robotic versus laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a NSQIP analysis. J Gastrointest Surg 21:1784–1792Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Liu R, Zhang T, Zhao Z-M, Tan XL, Zhao GD, Zhang X, Xu Y (2016) The surgical outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy versus laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary neoplasms: a comparative study of a single center. Surg Endosc 31:2380–2386CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Park EJ, Cho MS, Baek SJ, Hur H, Min BS, Baik SH, Lee KY, Kim NK (2015) Long-term oncologic outcomes of robotic low anterior resection for rectal cancer. Ann Surg 261:129–137CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tsung A, Geller DA, Sukato DC, Sabbaghian S, Tohme S, Steel J, Marsh W, Reddy SK, Bartlett DL (2014) Robotic versus laparoscopic hepatectomy: a matched comparison. Ann Surg 259:549–555CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Xie W, Cao D, Yang J, Shen K, Zhao L (2016) Robot-assisted surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for endometrial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 142:2173–2183CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nassour I, Polanco PM (2016) Minimally invasive liver surgery for hepatic colorectal metastases. Curr Colorectal Cancer Rep 12:103–112CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Daouadi M, Zureikat AH, Zenati MS, Choudry H, Tsung A, Bartlett DL, Hughes SJ, Lee KK, Moser AJ, Zeh HJ (2013) Robot-assisted minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy is superior to the laparoscopic technique. Ann Surg 257:128–132CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Park JM, Kim HI, Han SU, Yang HK, Kim YW, Lee HJ, An JY, Kim MC, Park S, Song KY, Oh SJ, Kong SH, Suh BJ, Yang DH, Ha TK, Hyung WJ, Ryu KW (2016) Who may benefit from robotic gastrectomy? A subgroup analysis of multicenter prospective comparative study data on robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy. Eur J Surg Oncol 42:1944–1949CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    American College of Surgeons (2016) National Cancer Database. Accessed 4 Jul 2016
  22. 22.
    Allan C, Ilic D (2016) Laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy for the treatment of localised prostate cancer: a systematic review. Urol Int 96:373–378CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shiomi A, Kinugasa Y, Yamaguchi T, Kagawa H, Yamakawa Y (2016) Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic surgery for lower rectal cancer: the impact of visceral obesity on surgical outcomes. Int J Colorectal Dis 31:1701–1710CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Salehi S, Åvall-Lundqvist E, Legerstam B, Carlson JW, Falconer H (2017) Robot-assisted laparoscopy versus laparotomy for infrarenal paraaortic lymphadenectomy in women with high-risk endometrial cancer: a randomised controlled trial. Eur J Cancer 79:81–89CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mason MC, Tran Cao HS, Awad SS, Farjah F, Chang GJ, Massarweh NN (2017) Hospital minimally invasive surgery utilization for gastrointestinal cancer. Ann Surg.
  26. 26.
    de Rooij T, van Hilst J, Boerma D, Bonsing BA, Daams F, van Dam RM, Dijkgraaf MG, van Eijck CH, Festen S, Gerhards MF, Koerkamp BG, van der Harst E, de Hingh IH, Kazemier G, Klaase J, de Kleine RH, van Laarhoven CJ, Lips DJ, Luyer MD, Molenaar IQ, Patijn GA, Roos D, Scheepers JJ, van der Schelling GP, Steenvoorde P, Vriens MR, Wijsman JH, Gouma DJ, Busch OR, Hilal MA, Besselink MG; Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group (2016) Impact of a nationwide training program in minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (LAELAPS). Ann Surg 264:754–762CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Adam MA, Thomas S, Youngwirth L, Pappas T, Roman SA, Sosa JA (2017) Defining a hospital volume threshold for minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy in the United States. JAMA Surg 152:336–337CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ahola R, Siiki A, Vasama K, Vornanen M, Sand J, Laukkarinen J (2017) Effect of centralization on long-term survival after resection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Br J Surg 150:701–707Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of SurgeryUniversity of Texas Southwestern Medical CenterDallasUSA
  2. 2.Department of Veterans Affairs North Texas Health Care SystemDallasUSA

Personalised recommendations