Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: oncological outcomes
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.
KeywordsPancreaticoduodenectomy 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.
- 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
- 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
- 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. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000002259
- 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.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
- 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.American College of Surgeons (2016) National Cancer Database. https://www.facs.org/quality%20programs/cancer/ncdb. Accessed 4 Jul 2016
- 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. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000002302
- 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
- 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