7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      ROBOTIC ASSISTED VERSUS LAPAROSCOPIC DISTAL PANCREATECTOMY: A RETROSPECTIVE STUDY Translated title: PANCREATECTOMIA DISTAL ROBÓTICA VERSUS LAPAROSCÓPICA: UM ESTUDO RETROSPECTIVO

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          ABSTRACT

          BACKGROUND:

          Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) is associated with less blood loss and faster functional recovery. However, the benefits of robotic assisted distal pancreatectomy (RDP) over laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) are unknown.

          AIMS:

          To compare RDP versus LDP for surgical treatment of benign lesions, pre-malignant and borderline malignant pancreatic neoplasias.

          METHODS:

          This is a retrospective study comparing LDP with RDP. Main outcomes were overall morbidity and overall costs. Secondary outcomes were pancreatic fistula (PF), infectious complications, readmission, operative time (OT) and length of hospital stay (LOS).

          RESULTS:

          Thirty patients submitted to LDP and 29 submitted to RDP were included in the study. There was no difference regarding preoperative characteristics. There was no difference regarding overall complications (RDP – 72,4% versus LDP – 80%, p=0,49). Costs were superior for patients submitted to RDP (RDP=US$ 6,688 versus LDP=US$ 6,149, p=0,02), mostly due to higher costs of surgical materials (RDP=US$ 2,364 versus LDP=1,421, p=0,00005). Twenty-one patients submitted to RDP and 24 to LDP developed pancreatic fistula (PF), but only 4 RDP and 7 LDP experienced infectious complications associated with PF. OT (RDP=224 min. versus LDP=213 min., p=0.36) was similar, as well as conversion to open procedure (1 RDP and 2 LDP).

          CONCLUSIONS:

          The postoperative morbidity of robotic distal pancreatectomy is comparable to laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. However, the costs of robotic distal pancreatectomy are slightly higher.

          RESUMO

          RACIONAL:

          A pancreatectomia distal minimamente invasiva (PDMI) está associada a menos perda sanguínea e recuperação funcional mais rápida, no entanto, os benefícios da pancreatectomia distal robótica (PDR) são desconhecidos quando comparada a pancreatectomia distal laparoscópica (PDL).

          OBJETIVOS:

          Comparar PDR versus PDL no tratamento cirúrgico de lesões benignas, neoplasias pancreáticas malignas, pré-malignas e limítrofes.

          MÉTODOS:

          Estudo retrospectivo comparando PDL com PDR. Os desfechos primários avaliados foram morbidade e custos hospitalares. Os desfechos secundários foram fístula pancreática (FP), complicações infecciosas, readmissão, tempo cirúrgico e tempo de internação hospitalar (TIH).

          RESULTADOS:

          Trinta pacientes submetidos a PDL e 29 submetidos a PDR foram incluídos no estudo. Não houve diferença em relação às características pré-operatórias. Não houve diferença em relação às complicações gerais (PDL – 72,4% versus PRD – 80%, p=0,49). Os custos foram superiores para PDR (PDR=US$ 6688 versus PDL=US$ 6149, p=0,02), principalmente devido aos custos mais elevados de materiais cirúrgicos (PDR=US$ 2364 versus PDL=1421, p=0,00005). Vinte e um pacientes submetidos a PDR e 24 submetidos a PDL desenvolveram fístula pancreática (PF), no entanto, apenas 4 submetidos PDR e 7 a PDL apresentaram complicações infecciosas associadas a FP. O tempo cirúrgico (PDR=224 min. versus PDL=213 min., p=0,36) e a conversão para cirurgia aberta (1 PDR e 2 PDL) não tiveram diferença estatística.

          CONCLUSÕES:

          A morbidade pós operatória da pancreatectomia distal robótica é comparável à pancreatectomia distal laparoscópica. Entretando, os custos da pancreatectomia distal robótica são mais elevados.

          Related collections

          Most cited references43

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey.

          Although quality assessment is gaining increasing attention, there is still no consensus on how to define and grade postoperative complications. This shortcoming hampers comparison of outcome data among different centers and therapies and over time. A classification of complications published by one of the authors in 1992 was critically re-evaluated and modified to increase its accuracy and its acceptability in the surgical community. Modifications mainly focused on the manner of reporting life-threatening and permanently disabling complications. The new grading system still mostly relies on the therapy used to treat the complication. The classification was tested in a cohort of 6336 patients who underwent elective general surgery at our institution. The reproducibility and personal judgment of the classification were evaluated through an international survey with 2 questionnaires sent to 10 surgical centers worldwide. The new ranking system significantly correlated with complexity of surgery (P < 0.0001) as well as with the length of the hospital stay (P < 0.0001). A total of 144 surgeons from 10 different centers around the world and at different levels of training returned the survey. Ninety percent of the case presentations were correctly graded. The classification was considered to be simple (92% of the respondents), reproducible (91%), logical (92%), useful (90%), and comprehensive (89%). The answers of both questionnaires were not dependent on the origin of the reply and the level of training of the surgeons. The new complication classification appears reliable and may represent a compelling tool for quality assessment in surgery in all parts of the world.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The 2016 update of the International Study Group (ISGPS) definition and grading of postoperative pancreatic fistula: 11 Years After.

            In 2005, the International Study Group of Pancreatic Fistula developed a definition and grading of postoperative pancreatic fistula that has been accepted universally. Eleven years later, because postoperative pancreatic fistula remains one of the most relevant and harmful complications of pancreatic operation, the International Study Group of Pancreatic Fistula classification has become the gold standard in defining postoperative pancreatic fistula in clinical practice. The aim of the present report is to verify the value of the International Study Group of Pancreatic Fistula definition and grading of postoperative pancreatic fistula and to update the International Study Group of Pancreatic Fistula classification in light of recent evidence that has emerged, as well as to address the lingering controversies about the original definition and grading of postoperative pancreatic fistula.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Laparoscopic pylorus-preserving pancreatoduodenectomy.

              A case of chronic pancreatitis localized in the head of the pancreas with pancreas divisum was treated by laparoscopic pylorus-preserving pancreatoduodenectomy. The laparoscopic technique of resection and reconstruction with a gastrojejunostomy, hepaticojejunostomy, and pancreaticojejunostomy is described. The postoperative period was complicated by a jejunal ulcer and delayed gastric emptying necessitating a prolonged hospitalization and intravenous hyperalimentation. No fistulas occurred, a follow-up CT scan revealed no pancreatic abnormalities, and the patient was discharged in good condition on the 30th postoperative day. Although technically feasible, the laparoscopic Whipple procedure may not improve the postoperative outcome or shorten the postoperative recovery period.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Arq Bras Cir Dig
                Arq Bras Cir Dig
                abcd
                Arquivos Brasileiros de Cirurgia Digestiva : ABCD
                Colégio Brasileiro de Cirurgia Digestiva
                0102-6720
                2317-6326
                08 December 2023
                2023
                : 36
                : e1783
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo State Cancer Institute, Department of Gastroenterology – São Paulo (SP), Brazil.
                [2 ]Univesidade de São Paulo, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Gastroenterology – São Paulo (SP), Brazil.
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Guilherme Naccache Namur. E-mail: guilherme.namur@ 123456hc.fm.usp.br

                Conflict of interest: None

                Editorial Support: National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq).

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6252-6532
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8102-6568
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9399-0917
                http://orcid.org/0009-0001-0302-0475
                http://orcid.org/0009-0006-8334-4846
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3943-7088
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1711-7347
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3535-4170
                Article
                00342
                10.1590/0102-672020230065e1783
                10712921
                38088728
                d44ef395-c880-41ac-87c0-35476bb96c08

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License

                History
                : 02 July 2023
                : 22 September 2023
                Page count
                Figures: 01, Tables: 03, References: 35
                Categories
                Original Article

                pancreatectomy,robotic surgical procedures,costs and cost analysis,laparoscopy,morbidity,pancreatectomia,procedimentos cirúrgicos robóticos,custos e análise de custo,laparoscopia,morbidade

                Comments

                Comment on this article