Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Safety and efficacy of robot-assisted versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: a meta-analysis of multiple worldwide centers

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Updates in Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The objective of the study is to compare the safety and efficacy of robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) with open PD. The PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases were searched for the literature available from their respective inception dates up to May 2020 to find studies comparing robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) with open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD). The RevMan 5.3 statistical software was used for analysis to evaluate surgical outcome and oncology safety. The combination ratio (RR) and weighted mean difference (WMD) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using fixed-effect or random effect models. 18 cohort studies from 16 medical centers were eligible with a total of 5795 patients including 1420 RPD group patients and 4375 OPD group patients. The RPD group fared better than the OPD group in terms of estimated blood loss (EBL) (WMD = − 175.65, 95% CI (− 251.85, − 99.44), P < 0.00001), wound infection rate (RR = 0.60, 95% CI (0.44, 0.81), P = 0.001), reoperation rate (RR = 0.61, 95% CI (0.41, 0.91), P = 0.02), hospital day (WMD = − 2.95, 95% CI (− 5.33, − 0.56), P = 0.02), intraoperative blood transfusion (RR = 0.56, 95% CI (0.42, 0.76), P = 0.0001), overall complications (RR = 0.78, 95% CI (0.64, 0.95), P = 0.01), and clinical postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) (RR = 0.54, 95% CI (0.41, 0.70), P < 0.0001). In terms of lymph node clearance (WMD = 0.48, 95% CI (− 2.05, 3.02), P = 0.71), R0 rate (RR = 1.05, 95% CI (1.00, 1.11), P = 0.05), postoperative pancreatic fistula (RR = 1, 95% CI (0.85, 1.19), P = 0.97), bile leakage (RR = 0.99, 95% CI (0.54, 1.83), P = 0.98), delayed gastric emptying (DGE) (RR = 0.79, 95% CI (0.60, 1.03), P = 0.08), 90-day mortality (RR = 0.82, 95% CI (0.62, 1.10), P = 0.19), and severe complications (RR = 0.98, 95% CI (0.71, 1.36), P = 0.91), and there were no significant differences between the two groups. Robotic surgery was inferior to open surgery in terms of operational time (WMD = 80.85, 95% CI (16.09, 145.61), P = 0.01). RPD is not inferior to OPD, and it is even more advantageous for EBL, wound infection rate, reoperation rate, hospital stay, intraoperative transfusion, overall complications and clinical POPF. However, these findings need to be further verified by high-quality randomized controlled trials.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Giulianotti PC, Coratti A, Angelini M et al (2003) Robotics in general surgery: personal experience in a large community hospital. Arch Surg 138(7):777–784

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Baimas-George M, Watson M, Murphy KJ et al (2020) Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy may offer improved oncologic outcomes over open surgery: a propensity-matched single-institution study. Surg Endosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-020-07564-x (published online ahead of print, 2020 Apr 23)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Baker EH, Ross SW, Seshadri R et al (2016) Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy: comparison of cs and cost to the open approach. Int J Med Robot 12(3):554–560

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bao PQ, Mazirka PO, Watkins KT (2014) Retrospective comparison of robot-assisted minimally invasive versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary neoplasms. J Gastrointest Surg 18(4):682–689

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Boggi U, Napoli N, Costa F et al (2016) Robotic-assisted pancreatic resections. World J Surg 40(10):2497–2506

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Buchs NC, Addeo P, Bianco FM, Ayloo S, Benedetti E, Giulianotti PC (2011) Robotic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: a comparative study at a single institution. World J Surg 35(12):2739–2746

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Cai J, Ramanathan R, Zenati MS et al (2020) Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy is associated with decreased clinically relevant pancreatic fistulas: a propensity-matched analysis. J Gastrointest Surg 24(5):1111–1118

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Chalikonda S, Aguilar-Saavedra JR, Walsh RM (2012) Laparoscopic robotic-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy: a case-matched comparison with open resection. Surg Endosc 26(9):2397–2402

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Chen S, Chen JZ, Zhan Q et al (2015) Robot-assisted laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: a prospective, matched, mid-term follow-up study. Surg Endosc 29(12):3698–3711

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Gall TM, Pencavel TD, Cunningham D, Nicol D, Jiao LR (2020) Transition from open and laparoscopic to robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy in a UK tertiary referral hepatobiliary and pancreatic centre— Early experience of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. HPB (Oxford) (published online ahead of print, 2020 Apr 1)

  11. Girgis MD, Zenati MS, King JC et al (2019) Oncologic outcomes after robotic pancreatic resections are not inferior to open surgery. Ann Surg. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000003615 (published online ahead of print, 2019 Oct 28)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Ielpo B, Caruso R, Duran H et al (2019) Robotic versus standard open pancreatectomy: a propensity score-matched analysis comparison. Updates Surg 71(1):137–144

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Jin JB, Qin K, Yang Y et al (2020) Robotic pancreatectomy for solid pseudopapillary tumors in the pancreatic head: a propensity score-matched comparison and analysis from a single center. Asian J Surg 43(1):354–361

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kauffmann EF, Napoli N, Menonna F et al (2019) A propensity score-matched analysis of robotic versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer based on margin status. Surg Endosc 33(1):234–242

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kim HS, Han Y, Kang JS et al (2018) Comparison of surgical outcomes between open and robot-assisted minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 25(2):142–149 (published correction appears in J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2018 Apr;25(4):254)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kowalsky SJ, Zenati MS, Steve J et al (2019) A combination of robotic approach and ERAS pathway optimizes outcomes and cost for pancreatoduodenectomy. Ann Surg 269(6):1138–1145

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Lai EC, Yang GP, Tang CN (2012) Robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy—a comparative study. Int J Surg 10(9):475–479

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Marino MV, Podda M, Gomez Ruiz M, Fernandez CC, Guarrasi D, Gomez FM (2020) Robotic-assisted versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: the results of a case-matched comparison. J Robot Surg 14(3):493–502

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. McMillan MT, Zureikat AH, Hogg ME et al (2017) A propensity score-matched analysis of robotic vs open pancreatoduodenectomy on incidence of pancreatic fistula. JAMA Surg 152(4):327–335

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Mejia A, Shah J, Vivian E, Acharya P (2020) Analysis of 102 fully robotic pancreaticoduodenectomies: clinical and financial outcomes. Pancreas 49(5):668–674

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Napoli N, Kauffmann EF, Menonna F et al (2018) Robotic versus open pancreatoduodenectomy: a propensity score-matched analysis based on factors predictive of postoperative pancreatic fistula. Surg Endosc 32(3):1234–1247

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Shi Y, Jin J, Qiu W et al (2020) Short-term outcomes after robot-assisted vs open pancreaticoduodenectomy after the learning curve. JAMA Surg. 155(5):1–6 (published online ahead of print, 2020 Mar 4)

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Tan JKH, Ng JJ, Yeo M et al (2019) Propensity score-matched analysis of early outcomes after laparoscopic-assisted versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy. ANZ J Surg 89(5):E190–E194

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Varley PR, Zenati MS, Klobuka A et al (2019) Does robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy improve outcomes in patients with high risk morphometric features compared to the open approach. HPB (Oxford) 21(6):695–701

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Zhou NX, Chen JZ, Liu Q et al (2011) Outcomes of pancreatoduodenectomy with robotic surgery versus open surgery. Int J Med Robot 7(2):131–137

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Zureikat AH, Postlewait LM, Liu Y et al (2016) A multi-institutional comparison of perioperative outcomes of robotic and open pancreaticoduodenectomy. Ann Surg 264(4):640–649

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Whipple AO, Parsons WB, Mullins CR (1935) Treatment of carcinoma of the ampulla of vater. Ann Surg 102(4):763–779

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Peng L, Lin S, Li Y, Xiao W (2017) Systematic review and meta-analysis of robotic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy. Surg Endosc 31(8):3085–3097

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Podda M, Gerardi C, Di Saverio S et al (2020) Robotic-assisted versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for patients with benign and malignant periampullary disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of short-term outcomes. Surg Endosc 34(6):2390–2409

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Yan Q, Xu LB, Ren ZF, Liu C (2020) Robotic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: a meta-analysis of short-term outcomes. Surg Endosc 34(2):501–509

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Zhao W, Liu C, Li S, Geng D, Feng Y, Sun M (2018) Safety and efficacy for robot-assisted versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Oncol 27(3):468–478

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Abraham NS, Byrne CJ, Young JM, Solomon MJ (2010) Meta-analysis of well-designed nonrandomized comparative studies of surgical procedures is as good as randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol 63(3):238–245

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Longnecker MP (1995) Re: “Point/counterpoint: meta-analysis of observational studies.” Am J Epidemiol 142(7):779–782

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Gouma DJ, van Geenen RC, van Gulik TM et al (2000) Rates of complications and death after pancreaticoduodenectomy: risk factors and the impact of hospital volume. Ann Surg 232(6):786–795

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Lim JE, Chien MW, Earle CC (2003) Prognostic factors following curative resection for pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a population-based, linked database analysis of 396 patients. Ann Surg 237(1):74–85

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Burke EE, Marmor S, Virnig BA, Tuttle TM, Jensen EH (2015) Lymph node evaluation for pancreatic adenocarcinoma and its value as a quality metric. J Gastrointest Surg 19(12):2162–2170

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Slidell MB, Chang DC, Cameron JL et al (2008) Impact of total lymph node count and lymph node ratio on staging and survival after pancreatectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a large, population-based analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 15(1):165–174

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This research was supported by Sanming Project of Medicine in Shenzhen (No. SZSM 201911008).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pancreatic and Gastric Surgery, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, 17 Panjiayuan Nanli, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100021, China

    Wei Zhang, Jianwei Zhang & Xu Che

  2. Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital and Shenzhen Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Shenzhen, 518116, China

    Zhangkan Huang & Xu Che

Authors
  1. Wei Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Zhangkan Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jianwei Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Xu Che
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

WZ was responsible for drafting the manuscript, as well as the acquisition, analysis and interpretation of data. ZH, JZ and XC contributed to the conception and design of the current study. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xu Che.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

Research involving human participants and/or animals

Not applicable.

Informed consent

Not applicable.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhang, W., Huang, Z., Zhang, J. et al. Safety and efficacy of robot-assisted versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: a meta-analysis of multiple worldwide centers. Updates Surg 73, 893–907 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-020-00912-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-020-00912-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation