Browse by author
Lookup NU author(s): Nathania Sutandi, Jeremy French, Steven White
Full text for this publication is not currently held within this repository. Alternative links are provided below where available.
© 2019 International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association Inc. Background: Robotic surgery offers theoretical advantages to conventional laparoscopic surgery including improved instrument dexterity, 3D visualization and better ergonomics. This review aimed to determine if these theoretical advantages translate into improved patient outcomes in patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy through laparoscopic (LDP) or robotic (RDP) approaches. Method: A systematic literature search was conducted for studies reporting minimally invasive surgery for distal pancreatectomy. Meta-analysis of intraoperative (blood loss, operating times, conversion and R0 resections) and postoperative outcomes (overall complications, pancreatic fistula, length of hospital stay) was performed using random effects models. Result: Twenty non-randomised studies including 3112 patients (793 robotic and 2319 laparoscopic) were considered appropriate for inclusion. LDP had significantly shorter operating time than RDP (mean: 28, p < 0.001) but no significant difference in blood loss (mean: 52 mL, p = 0.07). RDP was associated with significantly lower conversion rates than LDP (OR 0.48, p < 0.001), but no difference in spleen preservation rate and R0 resection. There were no significant differences in overall and major complications, overall and high-grade pancreatic fistula. However, RDP was associated with a shorter length of hospital stay (mean: 1, p < 0.001). Conclusion: Robotic distal pancreatectomy appears to offer some advantages compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery, although both techniques appear equivalent. Importantly, the quality of evidence is generally limited to cohort studies and a high-quality randomised trial comparing both techniques are needed.
Author(s): Kamarajah SK, Sutandi N, Robinson SR, French JJ, White SA
Publication type: Review
Publication status: Published
Journal: HPB
Year: 2019
Volume: 21
Issue: 9
Pages: 1107-1118
Print publication date: 01/09/2019
Online publication date: 05/04/2019
Acceptance date: 18/02/2019
ISSN (print): 1365-182X
ISSN (electronic): 1477-2574
Publisher: Elsevier B.V.
URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hpb.2019.02.020
DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2019.02.020
