Toggle Main Menu Toggle Search

Open Access padlockePrints

Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy a systematic review and meta-analysis

Lookup NU author(s): Professor Derek Manas, Steven White


Full text for this publication is not currently held within this repository. Alternative links are provided below where available.


© 2019Background: Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) 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 comparing patients having either robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy or laparoscopic (LPD) equivalent. Method: A systematic literature search was conducted for studies reporting minimally invasive surgery for pancreaticoduodenectomy either robotic assisted or totally laparoscopic. Meta-analysis of intra-operative (blood loss, operating times, conversion and R0 resections) and postoperative outcomes (overall complications, pancreatic fistula, length of hospital stay) was performed using a random effects model. Result: This review identified 44 studies, of which six were non-randomised comparative studies including 3462 patients (1025 robotic and 2437 laparoscopic). Intraoperatively, RPD was associated with significantly lower conversion rates (OR 0.45, p < 0.001) and transfusion rates (OR: 0.60, p = 0.002) compared to LPD. However, no significant difference in blood loss (mean: 220 vs 287 mL, p = 0.1), operating time (mean: 405 vs 418 min, p = 0.3) was noted. Postoperatively RPD was associated with a shorter hospital stay (mean: 12 vs 11 days, p < 0.001) but no significant difference was noted in postoperative complications, incidence of pancreatic fistulae and R0 resection rates. Conclusion: RPD appears to offer some advantages compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery, although both approaches appear to offer equivalent clinical outcomes. Importantly, the quality of evidence is generally limited to cohort studies and a high-quality randomised trial comparing both techniques is needed.

Publication metadata

Author(s): Kamarajah SK, Bundred J, Marc OS, Jiao LR, Manas D, Hilal MA, White SA

Publication type: Review

Publication status: Published

Journal: European Journal of Surgical Oncology

Year: 2020

Volume: 46

Issue: 1

Pages: 6-14

Print publication date: 01/01/2020

Online publication date: 07/08/2019

Acceptance date: 06/08/2019

ISSN (print): 0748-7983

ISSN (electronic): 1532-2157

Publisher: W.B. Saunders Ltd

URL: showArticle Info

DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2019.08.007