Comparing oncologic and surgical outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy in patients with pancreatic cancer: a propensity-matched analysis

被引:7
作者
Wehrle, Chase J. [1 ]
Chang, Jenny H. [1 ]
Gross, Abby R. [1 ]
Woo, Kimberly [1 ]
Naples, Robert [1 ]
Stackhouse, Kathryn A. [1 ]
Dahdaleh, Fadi [2 ]
Augustin, Toms [1 ]
Joyce, Daniel [1 ]
Simon, Robert [1 ]
Walsh, R. Matthew [1 ]
Naffouje, Samer A. [1 ]
机构
[1] Cleveland Clin Fdn, Dept Gen Surg, 9500 Euclid Ave, Cleveland, OH 44195 USA
[2] Edward Elmhurst Hlth, Dept Surg Oncol, Naperville, IL USA
来源
SURGICAL ENDOSCOPY AND OTHER INTERVENTIONAL TECHNIQUES | 2024年 / 38卷 / 05期
基金
英国科研创新办公室;
关键词
Pancreatoduodenectomy; Minimally invasive surgery; Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma; Robotic surgery; Laparoscopic surgery; MINIMALLY INVASIVE PANCREATICODUODENECTOMY; HOSPITAL VOLUME; GENERAL-SURGERY; LEARNING-CURVE; EXPERIENCE; CARCINOMA;
D O I
10.1007/s00464-024-10783-1
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
IntroductionMinimally invasive Pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD), or the Whipple procedure, is increasingly utilized. No study has compared laparoscopic (LPD) and robotic (RPD) approaches, and the impact of the learning curve on oncologic, technical, and post-operative outcomes remains relatively understudied.MethodsThe National Cancer Database was queried for patients undergoing LPD or RPD from 2010 to 2020 with a diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. Outcomes were compared between approaches using propensity-score matching (PSM); the impact of annual center-level volume of MIPD was also assessed by dividing volume into quartiles.ResultsA total of 3,342 patients were included. Most (n = 2,716, 81.3%) underwent LPD versus RPD (n = 626, 18.7%). There was a high rate (20.2%, n = 719) of positive margins. Mean length-of-stay (LOS) was 10.4 +/- 8.9 days. Thirty-day mortality was 2.8% (n = 92) and ninety-day mortality was 5.7% (n = 189).PSM matched 625 pairs of patients receiving LPD or RPD. After PSM, there was no differences between groups based on age, sex, race, CCI, T-stage, neoadjuvant chemo/radiotherapy, or type of PD. After PSM, there was a higher rate of conversion to open (HR = 0.68, 95%CI = 0.50-0.92)., but there was no difference in LOS (HR = 1.00, 95%CI = 0.92-1.11), 30-day readmission (HR = 1.08, 95% CI = 0.68-1.71), 30-day (HR = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.39-1.56) or 90-day mortality (HR = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.42-1.16), ability to receive adjuvant therapy (HR = 1.15, 95% CI = 0.92-1.44), nodal harvest (HR = 1.01, 95%CI = 0.94-1.09) or positive margins (HR = 1.19, 95% CI = 0.89-1.59).Centers in lower quartiles of annual volume of MIPD demonstrated reduced nodal harvest (p = 0.005) and a higher rate of conversion to open (p = 0.038). Higher-volume centers had a shorter LOS (p = 0.012), higher rate of initiation of adjuvant therapy (p = 0.042), and, most strikingly, a reduction in 90-day mortality (p = 0.033).ResultsA total of 3,342 patients were included. Most (n = 2,716, 81.3%) underwent LPD versus RPD (n = 626, 18.7%). There was a high rate (20.2%, n = 719) of positive margins. Mean length-of-stay (LOS) was 10.4 +/- 8.9 days. Thirty-day mortality was 2.8% (n = 92) and ninety-day mortality was 5.7% (n = 189).PSM matched 625 pairs of patients receiving LPD or RPD. After PSM, there was no differences between groups based on age, sex, race, CCI, T-stage, neoadjuvant chemo/radiotherapy, or type of PD. After PSM, there was a higher rate of conversion to open (HR = 0.68, 95%CI = 0.50-0.92)., but there was no difference in LOS (HR = 1.00, 95%CI = 0.92-1.11), 30-day readmission (HR = 1.08, 95% CI = 0.68-1.71), 30-day (HR = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.39-1.56) or 90-day mortality (HR = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.42-1.16), ability to receive adjuvant therapy (HR = 1.15, 95% CI = 0.92-1.44), nodal harvest (HR = 1.01, 95%CI = 0.94-1.09) or positive margins (HR = 1.19, 95% CI = 0.89-1.59).Centers in lower quartiles of annual volume of MIPD demonstrated reduced nodal harvest (p = 0.005) and a higher rate of conversion to open (p = 0.038). Higher-volume centers had a shorter LOS (p = 0.012), higher rate of initiation of adjuvant therapy (p = 0.042), and, most strikingly, a reduction in 90-day mortality (p = 0.033).ResultsA total of 3,342 patients were included. Most (n = 2,716, 81.3%) underwent LPD versus RPD (n = 626, 18.7%). There was a high rate (20.2%, n = 719) of positive margins. Mean length-of-stay (LOS) was 10.4 +/- 8.9 days. Thirty-day mortality was 2.8% (n = 92) and ninety-day mortality was 5.7% (n = 189).PSM matched 625 pairs of patients receiving LPD or RPD. After PSM, there was no differences between groups based on age, sex, race, CCI, T-stage, neoadjuvant chemo/radiotherapy, or type of PD. After PSM, there was a higher rate of conversion to open (HR = 0.68, 95%CI = 0.50-0.92)., but there was no difference in LOS (HR = 1.00, 95%CI = 0.92-1.11), 30-day readmission (HR = 1.08, 95% CI = 0.68-1.71), 30-day (HR = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.39-1.56) or 90-day mortality (HR = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.42-1.16), ability to receive adjuvant therapy (HR = 1.15, 95% CI = 0.92-1.44), nodal harvest (HR = 1.01, 95%CI = 0.94-1.09) or positive margins (HR = 1.19, 95% CI = 0.89-1.59).Centers in lower quartiles of annual volume of MIPD demonstrated reduced nodal harvest (p = 0.005) and a higher rate of conversion to open (p = 0.038). Higher-volume centers had a shorter LOS (p = 0.012), higher rate of initiation of adjuvant therapy (p = 0.042), and, most strikingly, a reduction in 90-day mortality (p = 0.033).ConclusionLPD and RPD have similar surgical and oncologic outcomes, with a lower rate of conversion to open in the robotic cohort. The robotic technique does not appear to eliminate the "learning curve", with higher volume centers demonstrating improved outcomes, especially seen at minimum annual volume of 5 cases.
引用
收藏
页码:2602 / 2610
页数:9
相关论文
共 34 条
  • [21] Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy: a NSQIP Analysis
    Nassour, Ibrahim
    Wang, Sam C.
    Porembka, Matthew R.
    Yopp, Adam C.
    Choti, Michael A.
    Augustine, Mathew M.
    Polanco, Patricio M.
    Mansour, John C.
    Minter, Rebecca M.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF GASTROINTESTINAL SURGERY, 2017, 21 (11) : 1784 - 1792
  • [22] Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy: An Up-To-Date System Review and Meta-Analysis
    Ouyang, Lanwei
    Zhang, Jia
    Feng, Qingbo
    Zhang, Zhiguang
    Ma, Hexing
    Zhang, Guodong
    [J]. FRONTIERS IN ONCOLOGY, 2022, 12
  • [23] Robotic Pancreaticoduodenectomy Is the Future: Here and Now
    Rosemurgy, Alexander
    Ross, Sharona
    Bourdeau, Timothy
    Craigg, Danielle
    Spence, Janelle
    Alvior, Joshua
    Sucandy, Iswanto
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF SURGEONS, 2019, 228 (04) : 613 - 624
  • [24] Effect of Hospital Volume, Surgeon Experience, and Surgeon Volume on Patient Outcomes After Pancreaticoduodenectomy
    Schmidt, C. Max
    Turrini, Olivier
    Parikh, Purvi
    House, Michael G.
    Zyromski, Nicholas J.
    Nakeeb, Atilla
    Howard, Thomas J.
    Pitt, Henry A.
    Lillemoe, Keith D.
    [J]. ARCHIVES OF SURGERY, 2010, 145 (07) : 634 - 640
  • [25] Trends in the Adoption of Robotic Surgery for Common Surgical Procedures
    Sheetz, Kyle H.
    Claflin, Jake
    Dimick, Justin B.
    [J]. JAMA NETWORK OPEN, 2020, 3 (01)
  • [26] Sola Richard Jr, 2016, J Vis Surg, V2, P126, DOI 10.21037/jovs.2016.07.06
  • [27] Laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma: long-term results at a single institution
    Stauffer, John A.
    Coppola, Alessandro
    Villacreses, Diego
    Mody, Kabir
    Johnson, Elizabeth
    Li, Zhuo
    Asbun, Horacio J.
    [J]. SURGICAL ENDOSCOPY AND OTHER INTERVENTIONAL TECHNIQUES, 2017, 31 (05): : 2233 - 2241
  • [28] The learning curve in pancreatic surgery (vol 141, pg 456, 2007)
    Tseng, Jennifer F.
    Pisters, Peter W. T.
    Lee, Jeffrey E.
    Wang, Huamin
    Gomez, Henry F.
    Sun, Charlotte C.
    Evans, Douglas B.
    [J]. SURGERY, 2007, 141 (05) : 694 - 701
  • [29] Robotic Whipple for pancreatic ductal and ampullary adenocarcinoma: 10 years experience of aUSsingle-center
    Valle, Valentina
    Fernandes, Eduardo
    Mangano, Alberto
    Aguiluz, Gabriela
    Bustos, Roberto
    Bianco, Francesco
    Giulianotti, Pier Cristoforo
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ROBOTICS AND COMPUTER ASSISTED SURGERY, 2020, 16 (05) : 1 - 7
  • [30] Learning curves in surgery: variables, analysis and applications
    Valsamis, Epaminondas Markos
    Chouari, Tarak
    O'Dowd-Booth, Christopher
    Rogers, Benedict
    Ricketts, David
    [J]. POSTGRADUATE MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2018, 94 (1115) : 525 - 530