Robotic system has been increasingly used in pancreatectomy. However, the effectiveness of this method remains uncertain. This study compared the surgical outcomes between robot-assisted laparoscopic distal pancreatec...Robotic system has been increasingly used in pancreatectomy. However, the effectiveness of this method remains uncertain. This study compared the surgical outcomes between robot-assisted laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy and conventional laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. During a 15-year period, 35 patients underwent minimally invasive approach of distal pancreatectomy in our center. Seventeen of these patients had robot-assisted laparoscopic approach, and the remaining 18 had conventional laparoscopic approach. Their operative parameters and perioperative outcomes were analyzed retrospectively in a prospective database. The mean operating time in the robotic group （221.4 min） was significantly longer than that in the laparoscopic group （173.6 min） （P = 0.026）. Both robotic and conventional laparoscopic groups presented no significant difference in spleen-preservation rate （52.9% vs. 38.9%） （P = 0.505）, operative blood loss （100.3 ml vs. 268.3 ml） （P = 0.29）, overall morbidity rate （47.1% vs. 38.9%） （P = 0.73）, and post-operative hospital stay （11.4 days vs. 14.2 days） （P = 0.46）. Both groups also showed no perioperative mortality. Similar outcomes were observed in robotic distal pancreatectomy and conventional laparoscopic approach. However, robotic approach tended to have the advantages of less blood loss and shorter hospital stay. Further studies are necessary to determine the clinical position of robotic distal pancreatectomy.展开更多
文摘Robotic system has been increasingly used in pancreatectomy. However, the effectiveness of this method remains uncertain. This study compared the surgical outcomes between robot-assisted laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy and conventional laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. During a 15-year period, 35 patients underwent minimally invasive approach of distal pancreatectomy in our center. Seventeen of these patients had robot-assisted laparoscopic approach, and the remaining 18 had conventional laparoscopic approach. Their operative parameters and perioperative outcomes were analyzed retrospectively in a prospective database. The mean operating time in the robotic group （221.4 min） was significantly longer than that in the laparoscopic group （173.6 min） （P = 0.026）. Both robotic and conventional laparoscopic groups presented no significant difference in spleen-preservation rate （52.9% vs. 38.9%） （P = 0.505）, operative blood loss （100.3 ml vs. 268.3 ml） （P = 0.29）, overall morbidity rate （47.1% vs. 38.9%） （P = 0.73）, and post-operative hospital stay （11.4 days vs. 14.2 days） （P = 0.46）. Both groups also showed no perioperative mortality. Similar outcomes were observed in robotic distal pancreatectomy and conventional laparoscopic approach. However, robotic approach tended to have the advantages of less blood loss and shorter hospital stay. Further studies are necessary to determine the clinical position of robotic distal pancreatectomy.
