TY - JOUR
T1 - Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy
T2 - An up-to-date meta-analysis
AU - Guerrini, Gian Piero
AU - Lauretta, Andrea
AU - Belluco, Claudio
AU - Olivieri, Matteo
AU - Forlin, Marco
AU - Basso, Stefania
AU - Breda, Bruno
AU - Bertola, Giulio
AU - Di Benedetto, Fabrizio
PY - 2017/11/9
Y1 - 2017/11/9
N2 - Background: Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) reduces postoperative morbidity, hospital stay and recovery as compared with open distal pancreatectomy. Many authors believe that robotic surgery can overcome the difficulties and technical limits of LDP thanks to improved surgical manipulation and better visualization. Few studies in the literature have compared the two methods in terms of surgical and oncological outcome. The aim of this study was to compare the results of robotic (RDP) and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted of control studies published up to December 2016 comparing LDP and RDP. Two Reviewers independently assessed the eligibility and quality of the studies. The meta-analysis was conducted using either the fixed-effect or the random-effect model. Results: Ten studies describing 813 patients met the inclusion criteria. This meta-analysis shows that the RDP group had a significantly higher rate of spleen preservation [OR 2.89 (95% confidence interval 1.78-4.71, p < 0.0001], a lower rate of conversion to open OR 0.33 (95% CI 0.12-0.92), p = 0.003] and a shorter hospital stay [MD -0.74; (95% CI -1.34 -0.15), p = 0.01] but a higher cost than the LDP group, while other surgical outcomes did not differ between the two groups. Conclusion: This meta-analysis suggests that the RDP procedure is safe and comparable in terms of surgical results to LDP. However, even if the RDP has a higher cost compared to LDP, it increases the rate of spleen preservation, reduces the risk of conversion to open surgery and is associated to shorter length of hospital stay.
AB - Background: Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) reduces postoperative morbidity, hospital stay and recovery as compared with open distal pancreatectomy. Many authors believe that robotic surgery can overcome the difficulties and technical limits of LDP thanks to improved surgical manipulation and better visualization. Few studies in the literature have compared the two methods in terms of surgical and oncological outcome. The aim of this study was to compare the results of robotic (RDP) and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted of control studies published up to December 2016 comparing LDP and RDP. Two Reviewers independently assessed the eligibility and quality of the studies. The meta-analysis was conducted using either the fixed-effect or the random-effect model. Results: Ten studies describing 813 patients met the inclusion criteria. This meta-analysis shows that the RDP group had a significantly higher rate of spleen preservation [OR 2.89 (95% confidence interval 1.78-4.71, p < 0.0001], a lower rate of conversion to open OR 0.33 (95% CI 0.12-0.92), p = 0.003] and a shorter hospital stay [MD -0.74; (95% CI -1.34 -0.15), p = 0.01] but a higher cost than the LDP group, while other surgical outcomes did not differ between the two groups. Conclusion: This meta-analysis suggests that the RDP procedure is safe and comparable in terms of surgical results to LDP. However, even if the RDP has a higher cost compared to LDP, it increases the rate of spleen preservation, reduces the risk of conversion to open surgery and is associated to shorter length of hospital stay.
KW - Distal pancreatectomy
KW - Laparoscopic surgery
KW - Left pancreatectomy
KW - Meta-analysis
KW - Pancreatic cancer
KW - Pancreatic resection
KW - Review
KW - Robotic surgery
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85033580722&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85033580722&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1186/s12893-017-0301-3
DO - 10.1186/s12893-017-0301-3
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85033580722
VL - 17
JO - BMC Surgery
JF - BMC Surgery
SN - 1471-2482
IS - 1
M1 - 105
ER -