Abstract

BackgroundRobotic distal pancreatectomy exhibits short-term benefits over laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. The use of minimal invasive techniques to carry out distal pancreatosplenectomy (DPS) for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains controversial and has not gained popular acceptance. A comparative study was designed to analyze the short- and mid-term outcomes of robotic DPS (RDPS) versus laparoscopic DPS (LDPS) on patients with PDAC. MethodsThe baseline characteristics, perioperative outcomes and survival data among patients who underwent RDPS (n = 35) versus LDPS (n = 35) for PDAC between December 2011 and December 2015 were compared after a 1:1 propensity score matching. ResultsThere were no significant differences in the operative time, blood loss, blood transfusion rate, and morbidity and pancreatic fistula rates between the RDPS and LDPS groups. RDPS significantly reduced the rate of conversion to laparotomy (5.7% vs. 22.9% when compared with LDPS, p = 0.04). There were no significant differences in R0 resection rates, number of harvested lymph nodes, positive to harvested lymph node ratios, and disease-free survival and overall survival rates between the two groups. A Cox proportional hazards analysis showed N1 stage to be significantly associated with worse survival and suggested that chemotherapy might prolong overall survival in these PDAC patients. ConclusionsThis single-center study demonstrated that RDPS was safe and efficacious in treatment of PDAC. When compared with LDPS, RDPS was associated with a reduced rate of conversion to open surgery. There were no significantly differences in oncological outcomes and mid-term survival rates between the groups of patients who underwent RDPS or LDPS.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.