TY - JOUR
T1 - Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy
T2 - a pan-European multicenter propensity-matched study
AU - Emmen, Anouk M.L.H.
AU - Zwart, Maurice J.W.
AU - Khatkov, Igor E.
AU - Boggi, Ugo
AU - Groot Koerkamp, Bas
AU - Busch, Olivier R.
AU - Saint-Marc, Olivier
AU - Dokmak, Safi
AU - Molenaar, I. Quintus
AU - D'Hondt, Mathieu
AU - Ramera, Marco
AU - Keck, Tobias
AU - Ferrari, Giovanni
AU - Luyer, Misha D.P.
AU - Moraldi, Luca
AU - Ielpo, Benedetto
AU - Wittel, Uwe
AU - Souche, Francois Regis
AU - Hackert, Thilo
AU - Lips, Daan
AU - Can, Mehmet Fatih
AU - Bosscha, Koop
AU - Fara, Regis
AU - Festen, Sebastiaan
AU - van Dieren, Susan
AU - Coratti, Andrea
AU - De Hingh, Ignace
AU - Mazzola, Michele
AU - Wellner, Ulrich
AU - De Meyere, Celine
AU - van Santvoort, Hjalmar C.
AU - Aussilhou, Béatrice
AU - Ibenkhayat, Abdallah
AU - de Wilde, Roeland F.
AU - Kauffmann, Emanuele F.
AU - Tyutyunnik, Pavel
AU - Besselink, Marc G.
AU - Abu Hilal, Mohammad
AU - Manzoni, Alberto
AU - Guerra, Martina
AU - Daams, Freek
AU - Kazemier, Geert
AU - Izrailov, Roman
AU - Efanov, Mikhail
AU - Napoli, Niccolò
AU - Ginesini, Michael
AU - Cappelle, Marie
AU - Haen, Roel
AU - Derksen, Wouter
AU - Hagendoorn, Jeroen
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2024 The Authors
PY - 2024/6
Y1 - 2024/6
N2 - Background: The use of robot-assisted and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy is increasing, yet large adjusted analyses that can be generalized internationally are lacking. This study aimed to compare outcomes after robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy in a pan-European cohort. Methods: An international multicenter retrospective study including patients after robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy from 50 centers in 12 European countries (2009–2020). Propensity score matching was performed in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome was major morbidity (Clavien–Dindo ≥III). Results: Among 2,082 patients undergoing minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy, 1,006 underwent robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and 1,076 laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy. After matching 812 versus 812 patients, the rates of major morbidity (31.9% vs 29.6%; P = .347) and 30-day/in-hospital mortality (4.3% vs 4.6%; P = .904) did not differ significantly between robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy, respectively. Robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with a lower conversion rate (6.7% vs 18.0%; P < .001) and higher lymph node retrieval (16 vs 14; P = .003). Laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with shorter operation time (446 minutes versus 400 minutes; P < .001), and lower rates of postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C (19.0% vs 11.7%; P < .001), delayed gastric emptying grade B/C (21.4% vs 7.4%; P < .001), and a higher R0-resection rate (73.2% vs 84.4%; P < .001). Conclusion: This European multicenter study found no differences in overall major morbidity and 30-day/in-hospital mortality after robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy compared with laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy. Further, laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with a lower rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula, delayed gastric emptying, wound infection, shorter length of stay, and a higher R0 resection rate than robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy. In contrast, robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with a lower conversion rate and a higher number of retrieved lymph nodes as compared with laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy.
AB - Background: The use of robot-assisted and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy is increasing, yet large adjusted analyses that can be generalized internationally are lacking. This study aimed to compare outcomes after robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy in a pan-European cohort. Methods: An international multicenter retrospective study including patients after robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy from 50 centers in 12 European countries (2009–2020). Propensity score matching was performed in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome was major morbidity (Clavien–Dindo ≥III). Results: Among 2,082 patients undergoing minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy, 1,006 underwent robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and 1,076 laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy. After matching 812 versus 812 patients, the rates of major morbidity (31.9% vs 29.6%; P = .347) and 30-day/in-hospital mortality (4.3% vs 4.6%; P = .904) did not differ significantly between robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy, respectively. Robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with a lower conversion rate (6.7% vs 18.0%; P < .001) and higher lymph node retrieval (16 vs 14; P = .003). Laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with shorter operation time (446 minutes versus 400 minutes; P < .001), and lower rates of postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C (19.0% vs 11.7%; P < .001), delayed gastric emptying grade B/C (21.4% vs 7.4%; P < .001), and a higher R0-resection rate (73.2% vs 84.4%; P < .001). Conclusion: This European multicenter study found no differences in overall major morbidity and 30-day/in-hospital mortality after robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy compared with laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy. Further, laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with a lower rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula, delayed gastric emptying, wound infection, shorter length of stay, and a higher R0 resection rate than robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy. In contrast, robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with a lower conversion rate and a higher number of retrieved lymph nodes as compared with laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85189684394&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.surg.2024.02.015
DO - 10.1016/j.surg.2024.02.015
M3 - Article
C2 - 38570225
AN - SCOPUS:85189684394
SN - 0039-6060
VL - 175
SP - 1587
EP - 1594
JO - Surgery (United States)
JF - Surgery (United States)
IS - 6
ER -