4.3 Article

Robotic-Assisted Approach Improves Vessel Preservation in Spleen-Preserving Distal Pancreatectomy

Journal

DIGESTIVE SURGERY
Volume 33, Issue 5, Pages 406-413

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000444269

Keywords

Distal pancreatectomy; Robotic surgery; Pancreatic surgery; Spleen preservation; Splenic vessel preservation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Vessel-preserving spleen preservation (SP) during distal pancreatectomy (DP) is supposed to be beneficial for patients with benign and borderline tumors. This study evaluated the first experiences with robotic-assisted laparoscopic DP (RA-LDP) and its rate of vessel preservation and SP compared to conventional laparoscopic DP (C-LDP). Methods: Patients scheduled for spleen-preserving DP for benign or borderline tumors by either C-LDP or RA-LDP were retrieved from a prospective database and retrospectively analyzed regarding vessel-preservation and SP, conversion rate, blood loss, operating time, complications, perioperative blood transfusion, postoperative hospital stay (PHS) and mortality. Results: Twenty-nine patients underwent C-LDP and 12 patients underwent RA-LDP between September 2009 and May 2015. SP rates were 79% (23 of 29) in the C-LDP and 92% (11 of 12) in the RA-LDP group (p = 0.32). Splenic vessels could be preserved in 17% (5 of 29) of the C-LDP and 50% (6 of 12) of the RA-LDP group (p = 0.052). Operating time, intraoperative blood loss, the number of perioperative red blood cell transfusions, overall morbidity and the rate of postoperative pancreatic fistulas were not different between the groups. PHS was shorter in the RA-LDP group (10.5 vs. 13 days; p = 0.02). Conclusion: RA-LDP for benign or borderline tumors of the pancreas is a safe procedure and tended to be associated with a better vessel-preservation rate, thereby making it a good alternative to C-LDP. (C) 2016 S. Karger AG, Basel

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available