We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Short- and mid-term outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatosplenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: A retrospective propensity score-matched study.
International Journal of Surgery 2018 July
BACKGROUND: Robotic 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.
METHODS: The 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.
RESULTS: There 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.
CONCLUSIONS: This 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.
METHODS: The 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.
RESULTS: There 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.
CONCLUSIONS: This 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 links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app