Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Surgical Endoscopy 8/2018

02.02.2018

Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a French prospective single-center experience and cost-effectiveness analysis

verfasst von: Regis Souche, Astrid Herrero, Guillaume Bourel, John Chauvat, Isabelle Pirlet, Françoise Guillon, David Nocca, Frederic Borie, Gregoire Mercier, Jean-Michel Fabre

Erschienen in: Surgical Endoscopy | Ausgabe 8/2018

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Background

Benefits and cost-effectiveness of robotic approach for distal pancreatectomy (DP) remain debated. In this prospective study, we aim to compare the short-term results and real costs of robotic (RDP) and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP).

Methods

From 2011 until 2016, all consecutive patients underwent minimally invasive DP were included and data were prospectively collected. Patients were assigned in two groups, RDP and LDP, according to the availability of the Da Vinci® Surgical System for our Surgical Unit.

Results

A minimally invasive DP was performed in 38 patients with a median age of 61 years old (44–83 years old) and a BMI of 26 kg/m2 (20–31 kg/m2). RDP group (n = 15) and LDP group (n = 23) were comparable concerning demographic data, BMI, ASA score, comorbidities, malignant lesions, lesion size, and indication of spleen preservation. Median operative time was longer in RDP (207 min) compared to LDP (187 min) (p = 0.047). Conversion rate, spleen preservation failure, and perioperative transfusion rates were nil in both groups. Pancreatic fistula was diagnosed in 40 and 43% (p = 0.832) of patients and was grade A in 83 and 80% (p = 1.000) in RDP and LDP groups, respectively. Median postoperative hospital stay was similar in both groups (RDP: 8 days vs. LDP: 9 days, p = 0.310). Major complication occurred in 7% in RDP group and 13% in LDP group (p = 1.000). Ninety-days mortality was nil in both groups. No difference was found concerning R0 resection rate and median number of retrieved lymph nodes. Total cost of RDP was higher than LDP (13611 vs. 12509 €, p < 0.001). The difference between mean hospital incomes and costs was negative in RDP group contrary to LDP group (− 1269 vs. 1395 €, p = 0.040).

Conclusion

Short-term results of RDP seem to be similar to LDP but the high cost of RDP makes this approach not cost-effective actually.
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Merchant NB, Parikh AA, Kooby DA (2009) Should all distal pancreatectomies be performed laparoscopically? Adv Surg 43:283–300CrossRefPubMed Merchant NB, Parikh AA, Kooby DA (2009) Should all distal pancreatectomies be performed laparoscopically? Adv Surg 43:283–300CrossRefPubMed
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Marangos IP, Buanes T, Rosok BI, Kazaryan AM, Rosseland AR, Grzyb K et al (2012) Laparoscopic resection of exocrine carcinoma in central and distal pancreas results in a high rate of radical resections and long postoperative survival. Surgery 151(5):717–723CrossRefPubMed Marangos IP, Buanes T, Rosok BI, Kazaryan AM, Rosseland AR, Grzyb K et al (2012) Laparoscopic resection of exocrine carcinoma in central and distal pancreas results in a high rate of radical resections and long postoperative survival. Surgery 151(5):717–723CrossRefPubMed
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Kang CM, Lee SH, Lee WJ (2014) Minimally invasive radical pancreatectomy for left-sided pancreatic cancer: current status and future perspectives. World J Gastroenterol 20(9):2343–2351CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Kang CM, Lee SH, Lee WJ (2014) Minimally invasive radical pancreatectomy for left-sided pancreatic cancer: current status and future perspectives. World J Gastroenterol 20(9):2343–2351CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Kang CM, Kim DH, Lee WJ (2010) Ten years of experience with resection of left-sided pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: evolution and initial experience to a laparoscopic approach. Surg Endosc 24(7):1533–1541CrossRefPubMed Kang CM, Kim DH, Lee WJ (2010) Ten years of experience with resection of left-sided pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: evolution and initial experience to a laparoscopic approach. Surg Endosc 24(7):1533–1541CrossRefPubMed
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Hu M, Zhao G, Wang F, Zhao Z, Li C, Liu R (2014) Laparoscopic versus open distal splenopancreatectomy for the treatment of pancreatic body and tail cancer: a retrospective, mid-term follow-up study at a single academic tertiary care institution. Surg Endosc 28(9):2584–2591CrossRefPubMed Hu M, Zhao G, Wang F, Zhao Z, Li C, Liu R (2014) Laparoscopic versus open distal splenopancreatectomy for the treatment of pancreatic body and tail cancer: a retrospective, mid-term follow-up study at a single academic tertiary care institution. Surg Endosc 28(9):2584–2591CrossRefPubMed
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Zeh HJ 3rd, Bartlett DL, Moser AJ (2011) Robotic-assisted major pancreatic resection. Adv Surg 45:323–340CrossRefPubMed Zeh HJ 3rd, Bartlett DL, Moser AJ (2011) Robotic-assisted major pancreatic resection. Adv Surg 45:323–340CrossRefPubMed
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Giulianotti PC, Sbrana F, Bianco FM, Elli EF, Shah G, Addeo P et al (2010) Robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreatic surgery: single-surgeon experience. Surg Endosc 24(7):1646–1657CrossRefPubMed Giulianotti PC, Sbrana F, Bianco FM, Elli EF, Shah G, Addeo P et al (2010) Robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreatic surgery: single-surgeon experience. Surg Endosc 24(7):1646–1657CrossRefPubMed
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Collinson FJ, Jayne DG, Pigazzi A, Tsang C, Barrie JM, Edlin R et al (2012) An international, multicentre, prospective, randomised, controlled, unblinded, parallel-group trial of robotic-assisted versus standard laparoscopic surgery for the curative treatment of rectal cancer. Int J Colorectal Dis 27(2):233–241CrossRefPubMed Collinson FJ, Jayne DG, Pigazzi A, Tsang C, Barrie JM, Edlin R et al (2012) An international, multicentre, prospective, randomised, controlled, unblinded, parallel-group trial of robotic-assisted versus standard laparoscopic surgery for the curative treatment of rectal cancer. Int J Colorectal Dis 27(2):233–241CrossRefPubMed
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Waters JA, Canal DF, Wiebke EA, Dumas RP, Beane JD, Aguilar-Saavedra JR et al (2010) Robotic distal pancreatectomy: cost effective? Surgery 148(4):814–823CrossRefPubMed Waters JA, Canal DF, Wiebke EA, Dumas RP, Beane JD, Aguilar-Saavedra JR et al (2010) Robotic distal pancreatectomy: cost effective? Surgery 148(4):814–823CrossRefPubMed
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Garber AM, Phelps CE (1997) Economic foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis. J Health Econ 16(1):1–31CrossRefPubMed Garber AM, Phelps CE (1997) Economic foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis. J Health Econ 16(1):1–31CrossRefPubMed
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Butturini G, Damoli I, Crepaz L, Malleo G, Marchegiani G, Daskalaki D et al (2015) A prospective non-randomised single-center study comparing laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomy. Surg Endosc 29(11):3163–3170CrossRefPubMed Butturini G, Damoli I, Crepaz L, Malleo G, Marchegiani G, Daskalaki D et al (2015) A prospective non-randomised single-center study comparing laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomy. Surg Endosc 29(11):3163–3170CrossRefPubMed
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Mehta SS, Doumane G, Mura T, Nocca D, Fabre JM (2012) Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy: a single-institution case-control study. Surg Endosc 26(2):402–407CrossRefPubMed Mehta SS, Doumane G, Mura T, Nocca D, Fabre JM (2012) Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy: a single-institution case-control study. Surg Endosc 26(2):402–407CrossRefPubMed
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Kimura W, Yano M, Sugawara S, Okazaki S, Sato T, Moriya T et al (2010) Spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy with conservation of the splenic artery and vein: techniques and its significance. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 17(6):813–823CrossRefPubMed Kimura W, Yano M, Sugawara S, Okazaki S, Sato T, Moriya T et al (2010) Spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy with conservation of the splenic artery and vein: techniques and its significance. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 17(6):813–823CrossRefPubMed
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Warshaw AL (1988) Conservation of the spleen with distal pancreatectomy. Arch Surg 123(5):550–553CrossRefPubMed Warshaw AL (1988) Conservation of the spleen with distal pancreatectomy. Arch Surg 123(5):550–553CrossRefPubMed
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Strasberg SM, Linehan DC, Hawkins WG (2007) Radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy procedure for adenocarcinoma of the body and tail of the pancreas: ability to obtain negative tangential margins. J Am Coll Surg 204(2):244–249CrossRefPubMed Strasberg SM, Linehan DC, Hawkins WG (2007) Radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy procedure for adenocarcinoma of the body and tail of the pancreas: ability to obtain negative tangential margins. J Am Coll Surg 204(2):244–249CrossRefPubMed
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Bassi C, Dervenis C, Butturini G, Fingerhut A, Yeo C, Izbicki J et al (2005) Postoperative pancreatic fistula: an international study group (ISGPF) definition. Surgery 138(1):8–13CrossRefPubMed Bassi C, Dervenis C, Butturini G, Fingerhut A, Yeo C, Izbicki J et al (2005) Postoperative pancreatic fistula: an international study group (ISGPF) definition. Surgery 138(1):8–13CrossRefPubMed
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Wente MN, Veit JA, Bassi C, Dervenis C, Fingerhut A, Gouma DJ et al (2007) Postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH): an International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) definition. Surgery 142(1):20–25CrossRefPubMed Wente MN, Veit JA, Bassi C, Dervenis C, Fingerhut A, Gouma DJ et al (2007) Postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH): an International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) definition. Surgery 142(1):20–25CrossRefPubMed
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240(2):205–213CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240(2):205–213CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Mise Y, Day RW, Vauthey JN, Brudvik KW, Schwarz L, Prakash L et al (2015) After pancreatectomy, the “90 days from surgery” definition is superior to the “30 days from discharge” definition for capture of clinically relevant readmissions. J Gastrointest Surg 20:77–84CrossRef Mise Y, Day RW, Vauthey JN, Brudvik KW, Schwarz L, Prakash L et al (2015) After pancreatectomy, the “90 days from surgery” definition is superior to the “30 days from discharge” definition for capture of clinically relevant readmissions. J Gastrointest Surg 20:77–84CrossRef
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, Carswell C, Moher D, Greenberg D et al (2013) Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards (CHEERS) statement. BMJ 346:f1049CrossRefPubMed Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, Carswell C, Moher D, Greenberg D et al (2013) Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards (CHEERS) statement. BMJ 346:f1049CrossRefPubMed
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Daouadi M, Zureikat AH, Zenati MS, Choudry H, Tsung A, Bartlett DL et al (2013) Robot-assisted minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy is superior to the laparoscopic technique. Ann Surg 257(1):128–132CrossRefPubMed Daouadi M, Zureikat AH, Zenati MS, Choudry H, Tsung A, Bartlett DL et al (2013) Robot-assisted minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy is superior to the laparoscopic technique. Ann Surg 257(1):128–132CrossRefPubMed
22.
Zurück zum Zitat de’Angelis N, Alghamdi S, Renda A, Azoulay D, Brunetti F (2015) Initial experience of robotic versus laparoscopic colectomy for transverse colon cancer: a matched case-control study. World J Surg Oncol 13:295CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral de’Angelis N, Alghamdi S, Renda A, Azoulay D, Brunetti F (2015) Initial experience of robotic versus laparoscopic colectomy for transverse colon cancer: a matched case-control study. World J Surg Oncol 13:295CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Gavriilidis P, Lim C, Menahem B, Lahat E, Salloum C, Azoulay D (2016) Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy—The first meta-analysis. HPB 18(7):567–574CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Gavriilidis P, Lim C, Menahem B, Lahat E, Salloum C, Azoulay D (2016) Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy—The first meta-analysis. HPB 18(7):567–574CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Kang CM, Kim DH, Lee WJ, Chi HS (2011) Conventional laparoscopic and robot-assisted spleen-preserving pancreatectomy: does da Vinci have clinical advantages? Surg Endosc 25(6):2004–2009CrossRefPubMed Kang CM, Kim DH, Lee WJ, Chi HS (2011) Conventional laparoscopic and robot-assisted spleen-preserving pancreatectomy: does da Vinci have clinical advantages? Surg Endosc 25(6):2004–2009CrossRefPubMed
Metadaten
Titel
Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a French prospective single-center experience and cost-effectiveness analysis
verfasst von
Regis Souche
Astrid Herrero
Guillaume Bourel
John Chauvat
Isabelle Pirlet
Françoise Guillon
David Nocca
Frederic Borie
Gregoire Mercier
Jean-Michel Fabre
Publikationsdatum
02.02.2018
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Surgical Endoscopy / Ausgabe 8/2018
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6080-9

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 8/2018

Surgical Endoscopy 8/2018 Zur Ausgabe

Update Chirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

S3-Leitlinie „Diagnostik und Therapie des Karpaltunnelsyndroms“

Karpaltunnelsyndrom BDC Leitlinien Webinare
CME: 2 Punkte

Das Karpaltunnelsyndrom ist die häufigste Kompressionsneuropathie peripherer Nerven. Obwohl die Anamnese mit dem nächtlichen Einschlafen der Hand (Brachialgia parästhetica nocturna) sehr typisch ist, ist eine klinisch-neurologische Untersuchung und Elektroneurografie in manchen Fällen auch eine Neurosonografie erforderlich. Im Anfangsstadium sind konservative Maßnahmen (Handgelenksschiene, Ergotherapie) empfehlenswert. Bei nicht Ansprechen der konservativen Therapie oder Auftreten von neurologischen Ausfällen ist eine Dekompression des N. medianus am Karpaltunnel indiziert.

Prof. Dr. med. Gregor Antoniadis
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.

S2e-Leitlinie „Distale Radiusfraktur“

Radiusfraktur BDC Leitlinien Webinare
CME: 2 Punkte

Das Webinar beschäftigt sich mit Fragen und Antworten zu Diagnostik und Klassifikation sowie Möglichkeiten des Ausschlusses von Zusatzverletzungen. Die Referenten erläutern, welche Frakturen konservativ behandelt werden können und wie. Das Webinar beantwortet die Frage nach aktuellen operativen Therapiekonzepten: Welcher Zugang, welches Osteosynthesematerial? Auf was muss bei der Nachbehandlung der distalen Radiusfraktur geachtet werden?

PD Dr. med. Oliver Pieske
Dr. med. Benjamin Meyknecht
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.

S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“

Appendizitis BDC Leitlinien Webinare
CME: 2 Punkte

Inhalte des Webinars zur S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“ sind die Darstellung des Projektes und des Erstellungswegs zur S1-Leitlinie, die Erläuterung der klinischen Relevanz der Klassifikation EAES 2015, die wissenschaftliche Begründung der wichtigsten Empfehlungen und die Darstellung stadiengerechter Therapieoptionen.

Dr. med. Mihailo Andric
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.