Boggi Ugo, Palladino Simona, Massimetti Gabriele, Vistoli Fabio, Caniglia Fabio, De Lio Nelide, Perrone Vittorio, Barbarello Linda, Belluomini Mario, Signori Stefano, Amorese Gabriella, Mosca Franco
Division of General and Transplant Surgery, Pisa University Hospital Pisa, Via Paradisa 2, 56124, Pisa, Italy,
Surg Endosc. 2015 Jun;29(6):1425-32. doi: 10.1007/s00464-014-3819-9. Epub 2014 Aug 27.
The enhanced dexterity offered by robotic assistance could be excessive for distal pancreatectomy but not enough to improve the outcome of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy. Total pancreatectomy retains the challenges of uncinate process dissection and digestive reconstruction, but avoids the risk of pancreatic fistula, and could be a suitable operation to highlight the advantages of robotic assistance in pancreatic resections.
Eleven laparoscopic robot-assisted total pancreatectomies (LRATP) were compared to 11 case-matched open total pancreatectomies. All operations were performed by one surgeon during the same period of time. Robotic assistance was employed in half of the patients, based on robot availability at the time of surgery. Variables examined included age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, body mass index, estimated blood loss, need for blood transfusions, operative time, tumor type, tumor size, number of examined lymph nodes, margin status, post-operative complications, 90-day or in-hospital mortality, length of hospital stay, and readmission rate.
No LRATP was converted to conventional laparoscopy, hand-assisted laparoscopy or open surgery despite two patients (18.1 %) required vein resection and reconstruction. LRATP was associated with longer mean operative time (600 vs. 469 min; p = 0.014) but decreased mean blood loss (220 vs. 705; p = 0.004) than open surgery. Post-operative complications occurred in similar percentages after LRATP and open surgery. Complications occurring in most patients (5/7) after LRATP were of mild severity (Clavien-Dindo grade I and II). One patient required repeat laparoscopic surgery after LRATP, to drain a fluid collection not amenable to percutaneous catheter drainage. One further patient from the open group required repeat surgery because of bleeding. No patient had margin positive resection, and the mean number of examined lymph nodes was 45 after LRATP and 36 after open surgery.
LRATP is feasible in selected patients, but further experience is needed to draw final conclusions.
机器人辅助提供的增强灵活性对于胰体尾切除术可能过高,但对于改善腹腔镜胰十二指肠切除术的结果则不够。全胰切除术仍面临钩突部解剖和消化重建的挑战,但可避免胰瘘风险,可能是突出机器人辅助在胰腺切除术中优势的合适手术。
将11例腹腔镜机器人辅助全胰切除术(LRATP)与11例病例匹配的开放全胰切除术进行比较。所有手术均由同一位外科医生在同一时期完成。根据手术时机器人的可用性,一半患者采用机器人辅助。检查的变量包括年龄、性别、美国麻醉医师协会评分、体重指数、估计失血量、输血需求、手术时间、肿瘤类型、肿瘤大小、检查的淋巴结数量、切缘状态、术后并发症、90天或住院死亡率、住院时间和再入院率。
尽管有2例患者(18.1%)需要静脉切除和重建,但没有LRATP转换为传统腹腔镜手术、手辅助腹腔镜手术或开放手术。与开放手术相比,LRATP的平均手术时间更长(600分钟对469分钟;p = 0.014),但平均失血量减少(220对705;p = 0.004)。LRATP和开放手术后术后并发症的发生率相似。LRATP后大多数患者(5/7)发生的并发症为轻度(Clavien-Dindo I级和II级)。1例患者在LRATP后需要重复腹腔镜手术,以引流不适合经皮导管引流的积液。开放组的另1例患者因出血需要再次手术。没有患者切缘阳性切除,LRATP后检查的淋巴结平均数量为45个,开放手术后为36个。
LRATP在选定患者中是可行,但需要更多经验才能得出最终结论。