Robotic Surgery for Pancreatic Serous Cystadenoma: Analysis of 148 Cases

ZHAO Zhi-ming, JIANG Nan, GAO Yuan-xing, XU Yong, ZHAO Guo-dong, LIU Rong

Abstract

To investigate the clinical efficacy of robotic surgery for pancreatic serous cystadenoma.  Methods  There were 148 patients with pancreatic serous cystadenoma underwent robotic surgery from April 2015 to June 2019 in our department, the clinical data including intraoperative data, perioperative complications, and histopathological results were retrospectively analyzed.  Results  Among the 148 patients, there were 39 cases (26.4%) of the tumors located in pancreatic head, 15 cases (10.1%) in pancreatic neck and 94 cases (63.5%) in pancreatic body and tail. Pancreaticoduodenectomy, distal pancreatectomy, central pancreatectomy, and enucleation were performed in 26 cases (17.6%), 71 cases (48.0%), 24 cases (16.2%) and 27 (18.2%) cases, respectively. The incidence of serious postoperative complications were 7.7%, 2.8%, 0, 0, respectively, and grade B pancreatic fistula were 7.7%, 7.0%, 41.7%, 14.8%, respectively. 90-day mortality was 0. Compared with pancreaticoduodenectomy, enucleation of the pancreatic head tumor had shorter operation time (P<0.001), less intraoperative blood loss (P<0.001), and shorter length of hospital stay (P<0.001). Compared with central pancreatectomy+pancreaticojejunostomy, Rong central pancreatectomy had shorter operation time (P=0.007) and length of hospital stay (P=0.040).  Conclusion  Robotic surgery for pancreatic serous cystadenomaisis safe and feasible. Rong central pancreatectomy for serous cystadenoma in middle segmental pancreas could achieve feasible results.

 

Keywords: Pancreas, Serous cystadenoma, Robotics, Robotic Rong central pancreatectomy

 

Full Text:

PDF


References


DIETRICH C F， DONG Y， JENSSEN C， et al. Serous pancreatic neoplasia, data and review. World J Gastroenterol，2017，23(30): 5567–5578.

JAIS B， REBOURS V， MALLEO G， et al. Serous cystic neoplasm of the pancreas: a multinational study of 2622 patients under the auspices of the International Association of Pancreatology and European Pancreatic Club (European Study Group on Cystic Tumors of the Pancreas). Gut，2016， 65(2): 305–312.

CHEN S， CHEN J Z， ZHAN Q， et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: a prospective, matched, mid-term follow-up study. Surg Endosc，2015，29(12): 3698–3711.

LIU R， ZHANG T， ZHAO Z M， et al. The surgical outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy versus laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary neoplasms: a comparative study of a single center. Surg Endosc，2017，31(6): 2380–2386.

LIU R， LIU Q， ZHAO Z M， et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a propensity score-matched study. J Surg Oncol，2017， 116(4): 461–469.

JIN J B， QIN K， YANG Y， et al. Robotic pancreatectomy for solid pseudopapillary tumors in the pancreatic head: a propensity score-matched comparison and analysis from a single center. Asian J Surg， 2020，43(1): 354–361.

EUROPEAN STUDY GROUP ON CYSTIC TUMOURS OF THE PANCREAS. European evidence-based guidelines on pancreatic cystic neoplasms. Gut，2018，67(5): 789–804.

WANG Z Z， ZHAO G D， ZHAO Z M， et al. An end-to-end pancreatic anastomosis in robotic central pancreatectomy. World J Surg Oncol， 2019， 17(1): 67[2020-02-01]. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6462313/. doi: 10.1186/s12957-019-1609–5.

LIU R， WANG Z Z， GAO Y X， et al. Application of end-to-end anastomosis in robotic central pancreatectomy. J Vis Exp， 2018， 136: 57495[2020-02-02]. https://dx.doi.org/10.3791/57495.

BASSI C， MARCHEGIANI G， DERVENIS C， et al. The 2016 update of the International Study Group (ISGPS) definition and grading of postoperative pancreatic fistula: 11 years after. Surgery，2017，161(3): 584–591.

BAUER F. Pancreatic cystic lesions: diagnostic, management and indications for operation. Part Ⅰ. Chirurgia (Bucur)，2017，112(2): 97–109.

MEMEO R， SANGIUOLO F， DE BLASI V， et al. Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy: state of the art. J Visc Surg， 2016， 153(5): 353-359[2020-02-01]. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jviscsurg.2016.04.001.

SHAKIR M， BOONE B A， POLANCO P M， et al. The learning curve for robotic distal pancreatectomy: an analysis of outcomes of the first 100 consecutive cases at a high-volume pancreatic centre. HPB (Oxford)， 2015，17(7): 580–586.

DALLA VALLE R， CREMASCHI E， LAMECCHI L， et al. Open and minimally invasive pancreatic neoplasms enucleation: a systematic review. Surg Endosc，2019，33(10): 3192–3199.

HACKERT T， HINZ U， FRITZ S， et al. Enucleation in pancreatic surgery: indications, technique, and outcome compared to standard pancreatic resections. Langenbecks Arch Surg，2011，396(8): 1197–1203. BRIGGS C D， MANN C D， IRVING G R， et al. Systematic review of minimally invasive pancreatic resection. J Gastrointest Surg，2009，13(6): 1129–1137.

CAULEY C E， PITT H A， ZIEGLER K M， et al. Pancreatic enucleation: improved outcomes compared to resection. J Gastrointest Surg，2012， 16(7): 1347–1353.

CRIPPA S， BONINSEGNA L， PARTELLI S， et al. Parenchyma-sparing resections for pancreatic neoplasms. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci，2010， 17(6): 782–787.

HUTTNER F J， KOESSLER-EBS J， HACKERT T， et al. Meta-analysis of surgical outcome after enucleation versus standard resection for pancreatic neoplasms. Br J Surg，2015，102(9): 1026–1036.

ZHOU Y， ZHAO M， WU L， et al. Short-and long-term outcomes after enucleation of pancreatic tumors: an evidence-based assessment. Pancreatology，2016，16(6): 1092–1098.

SONG K B， KIM S C， HWANG D W， et al. Enucleation for benign or low-grade malignant lesions of the pancreas: single-center experience with 65 consecutive patients. Surgery，2015，158(5): 1203–1210.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.