RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is a challenging operation because of complex anatomy and difficult and multiple reconstructions. Robot-assisted PD (RPD) is a novel minimally invasive technique, providing equivalent oncological outcomes to open surgery. The aim of this study is to evaluate the results of a single high-volume center series. METHODS: Patients who underwent RPD from 2014 to 2021 in a high-volume center were included. Patient and disease-specific data, operative details, postoperative complications including postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), length of stay (LOS) and long-term survival were recorded. Two groups were compared: Group 1: patients operated between 2014-2019 and Group 2 between 2020-2021. RESULTS: One hundred and forty-six patients had RPD on the study period (99 in Group 1 and 47 in Group 2). Operative time was 320 min (285-360), major complications were observed in 28% and clinically significant POPF in 20% of the cases. Conversion rate was 2.1%. LOS was 14 days (9-22). Postoperative mortality was 4.1%. Clinically significant POPF decreased from 24% in Group 1 to 11% in Group 2 (p = 0.05). LOS decreased from 16(11-26) days in Group 1 to 11(8-14) in Group 2 (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: RPD is safe and feasible. Technique standardization led to better post-operative outcomes, encouraging the dissemination and implementation of the procedure.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: It is assumed that robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) may facilitate complex pelvic dissection for rectal cancer compared to the laparoscopic-assisted resection (LAR). The aim of this study was to compare perioperative morbidity, short- and long-term oncologic, and functional outcomes between the RAS and LAR approaches. METHODS: Between 2015 and 2021, all rectal cancers operated on by (LAR) or (RAS) were retrospectively reviewed in two colorectal surgery centers. RESULTS: A total of 197 patients were included in the study, with 70% in the LAR group and 30% in the RAS group. The tumor location and stage were identical in both groups (not significant = NS). The overall postoperative mortality rate was not significantly different between the two groups. (0% LAR; 0.5% RAS; NS). The postoperative morbidity was similar between the two groups (60% LAR vs 57% RAS; NS). The number of early surgical re-interventions within the first 30 days was similar (10% for the LAR group and 3% for the RAS group; NS). The rate of complete TME was similar (88% for the LAR group and 94% for the RAS group; NS). However, the rate of circumferential R1 was significantly higher in the LAR group (13%) compared to the RAS group (2%) (p = 0.009). The 3-year recurrence rate did not differ between the two groups (77% for both groups; NS). After a mean follow-up of three years, the incidence of anterior resection syndrome was significantly lower in the LAR group compared to the RAS group (54 vs 76%; p = 0.030). CONCLUSIONS: The use of a RAS was found to be reliable for oncologic outcomes and morbidity. However, the expected benefits for functional outcomes were not observed. Therefore, the added value of RAS for rectal cancer needs to be reassessed in light of new laparoscopic technologies and patient management options.