Laparoscopic versus robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy: A NSQIP analysis comparing trends in patient selection and outcomes over 5-years

Résumé fourni par la source

Background Comparison of laparoscopic (LPD) and robotic (RPD) pancreaticoduodenectomy over time remains limited. This study aims to compare LPD and RPD and to describe the demographics and outcomes of patients undergoing MIS pancreaticoduodenectomy over 5-years. Methods The ACS-NSQIP (2016–2021) database was used to evaluate patients undergoing MIS pancreaticoduodenectomy comparing LPD versus RPD. Patient characteristics, and outcomes were compared and multivariable modelling evaluated factors associated with serious complications, and mortality. MIS approach, demographics, and outcomes were assessed yearly to evaluate trends over time. Results We evaluated 1707 patients with 1148 (67.3 %) receiving RPD. Cohorts were similar with regards to demographic factors, however, patients undergoing RPD were less likely to be partially dependent (0.5 % vs. 1.6 %; p = 0.024), and more likely to receive neoadjuvant therapy (26.8 % vs. 21.7 %; p = 0.023). Bivariate analysis demonstrated similar operative duration (444.1 vs 429.9 min; p = 0.074), but shorter LOS (8.5 vs. 9.8 days; p < 0.001), and higher readmission rate (21.5 % vs. 15.6 %; p = 0.004) with RPD. Additionally, RPD required transfusion less often (10.5 % vs. 21.7 %; p < 0.001). Multivariable analysis demonstrated that LPD was not independently associated with serious complications (OR 1.27 p = 0.094) or mortality (OR 0.82, p = 0.611). Analysis of trends from 2016 to 2021 demonstrated similar patient selection and outcomes but a significant increase in MIS pancreaticoduodenectomy (281 to 428), primarily driven by an increase in RPD. Conclusions Comparing LPD and RPD there is no difference in serious complications or mortality. MIS pancreaticoduodenectomy has increased over the last 5 years but volumes remain small with similar demographics and outcomes over time.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.