Comparison of Short-Term Outcomes Between Robotic-Assisted and Open Pancreatoduodenectomy: A Retrospective Cohort Study With Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting (IPTW) Analysis
{"title":"Comparison of Short-Term Outcomes Between Robotic-Assisted and Open Pancreatoduodenectomy: A Retrospective Cohort Study With Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting (IPTW) Analysis","authors":"Xi-Tai Huang, Jin-Zhao Xie, Jian-Peng Cai, Qiong-Cong Xu, Wei Chen, Chen-Song Huang, Bin Li, Jia-Ming Lai, Li-Jian Liang, Xiao-Yu Yin","doi":"10.1002/rcs.70057","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>The advantages of robotic-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) in comparison with open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) have not been well-established. We aimed to compare their short-term outcomes by inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Patients who underwent RPD/OPD at our hospital were recruited. Stabilised IPTW were performed to adjust observed covariates. Short-term outcomes were compared.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>After IPTW, the effective sample comprised 807 patients (199 RPD, 608 OPD) with balanced clinicopathological characteristics. RPD had a longer operation time, fewer intraoperative blood loss (IBL), and lower blood transfusion rate than OPD. RPD was associated with a lower incidence of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula and reoperation but did not reach statistical significance. In pancreatic adenocarcinoma, RPD had a significantly higher number of lymph nodes examined. There were no significant differences in postoperative morbidities and length-of-stay.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>RPD was associated with fewer IBL and transfusion rates than OPD. RPD can be considered feasible and safe.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":50311,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery","volume":"21 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/rcs.70057","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background
The advantages of robotic-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) in comparison with open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) have not been well-established. We aimed to compare their short-term outcomes by inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis.
Methods
Patients who underwent RPD/OPD at our hospital were recruited. Stabilised IPTW were performed to adjust observed covariates. Short-term outcomes were compared.
Results
After IPTW, the effective sample comprised 807 patients (199 RPD, 608 OPD) with balanced clinicopathological characteristics. RPD had a longer operation time, fewer intraoperative blood loss (IBL), and lower blood transfusion rate than OPD. RPD was associated with a lower incidence of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula and reoperation but did not reach statistical significance. In pancreatic adenocarcinoma, RPD had a significantly higher number of lymph nodes examined. There were no significant differences in postoperative morbidities and length-of-stay.
Conclusions
RPD was associated with fewer IBL and transfusion rates than OPD. RPD can be considered feasible and safe.
期刊介绍：
The International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery provides a cross-disciplinary platform for presenting the latest developments in robotics and computer assisted technologies for medical applications. The journal publishes cutting-edge papers and expert reviews, complemented by commentaries, correspondence and conference highlights that stimulate discussion and exchange of ideas. Areas of interest include robotic surgery aids and systems, operative planning tools, medical imaging and visualisation, simulation and navigation, virtual reality, intuitive command and control systems, haptics and sensor technologies. In addition to research and surgical planning studies, the journal welcomes papers detailing clinical trials and applications of computer-assisted workflows and robotic systems in neurosurgery, urology, paediatric, orthopaedic, craniofacial, cardiovascular, thoraco-abdominal, musculoskeletal and visceral surgery. Articles providing critical analysis of clinical trials, assessment of the benefits and risks of the application of these technologies, commenting on ease of use, or addressing surgical education and training issues are also encouraged. The journal aims to foster a community that encompasses medical practitioners, researchers, and engineers and computer scientists developing robotic systems and computational tools in academic and commercial environments, with the intention of promoting and developing these exciting areas of medical technology.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
