Textbook Outcomes of Totally Robotic Versus Totally Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy for Periampullary Neoplasm: A Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Study.

IF 2.9 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Boram Lee, Ho-Seong Han, Yoo-Seok Yoon, Jun Suh Lee
{"title":"Textbook Outcomes of Totally Robotic Versus Totally Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy for Periampullary Neoplasm: A Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Study.","authors":"Boram Lee, Ho-Seong Han, Yoo-Seok Yoon, Jun Suh Lee","doi":"10.3390/jcm14186687","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background/Objectives</b>: Textbook outcome (TO) is a composite quality measure in surgery, but few studies have compared TO between robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) and laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD). This study aimed to evaluate and compare TO following RPD and LPD for periampullary neoplasms. <b>Methods</b>: We retrospectively analyzed 322 patients who underwent minimally invasive PD between 2010 and 2023 (RPD, <i>n</i> = 60; LPD, <i>n</i> = 262). LPD was first introduced in 2004, but only cases performed since 2010 were included, while RPD has been performed since 2019. Propensity score matching (1:2) yielded 48 RPD and 96 LPD patients. TO was defined as the absence of pancreatic fistula, bile leak, post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage, severe complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ III), readmission, and in-hospital or 30-day mortality. <b>Results</b>: In the entire cohort, 240 of 322 patients (74.5%) achieved TO. After matching, TO rates were 64.6% in RPD and 76.9% in LPD (<i>p</i> = 0.656). Perioperative outcomes, including operative time, blood loss, transfusion, hospital stay, and major complications, were comparable, although RPD showed a higher incidence of hemorrhage (<i>p</i> = 0.032). Multivariate analysis identified body mass index < 25 kg/m<sup>2</sup> as an independent predictor of achieving TO (OR 3.13, <i>p</i> = 0.008). <b>Conclusions</b>: RPD and LPD achieved comparable textbook outcomes in periampullary surgery. Both approaches are feasible when performed by experienced surgeons, but larger studies with long-term follow-up are needed to validate these findings.</p>","PeriodicalId":15533,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Medicine","volume":"14 18","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12471001/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14186687","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background/Objectives: Textbook outcome (TO) is a composite quality measure in surgery, but few studies have compared TO between robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) and laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD). This study aimed to evaluate and compare TO following RPD and LPD for periampullary neoplasms. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 322 patients who underwent minimally invasive PD between 2010 and 2023 (RPD, n = 60; LPD, n = 262). LPD was first introduced in 2004, but only cases performed since 2010 were included, while RPD has been performed since 2019. Propensity score matching (1:2) yielded 48 RPD and 96 LPD patients. TO was defined as the absence of pancreatic fistula, bile leak, post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage, severe complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ III), readmission, and in-hospital or 30-day mortality. Results: In the entire cohort, 240 of 322 patients (74.5%) achieved TO. After matching, TO rates were 64.6% in RPD and 76.9% in LPD (p = 0.656). Perioperative outcomes, including operative time, blood loss, transfusion, hospital stay, and major complications, were comparable, although RPD showed a higher incidence of hemorrhage (p = 0.032). Multivariate analysis identified body mass index < 25 kg/m2 as an independent predictor of achieving TO (OR 3.13, p = 0.008). Conclusions: RPD and LPD achieved comparable textbook outcomes in periampullary surgery. Both approaches are feasible when performed by experienced surgeons, but larger studies with long-term follow-up are needed to validate these findings.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

完全机器人与完全腹腔镜胰十二指肠切除术治疗壶腹周围肿瘤的教科书结果:一项倾向评分匹配的队列研究。
背景/目的:教科书预后(TO)是外科手术的综合质量指标,但很少有研究比较机器人胰十二指肠切除术(RPD)和腹腔镜胰十二指肠切除术(LPD)的预后。本研究旨在评估和比较RPD和LPD治疗壶腹周围肿瘤后的to。方法:我们回顾性分析了2010年至2023年间322例微创PD患者(RPD, n = 60; LPD, n = 262)。LPD于2004年首次引入,但仅包括自2010年以来实施的病例,而RPD自2019年以来实施。倾向评分匹配(1:2)产生48例RPD和96例LPD。TO定义为无胰瘘、胆漏、胰切除术后出血、严重并发症(Clavien-Dindo≥III)、再入院、住院或30天死亡。结果:在整个队列中,322例患者中有240例(74.5%)达到了TO。配对后,RPD组TO率为64.6%,LPD组为76.9% (p = 0.656)。围手术期结果,包括手术时间、出血量、输血、住院时间和主要并发症,具有可比性,尽管RPD显示出更高的出血发生率(p = 0.032)。多变量分析发现体重指数< 25 kg/m2是达到TO的独立预测因子(OR 3.13, p = 0.008)。结论:RPD和LPD在壶腹周围手术中取得了相当的教科书结果。当有经验的外科医生进行手术时,这两种方法都是可行的,但需要更大规模的长期随访研究来验证这些发现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Clinical Medicine
Journal of Clinical Medicine MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
7.70%
发文量
6468
审稿时长
16.32 days
期刊介绍: Journal of Clinical Medicine (ISSN 2077-0383), is an international scientific open access journal, providing a platform for advances in health care/clinical practices, the study of direct observation of patients and general medical research. This multi-disciplinary journal is aimed at a wide audience of medical researchers and healthcare professionals. Unique features of this journal: manuscripts regarding original research and ideas will be particularly welcomed.JCM also accepts reviews, communications, and short notes. There is no limit to publication length: our aim is to encourage scientists to publish their experimental and theoretical results in as much detail as possible.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信