Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy: a pan-European multicenter propensity-matched study
Anouk M.L.H. Emmen, M. Zwart, Igor Khatkov, Ugo Boggi, Bas Groot Koerkamp, Olivier R. Busch, Olivier Saint‐Marc, Safi Dokmak, I. Quintus Molenaar, Mathieu D’Hondt, Marco Ramera, Tobias Keck, Giovanni Ferrari, Misha Luyer, Luca Moraldi, Benedetto Ielpo, Uwe A. Wittel, Régis Souche, Thilo Hackert, Daan J. Lips, Mehmet Fatih Can, Koop Bosscha, Régis Fara, Sebastiaan Festen, Susan van Dieren, Andrea Coratti, Ignace De Hingh, Michele Mazzola, Ulrich F. Wellner, Céline De Meyere, Hjalmar C. van Santvoort, Béatrice Aussilhou, Abdallah Iben-Khayat, Roeland F. de Wilde, Emanuele F. Kauffmann, P. Tyutyunnik, Marc G. Besselink, Mohammad Abu Hilal, Alberto Manzoni, Martina Guerra, Freek Daams, Geert Kazemier, R. E. Izrailov, Михаил Ефанов, Niccolò Napoli, Michael Ginesini, Marie Cappelle, Roel Haen, R. Quetel, Marco Pucci, Wouter J.M. Derksen, Jeroen Hagendoorn, Fadhel Samir Ftériche, Milena Muzzolini, Franky Vansteenkiste, Louisa Bolm, M. ten Winkel, Alessandro Giani, Pietro Calcagno
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of robot-assisted and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy is increasing, yet large adjusted analyses that can be generalized internationally are lacking. This study aimed to compare outcomes after robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy in a pan-European cohort. METHODS: An international multicenter retrospective study including patients after robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy from 50 centers in 12 European countries (2009-2020). Propensity score matching was performed in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome was major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo ≥III). RESULTS: Among 2,082 patients undergoing minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy, 1,006 underwent robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and 1,076 laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy. After matching 812 versus 812 patients, the rates of major morbidity (31.9% vs 29.6%; P = .347) and 30-day/in-hospital mortality (4.3% vs 4.6%; P = .904) did not differ significantly between robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy, respectively. Robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with a lower conversion rate (6.7% vs 18.0%; P < .001) and higher lymph node retrieval (16 vs 14; P = .003). Laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with shorter operation time (446 minutes versus 400 minutes; P < .001), and lower rates of postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C (19.0% vs 11.7%; P < .001), delayed gastric emptying grade B/C (21.4% vs 7.4%; P < .001), and a higher R0-resection rate (73.2% vs 84.4%; P < .001). CONCLUSION: This European multicenter study found no differences in overall major morbidity and 30-day/in-hospital mortality after robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy compared with laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy. Further, laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with a lower rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula, delayed gastric emptying, wound infection, shorter length of stay, and a higher R0 resection rate than robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy. In contrast, robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with a lower conversion rate and a higher number of retrieved lymph nodes as compared with laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy.