Surgical endoscopy · 2025
Reduced pancreatic fistula rates and comprehensive cost analysis of robotic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Wakabayashi Taiga, Gaudenzi Federico, Nie Yusuke, Mishima Kohei, Fujiyama Yoshiki, Igarashi Kazuharu, Teshigahara Yu, Mineta Sho, Bozkurt Emre, Wakabayashi Go
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) has emerged as a promising surgical approach for the treatment of periampullary neoplasms, offering the potential benefits of minimally invasive surgery. However, the impact of RPD on clinically relevant pancreatic fistula (CR-PF) rates and overall costs compared to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) remains unclear, limiting its widespread adoption.
METHODS: This retrospective cohort study was conducted at a high-volume Japanese referral center from 2017 to 2023. A total of 193 patients diagnosed with periampullary neoplasms underwent either RPD (n = 81) or OPD (n = 112). To account for potential selection bias, propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance patient demographics and clinical characteristics, resulting in two well-matched groups of 60 patients each. Perioperative outcomes, CR-PF rates, and a comprehensive cost analysis were evaluated.
RESULTS: RPD resulted in a significantly lower rate of CR-PF (10%) compared to OPD (33.3%) (p = 0.003). Additionally, patients who underwent RPD experienced shorter hospital stays (15 days) compared to those in the OPD group (22.5 days) (p < 0.001). Despite longer operative times for RPD (633 vs. 395 min; p < 0.001), total hospital costs were comparable between the two groups. The higher operative costs associated with RPD were offset by reduced postoperative complications and shorter hospitalization.
CONCLUSIONS: RPD offers significant clinical advantages, including lower CR-PF rates and reduced hospital stays, without increasing overall hospital costs compared to OPD. These findings support the feasibility and potential benefits of adopting RPD for the management of periampullary neoplasms in clinical practice.
METHODS: This retrospective cohort study was conducted at a high-volume Japanese referral center from 2017 to 2023. A total of 193 patients diagnosed with periampullary neoplasms underwent either RPD (n = 81) or OPD (n = 112). To account for potential selection bias, propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance patient demographics and clinical characteristics, resulting in two well-matched groups of 60 patients each. Perioperative outcomes, CR-PF rates, and a comprehensive cost analysis were evaluated.
RESULTS: RPD resulted in a significantly lower rate of CR-PF (10%) compared to OPD (33.3%) (p = 0.003). Additionally, patients who underwent RPD experienced shorter hospital stays (15 days) compared to those in the OPD group (22.5 days) (p < 0.001). Despite longer operative times for RPD (633 vs. 395 min; p < 0.001), total hospital costs were comparable between the two groups. The higher operative costs associated with RPD were offset by reduced postoperative complications and shorter hospitalization.
CONCLUSIONS: RPD offers significant clinical advantages, including lower CR-PF rates and reduced hospital stays, without increasing overall hospital costs compared to OPD. These findings support the feasibility and potential benefits of adopting RPD for the management of periampullary neoplasms in clinical practice.