[Ethambutol in the treatment of pulmonary tuberculosis (experience of 70 cases)].

A. Delaude,J. Albarède,M. Girard,J. Dirat,J. Puel

1967-11-01

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary disease: a comprehensive review of literature and meta-analysis of outcomes compared with open surgery

Ke Chen,Yu Pan,Xiao-long Liu,Guang-yi Jiang,Di Wu,Hendi Maher,Xiu-jun Cai

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12876-017-0691-9

2017-01-01

BMC Gastroenterology

Abstract:Background Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) has been gradually attempted. However, whether MIPD is superior, equal or inferior to its conventional open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) is not clear. Methods Studies published up to May 2017 were searched in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Main outcomes were comprehensively reviewed and measured including conversion to open approach, operation time (OP), estimated blood loss (EBL), transfusion, length of hospital stay (LOS), overall complications, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), delayed gastric emptying (DGE), post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), readmission, reoperation and reasons of preoperative death, number of retrieved lymph nodes (RLN), surgical margins, recurrence, and survival. The software of Review Manage version 5.1 was used for meta-analysis. Results One hundred studies were included for systematic review and 26 out of them (totally 3402 cases, 1064 for MIPD, 2338 for OPD) were included for meta-analysis. In the early years, most articles were case reports or non-control case series studies, while in the last 6 years high-volume and comparative researches were increasing gradually. Systematic review revealed conversion rates of MIPD to OPD ranged from 0% to 40%. The mean or median OP of MIPD ranged from 276 to 657 min. The total POPF rates vary between 3.8% and 50% observed in all systematic reviewed studies. Meta-analysis demonstrated MIPD had longer OP (WMD = 99.4 min; 95%CI: 46.0 ~ 152.8, P < 0.01), lower blood loss (WMD = −0.54 ml; 95% CI, −0.88 ~ −0.20 ml; P < 0.01), lower transfusion rate (RR = 0.73, 95%CI: 0.57 ~ 0.94, P = 0.02), shorter LOS (WMD = −3.49 days; 95%CI: -4.83 ~ −2.15, P < 0.01). There was no significant difference in time to oral intake, postoperative complications, POPF, reoperation, readmission, perioperative mortality and number of retrieved lymph nodes. Conclusion Our study demonstrates MIPD is technically feasible and safety on the basis of historical studies. MIPD is associated with less blood loss, faster postoperative recovery, shorter length of hospitalization and longer operation time. These findings are waiting for being confirmed with robust prospective comparative studies and randomized clinical trials.
Expanding Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy to Pancreatic-Head and Periampullary Malignancy: Major Findings Based on Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Ke Chen,Xiao-long Liu,Yu Pan,Hendi Maher,Xian-fa Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12876-018-0830-y

2018-01-01

BMC Gastroenterology

Abstract:Abstract Background Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) remains to be established as a safe and effective alternative to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) for pancreatic-head and periampullary malignancy. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare LPD with OPD for these malignancies regarding short-term surgical and long-term survival outcomes. Methods A literature search was conducted before March 2018 to identify comparative studies in regard to outcomes of both LPD and OPD for the treatment of pancreatic-head and periampullary malignancies. Morbidity, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), mortality, operative time, estimated blood loss, hospitalization, retrieved lymph nodes, and survival outcomes were compared. Results Among eleven identified studies, 1196 underwent LPD, and 8247 were operated through OPD. The pooled data showed that LPD was associated with less morbidity (OR = 0.57, 95%CI: 0.41~ 0.78, P < 0.01), less blood loss (WMD = − 372.96 ml, 95% CI, − 507.83~ − 238.09 ml, P < 0.01), shorter hospital stays (WMD = − 197.49 ml, 95% CI, − 304.62~ − 90.37 ml, P < 0.01), and comparable POPF (OR = 0.85, 95%CI: 0.59~ 1.24, P = 0.40), and overall survival (HR = 1.03, 95%CI: 0.93~ 1.14, P = 0.54) compared to OPD. Operative time was longer in LPD (WMD = 87.68 min; 95%CI: 27.05~ 148.32, P < 0.01), whereas R0 rate tended to be higher in LPD (OR = 1.17; 95%CI: 1.00~ 1.37, P = 0.05) and there tended to be more retrieved lymph nodes in LPD (WMD = 1.15, 95%CI: -0.16~ 2.47, P = 0.08), but these differences failed to reach statistical significance. Conclusions LPD can be performed as safe and effective as OPD for pancreatic-head and periampullary malignancy with respect to both surgical and oncological outcomes. LPD is associated with less intraoperative blood loss and postoperative morbidity and may serve as a promising alternative to OPD in selected individuals in the future.
Total laparoscopic versus robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Yuhua Zhang,Defei Hong,Chengwu Zhang,Zhiming Hu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5582/bst.2018.01236

2018-01-01

BioScience Trends

Abstract:In this study, the clinical effectiveness of the robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) and Total laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy LPD were retrospectively reviewed. From December 2013 to September 2017, 20 patients underwent robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy and 80 patients underwent Total laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy. The clinical data of the RPDs and the first 20 LPDs were reviewed retrospectively. There is no difference in operative time, estimated blood loss, length of stay, and rates of complications and mortality between the LPD and RPD group. The next 10 cases in the RPD group had shorter operative times (p = 0.03) than the first 10 cases. The estimated blood loss and length of stay were also lower in the next 10 cases; however, these results did not reach statistical significance. Our results show that LPD and RPD are technically safe and feasible. Comparable results were demonstrated between the two groups, while the robotic system seemed to shorten the learning curve of minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD).
Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a single-center propensity score matching study

Ke Chen,Qin Tong,Jia-fei Yan,Chao-jie Huang,Yu Pan,Ren-chao Zhang,Qi-long Chen,Xue-yong Zheng,Xiao-yan Cai,Yong Wang,Xian-fa Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-020-00742-5

2020-01-01

Updates in Surgery

Abstract:Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) for benign and low-grade malignant pancreatic diseases has been increasingly utilized. However, the use of LDP for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains controversial and has not been widely accepted. In this study, the outcomes of LDP versus conventional open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) for left-sided PDAC were examined. A retrospective review of patients who underwent LDP or ODP for left-sided PDAC between January 2010 and January 2019 was conducted. One-to-one propensity score matching (PSM) was used to minimize selection biases by balancing factors including age, sex, ASA grade, tumor size, and combined resection. Demographic data, their pathological and short-term clinical parameters, and long-term oncological outcomes were compared between the LDP and ODP groups. A total of 197 patients with PDAC were enrolled. There were 115 (58.4%) patients in the LDP group and 82 (41.6%) patients in the ODP group. After 1:1 PSM, 66 well-matched patients in each group were evaluated. The LDP group had lesser blood loss (195 vs. 210 mL, p < 0.01), shorter operative time (193.6 vs. 217.5 min; p = 0.02), and shorter hospital stay (12 vs. 15 days, p < 0.01), whereas the overall complication rates were comparable between groups (10.6% vs.16.7%, p = 0.31). There were no significant differences between the LDP and ODP groups regarding 3-year recurrence-free or overall survival rate (p = 0.89 and p = 0.33, respectively). LDP in the treatment of left-sided PDAC is a technically safe, feasible and favorable approach in short-term surgical outcomes. Moreover, patients undergoing LDP than ODP for PDAC had comparable oncological metrics and similar middle-term survival rate.
Laparoscopic Versus Open Pancreatectomy for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Ke Chen,Yu Pan,Bin Zhang,Hendi Maher,Xiu-Jun Cai

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2017.12.032

2018-01-01

Abstract:BACKGROUND:Laparoscopic pancreatic surgery (LPS) has been widely used in the treatment of benign and low-grade pancreatic diseases. It is necessary to expand the current knowledge on the feasibility and safety of LPS for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) by systematic reviewing the published studies and analyzing them by meta-analysis.METHODS:Original articles compared LPS with open pancreatic surgery (OPS) for PDAC, published from January 1994 to August 2017 were searched in medical databases. Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), morbidity, mortality, operation time, blood loss, transfusion, hospital stay, retrieved lymph nodes (RLNs), and survival outcomes were compared.RESULTS:Fourteen studies with a total of 13174 patients (1705 in LPS and 11469 in OPS) were included for the meta-analysis. LPS showed less morbidity (RR = 0.78, 95%CI: 0.66-0.92, P < .01), blood loss (WMD = -298.05 ml, 95% CI, -482.98∼-113.12 ml; P < .01), shorter hospital stay (WMD = -2.86, 95%CI, -3.85∼-1.87; P < .01), more RLNs (WMD = 1.47, 95%CI: 0.15-2.78; P = .03) and comparable POPF (RR = 1.12, 95%CI: 0.82-1.53, P = .50), operation time (WMD = 22.23 min; 95%CI: -19.56-64.01, P = .30), and 5-year overall survival (HR = 0.92, 95%CI: 0.80-1.06; P = .23) compared to OPS.CONCLUSION:LPS can be performed safely in carefully selected patients with PADC and would improve the surgical outcomes. Considering the limitation of study design, the conclusions should be interpret cautiously and warrant to be confirmed by randomized controlled studies.
Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy: A Meta-Analysis Of Short-Term Outcomes

Jiayu Zhou,Chang Xin,Yi-Ping Mou,Xiao-Wu Xu,Miao-Zun Zhang,Yu-Cheng Zhou,Chao Lu,Rong-Gao Chen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0151189

IF: 3.7

2016-01-01

PLoS ONE

Abstract:AIMTo compare the safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RADP) and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP).METHODSA literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library database up to June 30, 2015 was performed. The following key words were used: pancreas, distal pancreatectomy, pancreatic, laparoscopic, laparoscopy, robotic, and robotic-assisted. Fixed and random effects models were applied. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.RESULTSSeven non-randomized controlled trials involving 568 patients met the inclusion criteria. Compared with LDP, RADP was associated with longer operating time, lower estimated blood loss, a higher spleen-preservation rate, and shorter hospital stay. There was no significant difference in transfusion, conversion to open surgery, R0 resection rate, lymph nodes harvested, overall complications, severe complications, pancreatic fistula, severe pancreatic fistula, ICU stay, total cost, and 30-day mortality between the two groups.CONCLUSIONRADP is a safe and feasible alternative to LDP with regard to short-term outcomes. Further studies on the long-term outcomes of these surgical techniques are required.Core tipTo date, there is no consensus on whether laparoscopic or robotic-assisted distal pancreatectomy is more beneficial to the patient. This is the first meta-analysis to compare laparoscopic and robotic-assisted distal pancreatectomy. We found that robotic-assisted distal pancreatectomy was associated with longer operating time, lower estimated blood loss, a higher spleen-preservation rate, and shorter hospital stay. There was no significant difference in transfusion, conversion to open surgery, overall complications, severe complications, pancreatic fistula, severe pancreatic fistula, ICU stay, total cost, and 30-day mortality between the two groups.
Do Patients Benefit More from Robot Assisted Approach Than Conventional Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy? A Meta-Analysis of Perioperative and Economic Outcomes.

Sun-Bing Xu,Chang-Ku Jia,Jing-Rui Wang,Ren-chao Zhang,Yi-Ping Mou

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfma.2018.05.003

IF: 3.871

2019-01-01

Journal of the Formosan Medical Association

Abstract:Background/Purpose: Robotic approach has improved the ergonomics of conventional laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP), but whether patients benefit more from robot assisted distal pancreatectomy (RADP) is still controversial. This meta-analysis aims to compare the perioperative and economic outcomes of RADP with LDP. Methods: A systematic review of the literature was carried out on PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library between January 1990 and March 2017. All eligible studies comparing RADP versus LDP were included. Perioperative and economic outcomes constituted the end points. Results: 13 English studies with 1396 patients were included. Regarding to intraoperative outcomes, RADP was associated with a significant decrease in conversion rate (OR = 0.52; 95%CI: 0.34, 0.78; P = 0.002). Although the spleen-preserving rates were comparable between RADP and LDP, a significant higher splenic vessels conservation rate was observed in the RADP group (OR = 4.71; 95%CI: 1.77, 12.56; P = 0.002). No statistically significant differences were found at operation time, estimated blood loss and blood transfusion rate. Concerning postoperative outcomes, pooled data indicated the overall morbidity, pancreatic fistula and the length of hospital stay did not differ significantly between the RADP and LDP groups. And concerning pathological outcomes, positive margin rate and the number of lymph nodules harvested were comparable between the two groups. The operative cost of RADP was almost double that of LDP (WMD = 2350.2 US dollars; 95%CI: 1165.62, 3534.78; P = 0.0001). Conclusion: RADP showed a slight technical advantage. But whether this benefit is worth twofold cost should be considered by patient's individuation. Copyright (C) 2018, Formosan Medical Association. Published by Elsevier Taiwan LLC.
Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy: An Up-To-Date System Review and Meta-Analysis

Lanwei Ouyang,Jia Zhang,Qingbo Feng,Zhiguang Zhang,Hexing Ma,Guodong Zhang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2022.834382

2022-02-25

Abstract:Background: Although minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy has gained worldwide interest, there are limited comparative studies between two minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy techniques. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of robotic and laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD), especially the difference in the perioperative and short-term oncological outcomes. Methods: PubMed, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Data, Web of Science, and EMBASE were searched based on a defined search strategy to identify eligible studies before July 2021. Data on operative times, blood loss, overall morbidity, major complications, vascular resection, blood transfusion, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), delayed gastric emptying (DGE), conversion rate, reoperation, length of hospital stay (LOS), and lymph node dissection were subjected to meta-analysis. Results: Overall, the final analysis included 9 retrospective studies comprising 3,732 patients; 1,149 (30.79%) underwent robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD), and 2,583 (69.21%) underwent LPD. The present meta-analysis revealed nonsignificant differences in operative times, overall morbidity, major complications, blood transfusion, POPF, DGE, reoperation, and LOS. Alternatively, compared with LPD, RPD was associated with less blood loss (p = 0.002), less conversion rate (p < 0.00001), less vascular resection (p = 0.0006), and more retrieved lymph nodes (p = 0.01). Conclusion: RPD is at least equivalent to LPD with respect to the incidence of complication, incidence and severity of DGE, and reoperation and length of hospital stay. Compared with LPD, RPD seems to be associated with less blood loss, lower conversion rate, less vascular resection, and more retrieved lymph nodes. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#recordDetails, identifier CRD2021274057.
Minimally Invasive Pancreaticoduodenectomy: from Laparoscopic Surgery to Da Vinci Robotic Surgical System

Zhang Yuhua,Hong Defei

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.1673-9752.2015.11.020

2015-01-01

Abstract:From the first Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) in 1994 to the first Da Vinci robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy(RPD) in 2003, minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy has achieved a breakthrough after 20-year exploration and development.It is a well-established procedure for periampullary carcinomas in some specialized centers now.Some outstanding reports including large clinical trials more than 100 cases of L/RPD in a single center and review analysis about the short and long outcomes between L/RPD and open PD for large cases have been published.For the sake of increasing popularity and acceptance of L/RPD, it is very important for researchers to update the current status of L/RPD and summarize experience and development.
Robotic versus laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic and periampullary tumors: a meta-analysis

Gang Tang,Fang Chen,Rui Chen,Rongxing Zhou,Jingyi Zhang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2024.1486504

IF: 4.7

2024-11-27

Frontiers in Oncology

Abstract:Objective: The value of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) compared with laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) for pancreatic and periampullary tumors is controversial. This study aims to assess the available literature and compare the short outcomes of RPD and LPD. Methods: The PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science databases were searched to identify available research published up to 24 July, 2024. Risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Results: Seventeen studies with a total of 9417 patients (RPD group: 3334 patients; LPD group: 6083 patients) were included in this meta-analysis. The RPD group had lower overall morbidity (RR, 0.79), conversion (RR, 0.29) and blood transfusion rates (RR, 0.61), shorter length of stay (MD, -0.72 days), and higher number of harvested lymph nodes (MD, 0.62) than the LPD group. There were no significant differences in 90-day mortality (RR, 0.89), major complications (RR, 0.87), operative time (MD, -3.74 mins), blood loss (MD, -24.14 mL), reoperation (RR, 0.94), bile leak (RR, 0.62), postoperative pancreatic hemorrhage (RR, 0.96), postoperative pancreatic fistula (RR, 0.74), delayed gastric emptying (RR, 1.24), and R0 resection (RR, 1.00) between the groups. Conclusions: Compared with LPD, RPD for pancreatic and periampullary tumors could be safe and effective, and it has superior surgical outcomes. Further randomized controlled trials to verify the potential advantages of RPD over LPD are necessary. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=581133, identifier CRD42024581133.

oncology
Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy is As Safe and Feasible As Open Procedure: a Meta-Analysis.

Kun Xie,Yi-Ping Zhu,Xiad-Wu Xu,Ke Chen,Jia-Fei Yan,Yi-Ping Mou

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v18.i16.1959

2012-01-01

Abstract:AIM: To evaluate the feasibility and safety of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) compared with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP).METHODS: Meta-analysis was performed using the databases, including PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science and BIOSIS Previews. Articles should contain quantitative data of the comparison of LDP and ODP. Each article was reviewed by two authors. Indices of operative time, spleen-preserving rate, time to fluid intake, ratio of malignant tumors, postoperative hospital stay, incidence rate of pancreatic fistula and overall morbidity rate were analyzed.RESULTS: Nine articles with 1341 patients who underwent pancreatectomy met the inclusion criteria. LDP was performed in 501 (37.4%) patients, while ODP was performed in 840 (62.6%) patients. There were significant differences in the operative time, time to fluid in-take, postoperative hospital stay and spleen-preserving rate between LDP and ODP. There was no difference between the two groups in pancreatic fistula rate [random effects model, risk ratio (RR) 0.996 (0.663, 1.494), P = 0.983, I-2 = 28.4%] and overall morbidity rate [random effects model, RR 0.81 (0.596, 1.101), P = 0.178, I-2 = 55.6%].CONCLUSION: LDP has the advantages of shorter hospital stay and operative time, more rapid recovery and higher spleen-preserving rate as compared with ODP. (C) 2012 Baishideng. All rights reserved.
A Comparison of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy: a Single Surgeon’s Robotic Experience in a High-Volume Center

Xiaoyu Zhang,Wei Chen,Jincai Jiang,Yufu Ye,Wendi Hu,Zhenglong Zhai,Xueli Bai,Tingbo Liang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-022-09402-8

2022-01-01

Abstract:Background Robotic surgery is the most recent advanced minimally invasive approach for distal pancreatectomy. However, its benefits over laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) remain undetermined. Previous studies were limited by their small sample size or variations in surgeon skills. This study aimed to compare robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) performed by a single surgeon with LDP performed by skilled laparoscopic surgeons in a high-volume center. Methods We retrospectively analyzed consecutive RDP performed by a single surgeon between December 2020 and November 2021 with LDP performed by experienced surgeons during the same period in a high-volume center. Patient characteristics and perioperative variables were compared. Results The analysis included 55 RDP and 146 LDP procedures. The operative time in the RDP group was significantly shorter than the LDP group (171 vs. 222 min, P < 0.001), both in spleen-preserved (154 vs. 212 min, P < 0.001) and spleen-removed (192 vs. 230 min, P = 0.005) procedures. The RDP group made more frequent use of the stapler technique for pancreas transection (87.3 vs. 68.5%, P = 0.007), and its estimated blood loss was lower (79 vs. 155 mL, P < 0.001) than the LDP group. The postoperative hospital stay in the RDP group was significantly shorter than the LDP group (8 vs. 12 days, P < 0.001). The groups were similar in their complication distributions. Conclusion RDP is as safe and feasible a minimally invasive approach as LDP. The advanced manipulation and visualization capabilities of the robotic approach in distal pancreatectomy could help reduce operative time and blood loss, and is related to shorter postoperative hospital stay.
Systematic review and meta-analysis of robotic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy

Long Peng,Shengrong Lin,Yong Li,Weidong Xiao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-5371-2

2016-12-07

Surgical Endoscopy

Abstract:BackgroundAlthough robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) has been successfully performed since 2003, its advantages over open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) are still uncertain. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the clinical outcomes of RPD to those of OPD.MethodsA systematic literature review was performed to identify RPD versus OPD comparative studies published between January 2003 and January 2016. Intraoperative outcomes, post-operative outcomes and oncologic safety were evaluated. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and weighted mean differences (WMDs) with a 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were calculated using fixed-effect or random-effect models.ResultsNine non-randomized observational clinical studies involving 680 patients met the inclusion criteria and involved 245 RPDs and 435 OPDs. The overall complication rate was significantly lower in RPD (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.47–0.91, P = 0.012), as well as the margin positivity rate (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.20–0.77, P = 0.006), the wound infection rate (OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.06–0.53, P = 0.002) and the length of hospital stay (WMD = −6.00, 95% CI −9.80 to −2.21, P = 0.002). There was no significant difference in the following: the number of lymph nodes harvested; the operation time; the reoperation rate; the incidence of delayed gastric emptying, bile leakage, pancreatic fistula and clinically significant pancreatic fistula; and mortality. The mean conversion rate was 7.3% (range 0–14%).ConclusionsAccording to the results of this meta-analysis, RPD is as safe and efficient as OPD and is even favourable in terms of margin-negative resection, overall complication and wound infection rates and length of hospital stay. Given that there have not yet been any high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs), the evidence is still limited. Additional prospective, multi-centre RCTs are needed to further define the role of the robotic technique in PD.
Meta-analysis of Short-Term Outcomes Comparing Robot-Assisted and Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy

Yong-hao Hu,Ya-fei Qin,Ding-ding Yu,Xiang Li,Yi-ming Zhao,De-jun Kong,Wang Jin,Hao Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2217/cer-2019-0124

2020-01-01

Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research

Abstract:Aim: To evaluate and compare the short-term outcomes of robotic surgery and laparoscopic approach in distal pancreatectomy (DP). Materials & methods: EMBASE, PubMed, the Cochrane Library, CNKI and Wan Fang database were retrieved from the inception of electronic databases to June 2019. All analyses were performed using Stata/SE 15.1 version (StataCorp). Results: Twenty-two papers were included, four of which were prospective studies and the rest were retrospective studies. There was significant difference in spleen preservation rate (odds ratio: 2.020; 95% CI: 1.085–3.758; p = 0.027), operation time (mean difference [MD]: 27.372; 95% CI: 8.236–47.210; p = 0.000), the length of hospital stay (MD: -0.911; 95% CI: -1.287 to -0.535; p = 0.000), conversion rate (rate difference: -0.090; 95% CI: -1.287 to -0.535; p = 0.000), operation cost (MD: 2816.564; 95% CI: 1782.028–3851.064; p = 0.000). However, no significant difference was detected in estimated blood loss, total complication, severe complication, lymph nodules harvest, blood transfusion rate, total pancreatic fistula, severe pancreatic fistula, R0 resection rate and mortality. Conclusion: Both robotic and laparoscopic DP are safe and feasible. Although robotic DP increases the operation cost, the spleen-preserving rate is much higher. Robotic surgery may be an alternative approach to DP.
A Current Status Between Laparoscopic and Robotic Resection of Pancreatic Malignant: A Systematic Review

Maher Hendi,Bin Zhang,Yu Pan,Yiping Mou

DOI: https://doi.org/10.33425/2639-9334.1002

2018-01-01

Abstract:Background: Laparoscopic and Robotic approaches have become increasingly used for pancreatic surgery.The aim of this study is to evaluate compile and evaluate existing literature on the comparison of laparoscopic pancreatic surgery and robotic pancreatic surgery in the resection of Pancreatic neoplasms.The outcomes of each technique were quantified using meta-analysis.Study Design: A systematic review of articles in both PubMed and Embase comparing laparoscopic and robotic colorectal procedures was performed.Approaches were evaluated in terms of operative time, length of stay, estimated blood loss, conversion, number of lymph nodes harvested, and mobidity and mortality and pancreatic fistula.Mean net differences and effect of each group.Results: 232 were full-text articles were identified, and 47 met the inclusion criteria, representing 2753 patients: 690 patients who underwent robotic pancreatic surgery procedures and 2063 patients who underwent laparoscopic pancreatic surgery procedure.Operative time for the robotic approach was 20-45 minutes longer.The robotic group had lower estimated blood loss (57 ml), and patients were 1.85 times more likely to be converted procedure and average length of stay in hospital (14,395 vs 11.85) laparoscopic group was longer then robotic.But there was no real difference between the 2 groups in terms of number of day.There was no much real difference between groups with respect to number of lymph nodes harvested, mortality, or morbidity rate. Conclusions:The laparoscopic and robotic approach to pancreatic surgery is as safe and similar outcomes for both procedures.Further the robotic approach tended to have longer operating times, less blood loss, and a higher rate of conversion to an open procedure compared with laparoscopic procedure.On the basis of the findings of this meta-analysis, there does not appear to be any clear advantage of a robotic approach over a laparoscopic one for pancreatic surgery.
Comparison of short-term outcomes of robotic versus open Pancreaticoduodenectomy: A Meta-Analysis of randomized controlled trials and Propensity-Score-Matched studies

Gang Tang,Linyu Zhang,Lingying Xia,Jie Zhang,Rui Chen,Rongxing Zhou

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/JS9.0000000000001871

2024-06-27

Abstract:Background: Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) is used more commonly, but this surge is mostly based on observational data. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the short-term outcomes between RPD and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) using data collected from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and propensity score-matched (PSM) studies. Materials and methods: We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science databases for RCTs and PSM studies comparing RPD and OPD. Risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Results: Twenty-four studies, encompassing two RCTs and 22 PSM studies, were included, with a total of 9393 patients (RPD group: 3919 patients; OPD group: 5474 patients). Although RPD was associated with a longer operative time (MD, 61.61 min), patients may benefit from reduced blood loss (MD, -154.05 mL), shorter length of stay (MD, -1.60 d), lower blood transfusion rate (RR, 0.85), and wound infection rate (RR, 0.61). There were no significant differences observed in 30-day readmission (RR, 0.99), 90-day mortality (RR, 0.97), overall morbidity (RR, 0.88), major complications (RR, 1.01), reoperation (RR, 1.08), bile leak (RR, 1.01), chylous leak (RR, 0.98), postoperative pancreatic fistula (RR, 0.97), postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (RR, 1.15), delayed gastric emptying (RR, 0.88), number of harvested lymph nodes (MD, -0.12), and R0 resection (RR, 1.01) between the groups. Conclusions: Although some short-term outcomes were similar between RPD and OPD, RPD exhibited reduced intraoperative blood loss, shorter hospital stays, lower wound infection, and blood transfusion rates. In the future, RPD may become a safe and effective alternative to OPD.
Single-crystal nanowires of platinum can be synthesized by controlling the reaction rate of a polyol process.

Jingyi Chen,T. Herricks,Matthias Geissler,Younan Xia

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/JA0468224

IF: 15

2004-08-17

Journal of the American Chemical Society

Abstract:Platinum nanowires of approximately 100 nm in length and approximately 5 nm in diameter have been synthesized by reducing H(2)PtCl(6) with ethylene glycol in the presence of poly(vinyl pyrrolidone) (PVP) and a trace amount of Fe(3+) or Fe(2+). The wires were generated at the final stage of the synthesis, which involved the formation of several intermediate species. The Fe(3+) or Fe(2+) ions had dual functions in the synthesis: they induced aggregation of Pt nanoparticles into larger structures that served as the nucleation sites, and they greatly reduced the reaction rate and supersaturation level to induce anisotropic growth. The reaction mechanism was studied by X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) and UV-vis spectral analysis. The Pt nanowires could be readily separated from the surfaces of the agglomerates by sonication and obtained as pure samples by centrifugation.
The surgical outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy versus laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary neoplasms: a comparative study of a single center

Rong Liu,Tao Zhang,Zhi-Ming Zhao,Xiang-Long Tan,Guo-Dong Zhao,Xuan Zhang,Yong Xu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-5238-6

2016-09-08

Surgical Endoscopy

Abstract:BackgroundPancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is a difficult and complex operation. The introduction of robotics has opened up new angles in pancreatic surgery. This study aims to assess the surgical outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy relative to its laparoscopic counterpart.MethodsA retrospective study was designed to compare the surgical outcomes of 27 robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) and 25 laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD). Perioperative data, including operating time, complication, morbidity and mortality, estimated blood loss, and postoperative length of stay, were analyzed.ResultsThe robotic group exhibited significantly shorter operative time (mean 387 vs. 442 min), shorter hospital stay (mean 17 vs. 24 days), and less blood loss (mean 219 vs. 334 ml) than those in the LPD group. No statistical difference was observed between the two groups in terms of complication rate, mortality rate, R0 resection rate, and number of harvested lymph node.ConclusionsRPD is more efficient and secure process than LPD among properly selected patients. RPD is therefore a feasible alternative to the laparoscopic procedure. Further studies are needed to evaluate the cost effectiveness of the robotic approach for PD.
Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy in Obese Patients.

Fabio Ausania,Filippo Landi,John B. Martinie,Dionisios Vrochides,Matthew Walsh,Shanaz M. Hossain,Steven White,Viswakumar Prabakaran,Laleh G. Melstrom,Yuman Fong,Giovanni Butturini,Laura Bignotto,Valentina Valle,Yuntao Bing,Dianrong Xiu,Gregorio Di Franco,Francisco Sanchez-Bueno,Nicola de’Angelis,Alexis Laurent,Giuseppe Giuliani,Graziano Pernazza,Alessandro Esposito,Roberto Salvia,Francesca Bazzocchi,Ludovica Esposito,Andrea Pietrabissa,Luigi Pugliese,Riccardo Memeo,Ichiro Uyama,Yuichiro Uchida,José Rios,Andrea Coratti,Luca Morelli,Pier C. Giulianotti

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-023-10361-x

2024-01-01

International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery

Abstract:Background Although robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) has a lower conversion rate to open surgery and causes less blood loss than laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP), clear evidence on the impact of the surgical approach on morbidity is lacking. Prior studies have shown a higher rate of complications among obese patients undergoing pancreatectomy. The primary aim of this study is to compare short-term outcomes of RDP vs. LDP in patients with a BMI ≥ 30. Methods In this multicenter study, all obese patients who underwent RDP or LDP for any indication between 2012 and 2022 at 18 international expert centers were included. The baseline characteristics underwent inverse probability treatment weighting to minimize allocation bias. Results Of 446 patients, 219 (50.2%) patients underwent RDP. The median age was 60 years, the median BMI was 33 (31–36), and the preoperative diagnosis was ductal adenocarcinoma in 21% of cases. The conversion rate was 19.9%, the overall complication rate was 57.8%, and the 90-day mortality rate was 0.7% (3 patients). RDP was associated with a lower complication rate (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.52–0.89; p = 0.005), less blood loss (150 vs. 200 ml; p < 0.001), fewer blood transfusion requirements (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.15–0.50; p < 0.001) and a lower Comprehensive Complications Index (8.7 vs. 8.9, p < 0.001) than LPD. RPD had a lower conversion rate (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.19–0.39; p < 0.001) and achieved better spleen preservation rate (OR 1.96, 95% CI 1.13–3.39; p = 0.016) than LPD. Conclusions In obese patients, RDP is associated with a lower conversion rate, fewer complications and better short-term outcomes than LPD.
Laparoscopic Versus Open Pancreatic Resection for Ductal Adenocarcinoma: Separate Propensity Score Matching Analyses of Distal Pancreatectomy and Pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Chen Ke,Pan Yu,Huang Chao-jie,Chen Qi-long,Zhang Ren-chao,Zhang Miao-zun,Wang Guan-yu,Wang Xian-fa,Mou Yi-ping,Yan Jia-fei

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-021-08117-8

IF: 4.638

2021-01-01

BMC Cancer

Abstract:Abstract Background Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is a leading causes of cancer mortality worldwide. Currently, laparoscopic pancreatic resection (LPR) is extensively applied to treat benign and low-grade diseases related to the pancreas. The viability and safety of LPR for PDAC needs to be understood better. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) and pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) are the two main surgical approaches for PDAC. We performed separate propensity score matching (PSM) analyses to assess the surgical and oncological outcomes of LPR for PDAC by comparing LDP with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) as well as LPD with open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD). Methods We assessed the data of patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy (DP) and pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) for PDAC between January 2004 and February 2020 at our hospital. A one-to-one PSM was applied to prevent selection bias by accounting for factors such as age, sex, body mass index, and tumour size. The DP group included 86 LDP patients and 86 ODP patients, whereas the PD group included 101 LPD patients and 101 OPD patients. Baseline characteristics, intraoperative effects, postoperative recovery, and survival outcomes were compared. Results Compared to ODP, LDP was associated with shorter operative time, lesser blood loss, and similar overall morbidity. Of the 101 patients who underwent LPD, 10 patients (9.9%) required conversion to laparotomy. The short-term surgical advantage of LPD is not as apparent as that of LDP due to conversions. Compared with OPD, LPD was associated with longer operative time, lesser blood loss, and similar overall morbidity. For oncological and survival outcomes, there were no significant differences in tumour size, R0 resection rate, and tumour stage in both the DP and PD subgroups. However, laparoscopic procedures appear to have an advantage over open surgery in terms of retrieved lymph nodes (DP subgroup: 14.4 ± 5.2 vs. 11.7 ± 5.1, p = 0.03; PD subgroup 21.9 ± 6.6 vs. 18.9 ± 5.4, p = 0.07). These two groups did not show a significant difference in the pattern of recurrence and overall survival rate. Conclusions Laparoscopic DP and PD are feasible and oncologically safe procedures for PDAC, with similar postoperative outcomes and long-term survival among patients who underwent open surgery.

[Ethambutol in the treatment of pulmonary tuberculosis (experience of 70 cases)].

Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary disease: a comprehensive review of literature and meta-analysis of outcomes compared with open surgery

Expanding Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy to Pancreatic-Head and Periampullary Malignancy: Major Findings Based on Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Total laparoscopic versus robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a single-center propensity score matching study

Laparoscopic Versus Open Pancreatectomy for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy: A Meta-Analysis Of Short-Term Outcomes

Do Patients Benefit More from Robot Assisted Approach Than Conventional Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy? A Meta-Analysis of Perioperative and Economic Outcomes.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy: An Up-To-Date System Review and Meta-Analysis

Minimally Invasive Pancreaticoduodenectomy: from Laparoscopic Surgery to Da Vinci Robotic Surgical System

Robotic versus laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic and periampullary tumors: a meta-analysis

Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy is As Safe and Feasible As Open Procedure: a Meta-Analysis.

A Comparison of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy: a Single Surgeon’s Robotic Experience in a High-Volume Center

Systematic review and meta-analysis of robotic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy

Meta-analysis of Short-Term Outcomes Comparing Robot-Assisted and Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy

A Current Status Between Laparoscopic and Robotic Resection of Pancreatic Malignant: A Systematic Review

Comparison of short-term outcomes of robotic versus open Pancreaticoduodenectomy: A Meta-Analysis of randomized controlled trials and Propensity-Score-Matched studies

Single-crystal nanowires of platinum can be synthesized by controlling the reaction rate of a polyol process.

The surgical outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy versus laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary neoplasms: a comparative study of a single center

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy in Obese Patients.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Pancreatic Resection for Ductal Adenocarcinoma: Separate Propensity Score Matching Analyses of Distal Pancreatectomy and Pancreaticoduodenectomy.