This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Research
Xu Che
Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College
Corresponding Author
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Objectives: To compare the efficacy of robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy with that of laparotomy.
Methods: The PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and other databases were searched for literature available from their respective inception dates up to May 2020 to find studies comparing robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) with open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD). The RevMan 5.3 statistical software was used for analysis to evaluate surgical outcome and oncology safety. The combination ratio (RR) and weighted mean difference (WMD) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using fixed effect or random effect models.
Results: 18 cohort studies from 16 medical centers were eligible with a total of 5795 patients including 1420 RPD group patients and 4375 OPD group patients. The RPD group fared better than the OPD group in terms of estimated blood loss (EBL) (WMD =-175.65, 95% CI (-251.85, -99.44), P<0.00001), wound infection rate (RR=0.60, 95%CI (0.44,0.81), P= 0.001), reoperation rate (RR=0.61, 95%CI (0.41,0.91), P=0.02), hospital day (WMD = -2.95, 95% CI (-5.33,-0.56), P = 0.02), intraoperative blood transfusion (RR = 0.56, 95% CI(0.42, 0.76), P=0.0001), overall complication (RR = 0.78, 95% CI(0.64,0.95), P = 0.01), and clinical pancreatic fistula (PF) (RR = 0.54, 95% CI(0.41,0.70), P < 0.0001). In terms of lymph node clearance (WMD = 0.48, 95% CI(-2.05,3.02), P = 0.71), R0 rate (RR = 1.05, 95% CI(1.00,1.11), P = 0.05), postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) (RR=1, 95% CI(0.85,1.19), P = 0.97), bile leakage (RR = 0.99, 95% CI(0.54,1.83), P = 0.98), delayed gastric emptying (DGE) (RR = 0.79, 95% CI(0.60,1.03), P = 0.08), mortality (RR = 0.82, 95% CI(0.62,1.10), P=0.19), and severe complication (RR = 0.98, 95% CI(0.71,1.36), P = 0.91), there were no significant differences between the two groups. Laparoscopic surgery was inferior to open surgery in terms of operational time (WMD = 80.85, 95% CI (16.09,145.61), P=0.01).
Conclusions: RPD is not inferior to OPD, and it is even more advantageous for DGE, wound infection rate, reoperation rate, hospital stay, transfusion, overall complication and clinical PF. However, these findings need to be further verified by high-quality randomized controlled trials.
Keywords
complications, open surgery, pancreaticoduodenectomy, robotic surgery, meta-analysis
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
Loading...
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
History
CURRENT STATUS: Posted
Version 1
Posted 08 Jul, 2020
No community comments so far
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Oncology
Learn more about our company.
This is a preprint. It has not completed peer review.
Research
Xu Che
Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College
Corresponding Author
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
History
CURRENT STATUS: Posted
Version 1
Posted 08 Jul, 2020
No community comments so far
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Oncology
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Objectives: To compare the efficacy of robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy with that of laparotomy.
Methods: The PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and other databases were searched for literature available from their respective inception dates up to May 2020 to find studies comparing robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) with open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD). The RevMan 5.3 statistical software was used for analysis to evaluate surgical outcome and oncology safety. The combination ratio (RR) and weighted mean difference (WMD) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using fixed effect or random effect models.
Results: 18 cohort studies from 16 medical centers were eligible with a total of 5795 patients including 1420 RPD group patients and 4375 OPD group patients. The RPD group fared better than the OPD group in terms of estimated blood loss (EBL) (WMD =-175.65, 95% CI (-251.85, -99.44), P<0.00001), wound infection rate (RR=0.60, 95%CI (0.44,0.81), P= 0.001), reoperation rate (RR=0.61, 95%CI (0.41,0.91), P=0.02), hospital day (WMD = -2.95, 95% CI (-5.33,-0.56), P = 0.02), intraoperative blood transfusion (RR = 0.56, 95% CI(0.42, 0.76), P=0.0001), overall complication (RR = 0.78, 95% CI(0.64,0.95), P = 0.01), and clinical pancreatic fistula (PF) (RR = 0.54, 95% CI(0.41,0.70), P < 0.0001). In terms of lymph node clearance (WMD = 0.48, 95% CI(-2.05,3.02), P = 0.71), R0 rate (RR = 1.05, 95% CI(1.00,1.11), P = 0.05), postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) (RR=1, 95% CI(0.85,1.19), P = 0.97), bile leakage (RR = 0.99, 95% CI(0.54,1.83), P = 0.98), delayed gastric emptying (DGE) (RR = 0.79, 95% CI(0.60,1.03), P = 0.08), mortality (RR = 0.82, 95% CI(0.62,1.10), P=0.19), and severe complication (RR = 0.98, 95% CI(0.71,1.36), P = 0.91), there were no significant differences between the two groups. Laparoscopic surgery was inferior to open surgery in terms of operational time (WMD = 80.85, 95% CI (16.09,145.61), P=0.01).
Conclusions: RPD is not inferior to OPD, and it is even more advantageous for DGE, wound infection rate, reoperation rate, hospital stay, transfusion, overall complication and clinical PF. However, these findings need to be further verified by high-quality randomized controlled trials.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Loading...