HBPSurG

Excellence in HBP Surgery

Welcome to HBPSurG

X-twitter

Follow us

HBPSurG

Non-profit association. We need your support.

Choose your support amount
Menu

HBPSurG Campus

Menu
Minimally Invasive Surgery
A pancreaticoduodenectomy, also known as the Whipple procedure, is a complex surgery to treat pancreatic cancer, tumors, or other conditions affecting the pancreas, duodenum, or bile ducts. It can be performed using two main approaches: open or minimally invasive (including laparoscopic or robotic-assisted techniques). Below is a comparison of open versus minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy based on current medical understanding:
  •  
 Open Pancreaticoduodenectomy
  • Description: Involves a large abdominal incision (laparotomy) to access and remove the head of the pancreas, duodenum, part of the bile duct, gallbladder, and sometimes part of the stomach, followed by reconstruction.
  • Advantages:
    • Provides direct visualization and tactile feedback, allowing surgeons to handle complex anatomy and unexpected complications effectively.
    • Preferred for larger tumors, extensive disease, or when vascular reconstruction is required.
    • Well-established technique with extensive long-term data on outcomes.
  • Disadvantages:
    • Larger incision leads to more postoperative pain and longer recovery time.
    • Higher risk of wound complications (e.g., infections, incisional hernias).
    • Longer hospital stay (typically 7–14 days).
    • Greater blood loss compared to minimally invasive approaches.
  • Outcomes:
    • Comparable oncologic outcomes (e.g., margin-negative resection rates, lymph node retrieval) to minimally invasive techniques when performed by experienced surgeons.
    • Operative time is generally shorter than minimally invasive approaches but varies by case complexity.
  •  
 Minimally Invasive Pancreaticoduodenectomy (Laparoscopic or Robotic)
  • Description: Uses small incisions with specialized instruments, either manually (laparoscopic) or with robotic assistance, to perform the same resection and reconstruction as the open approach.
  • Advantages:
    • Smaller incisions result in less postoperative pain, reduced scarring, and faster recovery.
    • Shorter hospital stay (typically 5–10 days).
    • Lower blood loss and reduced risk of wound complications.
    • Robotic systems offer enhanced precision, 3D visualization, and dexterity, potentially improving outcomes in complex cases.
  • Disadvantages:
    • Steep learning curve for surgeons, requiring specialized training and high case volume for proficiency.
    • Longer operative times, especially during the learning phase or with robotic approaches.
    • May not be suitable for large tumors, vascular involvement, or patients with extensive prior abdominal surgeries.
    • Higher costs, particularly with robotic systems, due to equipment and maintenance.
    • Limited long-term data compared to open surgery, though short-term outcomes are promising.
  • Outcomes:
    • Studies show comparable oncologic outcomes (e.g., R0 resection rates, lymph node yield) to open surgery in experienced centers.
    • Reduced postoperative complications (e.g., wound infections) but similar rates of pancreatic fistula or delayed gastric emptying.
    • Conversion to open surgery may occur in 10–20% of cases due to technical challenges or intraoperative findings.
 Key Considerations
  • Patient Selection: Minimally invasive approaches are best suited for patients with smaller tumors, no vascular involvement, and good overall health. Open surgery is preferred for complex cases or when minimally invasive expertise is unavailable.
  • Surgeon Experience: Outcomes for both approaches heavily depend on the surgeon’s expertise and institutional volume. High-volume centers report better results regardless of technique.
  • Technology: Robotic-assisted surgery (e.g., using the da Vinci system) is gaining popularity due to improved ergonomics and precision, but laparoscopic approaches remain viable in skilled hands.
  • Cost and Access: Minimally invasive techniques, especially robotic, are more expensive and may not be available in all centers, potentially limiting access.
 Current Evidence
  • Randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses (e.g., studies from 2020–2024) suggest that minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy is safe and feasible in experienced centers, with benefits in recovery time and reduced complications like wound infections. However, oncologic outcomes and major complication rates (e.g., pancreatic fistula) are similar to open surgery.
  • A 2023 meta-analysis found minimally invasive approaches had a 1–2 day shorter hospital stay and less blood loss but longer operative times (by ~60–90 minutes) compared to open surgery.
  • Long-term survival data for minimally invasive approaches are still maturing but appear comparable to open surgery for pancreatic cancer.
 Conclusion
The choice between open and minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy depends on patient factors (tumor size, comorbidities), surgeon expertise, and institutional resources. Open surgery remains the gold standard for complex cases, while minimally invasive techniques offer advantages in recovery and reduced morbidity for suitable candidates. Patients should discuss both options with a multidisciplinary team at a high-volume center to determine the best approach.

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) are minimally invasive surgical approaches for performing a pancreaticoduodenectomy (Whipple procedure), a complex operation to treat pancreatic head tumors, periampullary tumors, or other conditions. Here’s a concise comparison based on available evidence, focusing on key aspects such as outcomes, advantages, and limitations:

Overview

  • Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD):
    • Uses traditional laparoscopic instruments with 2D visualization.
    • Performed through small incisions with a camera and manual tools controlled by the surgeon.
    • Requires significant laparoscopic expertise due to the procedure’s complexity.
  • Robotic Pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD):
    • Employs a robotic surgical system (e.g., da Vinci) with 3D visualization, articulated instruments, and enhanced dexterity.
    • Surgeon operates from a console, controlling robotic arms for precise movements.
    • Facilitates complex tasks like suturing and dissection in confined spaces.

Comparison

Aspect
Laparoscopic (LPD)
Robotic (RPD)
Visualization
2D imaging, less depth perception.
3D high-definition imaging, better depth perception.
Instrument Dexterity
Limited by rigid instruments, tremor amplification.
Articulated instruments, tremor filtration, greater precision.
Learning Curve
Steeper; requires advanced laparoscopic skills.
Less steep; robotic interface is more intuitive.
Operative Time
Often longer due to technical challenges.
May be shorter with experience, but setup time longer.
Blood Loss
Comparable or slightly higher than RPD.
Comparable or slightly lower due to precision.
Postoperative Outcomes
Similar complication rates (e.g., pancreatic fistula, delayed gastric emptying).
Similar complication rates; some studies suggest lower fistula rates.
Hospital Stay
Similar (typically 6–10 days).
Similar, with potential for slightly shorter stays.
Cost
Lower equipment costs but higher skill demand.
Higher due to robotic system and maintenance.
Oncologic Outcomes
Comparable margin-negative resection rates.
Comparable, with potential for improved lymph node retrieval.
Conversion to Open Surgery
Higher risk due to technical limitations.
Lower risk due to enhanced control and visualization.

Advantages

  • LPD:
    • Lower cost compared to robotic systems.
    • Widely available in centers with skilled laparoscopic surgeons.
    • Suitable for straightforward cases with experienced teams.
  • RPD:
    • Enhanced precision for complex reconstructions (e.g., pancreaticojejunostomy).
    • Improved ergonomics for surgeons, reducing fatigue.
    • Better visualization and control in narrow anatomical spaces, potentially reducing complications.

Limitations

  • LPD:
    • Limited by 2D visualization and rigid instruments, making suturing and dissection challenging.
    • Higher risk of conversion to open surgery in complex cases.
    • Prolonged learning curve increases risk of complications in low-volume centers.
  • RPD:
    • High costs (equipment, maintenance, disposables) limit accessibility.
    • Requires specialized training for robotic systems.
    • Longer setup time for robotic equipment.

Clinical Evidence

  • Outcomes: Studies show comparable short-term outcomes (morbidity, mortality) between LPD and RPD, with no significant differences in major complications like pancreatic fistula or delayed gastric emptying. RPD may offer slight advantages in reducing blood loss and conversion rates.
  • Oncologic Efficacy: Both approaches achieve similar R0 resection rates (complete tumor removal) and lymph node yields, though some studies suggest RPD may improve lymph node retrieval due to precision.
  • Learning Curve: RPD typically requires 20–40 cases to achieve proficiency, compared to 50+ for LPD, depending on surgeon experience.
  • Cost-Effectiveness: LPD is generally more cost-effective, but RPD’s benefits (e.g., reduced complications in high-volume centers) may offset costs in specific contexts.

Current Trends and Considerations

  • Adoption: RPD is increasingly adopted in high-volume centers with robotic infrastructure, while LPD remains prevalent where cost or access to robotic systems is a barrier.
  • Patient Selection: Both approaches are best suited for patients with smaller tumors, no vascular invasion, and good performance status. Open surgery is preferred for complex cases with vascular involvement.
  • Surgeon Expertise: Outcomes heavily depend on surgeon experience and institutional volume. High-volume centers report better results for both techniques.
  • Recent Data: Web sources and posts on X (as of 2025) highlight ongoing debates about cost versus benefit, with some surgeons favoring RPD for its technical advantages in complex reconstructions, while others argue LPD is sufficient with skilled hands.

Conclusion

  • LPD is a cost-effective option suitable for experienced laparoscopic surgeons but is technically demanding with a steeper learning curve.
  • RPD offers technical advantages (precision, visualization, ergonomics) that may improve outcomes in complex cases, but its high cost limits widespread adoption.
  • The choice between LPD and RPD depends on institutional resources, surgeon expertise, and patient factors. Both are viable for well-selected patients in high-volume centers, with comparable oncologic and postoperative outcomes.
Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD), also known as the Whipple procedure, is a complex surgical intervention primarily used to treat pancreatic head and periampullary tumors. The traditional open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) has been the standard approach, but laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) has gained traction as a minimally invasive alternative. This analysis synthesizes evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses to compare perioperative and oncologic outcomes between OPD and LPD, focusing on mortality, morbidity, hospital stay, operative time, blood loss, oncologic outcomes, and postoperative complications.
  •  
1. Overview of Evidence
The analysis draws on data from multiple RCTs and systematic reviews with meta-analyses, including studies published up to 2024. Key sources include meta-analyses of RCTs (e.g., Nickel et al., 2020; Yan et al., 2023; Ausania et al., 2019) and individual RCTs like the PADULAP trial, PLOT trial, LEOPARD-2 trial, and a multicenter trial by Wang et al. (2021). These studies collectively involve thousands of patients, with sample sizes ranging from small single-center RCTs to larger multicenter trials. The evidence quality is often rated as moderate to low due to high clinical heterogeneity, small sample sizes in some RCTs, and the influence of surgical learning curves.
  •  

2. Perioperative Outcomes

a. Mortality
  • Evidence: Across RCTs, 90-day mortality rates are comparable between LPD and OPD. A meta-analysis by Nickel et al. (2020) reported no significant difference (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.36–3.73), with similar findings in Yan et al. (2023) (P = 0.854 in RCTs) and Yin et al. (2024). However, early LPD experience (<40 cases) is associated with higher mortality (P < 0.001), emphasizing the importance of surgeon expertise.
  • Analysis: LPD does not confer a mortality advantage or disadvantage over OPD when performed by experienced surgeons in high-volume centers. The learning curve significantly impacts safety, suggesting LPD should be restricted to centers with sufficient expertise.
b. Major Morbidity (Clavien-Dindo ≥3)
  • Evidence: Major postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3) occur at similar rates in LPD (29%) and OPD (31%) groups (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.36–1.79, P = 0.592). The PADULAP trial reported a reduction in major complications with LPD, but this was not consistently replicated in multicenter trials like LEOPARD-2, which noted more complication-related deaths with LPD.
  • Analysis: LPD does not significantly reduce major morbidity compared to OPD. Variability in outcomes across trials suggests that institutional experience and patient selection influence results. High-risk subgroups (e.g., BMI ≥25 kg/m², pancreatic duct <3 mm, age ≥70 years) show no significant difference in complications.
c. Length of Hospital Stay (LOS)
  • Evidence: LPD is associated with a shorter LOS in several studies. The PADULAP and PLOT trials reported significantly shorter LOS with LPD, and meta-analyses (e.g., Yan et al., 2023) confirm a reduction of approximately 7 days in RCTs. However, the LEOPARD-2 trial found no difference in time to functional recovery.
  • Analysis: LPD generally facilitates earlier discharge, likely due to reduced surgical trauma and faster recovery. However, inconsistent findings suggest that LOS benefits may depend on center-specific protocols and patient factors.
d. Operative Time
  • Evidence: LPD consistently requires longer operative times than OPD, with a mean increase of 56 minutes (meta-analysis by Yin et al., 2024). Wang et al. (2021) reported 417.4 minutes for LPD vs. 362.2 minutes for OPD (P = 0.002).
  • Analysis: The prolonged operative time in LPD reflects the technical complexity of the laparoscopic approach, particularly during reconstruction. This may increase costs and resource utilization, though it does not necessarily translate to worse clinical outcomes.
e. Blood Loss
  • Evidence: LPD is associated with significantly less intraoperative blood loss, with a mean reduction of 123–132 mL compared to OPD (meta-analyses by Yin et al., 2024, and others). A propensity score-matched study with vascular resection reported 550 mL (OPD) vs. less in LPD (P < 0.05).
  • Analysis: Reduced blood loss is a consistent advantage of LPD, likely due to the magnified visualization and precise dissection offered by laparoscopy. This may contribute to lower transfusion rates and faster recovery.
f. Postoperative Complications
  • Postoperative Pancreatic Fistula (POPF): No significant difference in clinically relevant POPF (grade B/C) rates between LPD and OPD (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.49–1.51). However, LPD may reduce POPF in patients with soft pancreas and small pancreatic ducts (<2 mm).
  • Delayed Gastric Emptying (DGE): LPD is associated with lower rates of grade B/C DGE (1.8% vs. higher in OPD, P < 0.05) in some studies, particularly after propensity score matching.
  • Postpancreatectomy Hemorrhage (PPH) and Bile Leak: No significant differences are observed in PPH or bile leak rates.
  • Surgical Site Infection (SSI): LPD reduces SSI risk (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.17–1.0) due to smaller incisions.
  • Analysis: LPD offers advantages in reducing DGE and SSI, likely due to its minimally invasive nature. However, POPF, PPH, and bile leak rates are comparable, indicating that LPD does not universally reduce pancreatic-specific complications.

3. Oncologic Outcomes

a. R0 Resection
  • Evidence: R0 resection rates (negative margins) are similar between LPD and OPD in RCTs (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.80–1.46). Some propensity-matched studies report a slightly higher R0 rate with LPD, but this is not statistically significant.
  • Analysis: LPD achieves oncologic equivalence to OPD in terms of margin status, suggesting it is a viable option for pancreatic and periampullary malignancies. The magnified laparoscopic view may enhance dissection precision, but this does not consistently translate to improved R0 rates.
b. Lymph Node Harvest
  • Evidence: Lymph node yield is comparable between LPD and OPD in most RCTs and meta-analyses (e.g., Yan et al., 2023). However, some studies report higher lymph node counts with LPD, possibly due to enhanced visualization.
  • Analysis: LPD does not compromise oncologic adequacy in terms of lymph node retrieval, supporting its use in malignant cases. Variability in reported lymph node counts may reflect surgeon experience rather than the approach itself.
c. Long-Term Survival
  • Evidence: For pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), propensity score-matched studies show comparable overall survival (OS) between LPD and OPD (e.g., 21 vs. 17 months, P = 0.220). A 2019 study reported a longer median OS with LPD (25 vs. 17 months, P = 0.034) before matching, but this difference diminished after balancing baseline characteristics.
  • Analysis: LPD appears to offer equivalent long-term survival to OPD for PDAC, with no significant oncologic disadvantage. The potential for earlier adjuvant therapy due to faster recovery with LPD may improve survival in some cases, but more RCTs are needed to confirm this.

4. Subgroup and Contextual Considerations

a. Learning Curve
  • Evidence: LPD has a steep learning curve, with higher mortality and morbidity reported in centers with <40 LPD cases. RCTs conducted by surgeons who have surmounted the learning curve (e.g., Wang et al., 2021) show better outcomes.
  • Analysis: The learning curve is a critical determinant of LPD safety. Centers with limited experience may face higher risks, underscoring the need for specialized training and high-volume settings.
b. High-Risk Subgroups
  • Evidence: Subgroup analyses (e.g., BMI ≥25 kg/m², pancreatic duct <3 mm, age ≥70 years, malignancy) show no significant differences in complications or mortality between LPD and OPD.
  • Analysis: LPD is feasible in high-risk patients when performed by experienced surgeons, but careful patient selection is crucial to minimize complications.
c. Vascular Resection
  • Evidence: LPD with portal vein/superior mesenteric vein (PV/SMV) resection is feasible, with less intraoperative blood loss than OPD (550 mL vs. less, P < 0.05) and comparable postoperative complications and survival.
  • Analysis: LPD can be extended to complex cases requiring vascular reconstruction, with outcomes similar to OPD. This suggests that LPD’s benefits (e.g., reduced blood loss) persist in technically demanding scenarios.
5. Limitations of Current Evidence
  • Heterogeneity: High clinical and statistical heterogeneity in RCTs limits the generalizability of findings. Differences in surgical expertise, patient selection, and outcome definitions contribute to variability.
  • Sample Size: Many RCTs are underpowered, with small sample sizes leading to potential type II errors. Trial sequential analyses suggest that over 1,200–3,000 patients are needed to confirm equivalence for key outcomes like mortality and POPF.
  • Bias: Moderate to high risk of bias in some studies, particularly due to unblinded designs and incomplete baseline matching in non-randomized comparative trials.
  • Learning Curve Impact: Early LPD experience skews outcomes, with safer results reported after surgeons surpass the learning curve.
  • Long-Term Data: Limited RCTs provide long-term survival data, particularly for PDAC, necessitating further research.

6. Clinical Implications and Recommendations

  • Safety and Feasibility: LPD is a safe and feasible alternative to OPD in high-volume centers with experienced surgeons, offering reduced blood loss, lower SSI rates, and shorter LOS without compromising oncologic outcomes.
  • Patient Selection: LPD is best suited for patients with resectable pancreatic or periampullary tumors, particularly those with lower BMI to minimize technical challenges. High-risk patients (e.g., elderly, high BMI) require careful evaluation.
  • Surgeon Expertise: LPD should be performed by surgeons who have overcome the learning curve (typically >40 cases) to ensure safety.
  • Future Research: Larger, multicenter RCTs with standardized outcome measures and long-term follow-up are needed to clarify LPD’s role, particularly for PDAC and complex cases. The role of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) also warrants further exploration, as it may address some limitations of LPD.

7. Conclusion

Based on current RCT evidence, LPD is comparable to OPD in terms of mortality, major morbidity, and oncologic outcomes for pancreatic and periampullary tumors. LPD offers advantages in reduced blood loss, lower SSI rates, and shorter hospital stays, but it requires longer operative times and is heavily influenced by the surgical learning curve. In high-volume centers with experienced surgeons, LPD is a valid alternative to OPD, particularly for selected patients. However, the evidence remains limited by heterogeneity and small sample sizes, necessitating further high-quality RCTs to establish definitive superiority or equivalence.
Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD), commonly known as the Whipple procedure, is a complex surgical intervention for pancreatic head and periampullary tumors. While open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) remains the gold standard, robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) has emerged as a minimally invasive alternative, leveraging robotic-assisted systems for enhanced precision. This analysis compares OPD and RPD based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and evidence-based data, focusing on perioperative outcomes (mortality, morbidity, hospital stay, operative time, blood loss) and oncologic outcomes (R0 resection, lymph node harvest, survival). Due to the limited number of RCTs specifically comparing OPD and RPD, this analysis incorporates high-quality meta-analyses, propensity score-matched studies, and observational data where RCTs are lacking, with an emphasis on evidence up to 2025.
  •  

1. Overview of Evidence

The evidence base for OPD versus RPD is less robust than for laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) due to the scarcity of RCTs directly comparing RPD with OPD. Key sources include meta-analyses (e.g., Kamarajah et al., 2020; Guerrini et al., 2023), propensity score-matched cohort studies, and observational data from high-volume centers. No large-scale, multicenter RCTs exclusively comparing OPD and RPD were identified in the available literature up to June 20, 2025. Most studies are retrospective or prospective cohort studies, often using propensity score matching to reduce selection bias. The quality of evidence is rated as low to moderate due to the lack of randomization, heterogeneity in surgical techniques, and the influence of the robotic learning curve. Where applicable, comparisons with LPD are noted to contextualize RPD’s role.
  •  

2. Perioperative Outcomes

a. Mortality
  • Evidence: No RCTs directly compare 90-day mortality between OPD and RPD. Meta-analyses of non-randomized studies (e.g., Kamarajah et al., 2020) report no significant difference in perioperative mortality (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.54–1.41). Single-center studies, such as those from high-volume robotic centers, show mortality rates of 2–4% for RPD, comparable to OPD. However, early RPD experience (<20–40 cases) is associated with higher mortality (P < 0.05 in some series).
  • Analysis: RPD appears to have equivalent mortality to OPD when performed by experienced surgeons in high-volume centers. The learning curve significantly impacts safety, similar to LPD, suggesting that RPD should be limited to specialized centers.
b. Major Morbidity (Clavien-Dindo ≥3)
  • Evidence: Meta-analyses report comparable major morbidity rates between RPD and OPD (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.67–1.19). Studies like those by Cai et al. (2021) and Nassour et al. (2022) show no significant difference in Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3 complications (RPD: 25–30% vs. OPD: 28–32%). However, some single-center studies suggest lower severe complication rates with RPD in experienced hands.
  • Analysis: RPD does not significantly reduce major morbidity compared to OPD. Variability in outcomes is likely due to differences in surgeon expertise, patient selection, and institutional protocols. The robotic approach’s enhanced dexterity may reduce complications in complex cases, but this is not consistently demonstrated.
c. Length of Hospital Stay (LOS)
  • Evidence: RPD is associated with a shorter LOS compared to OPD in several studies. Meta-analyses report a mean reduction of 2–3 days for RPD (e.g., Guerrini et al., 2023). Propensity score-matched studies show RPD LOS ranging from 7–10 days versus 9–12 days for OPD (P < 0.05 in some series).
  • Analysis: RPD’s minimally invasive approach likely contributes to faster recovery and shorter LOS, similar to LPD. However, the magnitude of benefit varies, and some studies show no difference, possibly due to standardized enhanced recovery protocols in OPD.
d. Operative Time
  • Evidence: RPD consistently requires longer operative times than OPD, with meta-analyses reporting an increase of 60–90 minutes (e.g., Kamarajah et al., 2020). Single-center studies note RPD times of 400–500 minutes versus 320–380 minutes for OPD (P < 0.01).
  • Analysis: The prolonged operative time for RPD reflects the technical complexity of robotic setup, docking, and reconstruction phases. This increases resource utilization but does not necessarily correlate with worse clinical outcomes. Experienced robotic surgeons may reduce operative times over time.
e. Blood Loss
  • Evidence: RPD is associated with significantly less intraoperative blood loss than OPD, with meta-analyses reporting a mean reduction of 100–150 mL (e.g., Guerrini et al., 2023). Propensity score-matched studies confirm lower transfusion rates with RPD (10–15% vs. 20–25% for OPD, P < 0.05).
  • Analysis: Reduced blood loss is a key advantage of RPD, attributed to the robotic system’s precision and 3D visualization. This aligns with LPD findings and may contribute to lower transfusion needs and faster recovery.
f. Postoperative Complications
  • Postoperative Pancreatic Fistula (POPF): Meta-analyses show no significant difference in clinically relevant POPF (grade B/C) rates between RPD and OPD (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.69–1.20). Some studies suggest a slight reduction in POPF with RPD in patients with soft pancreas or small ducts (<3 mm), but this is not statistically significant.
  • Delayed Gastric Emptying (DGE): RPD may reduce grade B/C DGE rates compared to OPD (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.50–0.98 in some meta-analyses), though results are inconsistent.
  • Postpancreatectomy Hemorrhage (PPH) and Bile Leak: No significant differences are reported in PPH or bile leak rates.
  • Surgical Site Infection (SSI): RPD reduces SSI rates (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.30–0.85), likely due to smaller incisions.
  • Analysis: RPD offers potential benefits in reducing DGE and SSI, similar to LPD, due to its minimally invasive nature. However, POPF and PPH rates are comparable to OPD, indicating no clear advantage in pancreatic-specific complications.

3. Oncologic Outcomes

a. R0 Resection
  • Evidence: R0 resection rates are similar between RPD and OPD in meta-analyses (OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.85–1.42). Propensity score-matched studies report R0 rates of 80–85% for both approaches in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).
  • Analysis: RPD achieves oncologic equivalence to OPD in terms of margin status. The robotic system’s enhanced visualization and dexterity may improve precision in dissection, but this does not consistently translate to higher R0 rates compared to OPD.
b. Lymph Node Harvest
  • Evidence: Lymph node yield is comparable or slightly higher with RPD in some studies. Meta-analyses report a mean of 19–22 nodes for RPD versus 18–20 for OPD (P = 0.06–0.10). Single-center studies from high-volume centers occasionally report higher yields with RPD.
  • Analysis: RPD does not compromise oncologic adequacy in lymph node retrieval. The slight increase in node harvest may reflect improved visualization and access, but differences are not clinically significant.
c. Long-Term Survival
  • Evidence: Limited data exist on long-term survival due to the absence of RCTs with extended follow-up. Propensity score-matched studies for PDAC show comparable overall survival (OS) between RPD and OPD (e.g., 20–24 months for RPD vs. 18–22 months for OPD, P > 0.05). Some single-center studies suggest a trend toward improved OS with RPD, possibly due to earlier adjuvant therapy.
  • Analysis: RPD appears to offer equivalent oncologic outcomes to OPD for PDAC. The potential for faster recovery with RPD may facilitate earlier adjuvant chemotherapy, but long-term survival data are insufficient to draw firm conclusions.

4. Subgroup and Contextual Considerations

a. Learning Curve
  • Evidence: RPD has a steep learning curve, with studies suggesting 20–40 cases are needed to achieve proficiency. Early RPD experience is associated with higher complication rates and longer operative times. High-volume centers (>20 RPDs/year) report outcomes comparable to OPD.
  • Analysis: The learning curve is a critical barrier to RPD adoption. Centers with limited experience face higher risks, emphasizing the need for structured training and mentorship programs.
b. High-Risk Subgroups
  • Evidence: Subgroup analyses (e.g., BMI ≥25 kg/m², pancreatic duct <3 mm, age ≥70 years, malignancy) show no significant differences in complications or mortality between RPD and OPD in propensity score-matched studies.
  • Analysis: RPD is feasible in high-risk patients when performed by experienced surgeons. The robotic platform’s ergonomic advantages may benefit complex cases, but careful patient selection is essential.
c. Vascular Resection
  • Evidence: RPD with portal vein/superior mesenteric vein (PV/SMV) resection is feasible, with less blood loss than OPD (e.g., 400–500 mL vs. 600–700 mL, P < 0.05) and comparable complication rates in small series.
  • Analysis: RPD can be applied to complex cases requiring vascular reconstruction, with outcomes similar to OPD. The robotic system’s precision may facilitate vascular anastomosis, but data are limited to specialized centers.
d. Comparison with LPD
  • Evidence: Some studies compare RPD with LPD, noting that RPD may reduce conversion rates to open surgery (5–10% vs. 15–20% for LPD) and improve precision in reconstruction. However, RPD’s longer operative times and higher costs are drawbacks compared to LPD.
  • Analysis: RPD may offer technical advantages over LPD in complex cases due to enhanced dexterity and 3D visualization, but direct comparisons are limited, and cost-effectiveness remains a concern.

5. Limitations of Current Evidence

  • Lack of RCTs: The absence of large-scale RCTs comparing OPD and RPD limits the strength of conclusions. Most data come from retrospective or propensity score-matched studies, which are prone to selection bias despite matching.
  • Heterogeneity: Variability in surgical techniques, robotic platforms, and outcome definitions contributes to high heterogeneity across studies.
  • Learning Curve Impact: Outcomes are heavily influenced by surgeon and institutional experience, with early RPD cases showing worse results.
  • Cost Considerations: RPD is significantly more expensive than OPD due to equipment and maintenance costs, but cost-effectiveness analyses are sparse.
  • Long-Term Data: Limited long-term survival data for RPD, particularly for PDAC, hinder oncologic comparisons.
  • Sample Size: Many studies are underpowered, with small cohorts (often <100 RPD cases), reducing statistical reliability.

6. Clinical Implications and Recommendations

  • Safety and Feasibility: RPD is a safe and feasible alternative to OPD in high-volume centers with experienced surgeons, offering reduced blood loss, lower SSI rates, and potentially shorter LOS. Oncologic outcomes are comparable to OPD.
  • Patient Selection: RPD is suitable for patients with resectable pancreatic or periampullary tumors, particularly those with lower BMI or less complex vascular involvement. High-risk patients require careful evaluation.
  • Surgeon Expertise: RPD should be performed by surgeons who have surpassed the learning curve (20–40 cases) in specialized centers to minimize complications.
  • Cost Considerations: The higher cost of RPD necessitates further evaluation of cost-effectiveness, particularly compared to LPD and OPD.
  • Future Research: Large, multicenter RCTs with standardized outcome measures and long-term follow-up are needed to establish RPD’s role. Comparative studies with LPD and cost-effectiveness analyses are also critical.

7. Conclusion

Based on available evidence, RPD is comparable to OPD in terms of mortality, major morbidity, and oncologic outcomes for pancreatic and periampullary tumors. RPD offers advantages in reduced blood loss and SSI rates, with potential for shorter hospital stays, but it requires longer operative times and is heavily influenced by the learning curve. The lack of RCTs limits definitive conclusions, but propensity score-matched studies suggest RPD is a viable alternative in high-volume centers with experienced surgeons. Further research, particularly RCTs, is needed to clarify RPD’s role relative to OPD and LPD, especially regarding long-term survival and cost-effectiveness.
 
Sources:
  • Kamarajah SK, et al. (2020). Meta-analysis of observational studies comparing RPD and OPD.
  • Guerrini GP, et al. (2023). Systematic review and meta-analysis of minimally invasive PD.
  • Cai J, et al. (2021). Propensity score-matched analysis of RPD vs. OPD.
  • Nassour I, et al. (2022). Outcomes of RPD in high-volume centers.
  • Additional data from observational studies and systematic reviews up to 2025.
Note: The analysis is constrained by the lack of RCTs, and findings rely heavily on non-randomized studies. Future RCTs are essential to strengthen the evidence base.

Overview: Distal pancreatectomy involves surgical removal of the body and tail of the pancreas, often for tumors, cysts, or chronic pancreatitis. It can be performed via open surgery or minimally invasive techniques (laparoscopic or robotic-assisted). Below is a comparison based on procedure, outcomes, and considerations.

Open Distal Pancreatectomy

  • Procedure: Performed through a large abdominal incision (laparotomy). Provides direct access to the pancreas, spleen (often removed), and surrounding structures.
  • Advantages:
    • Better visualization and tactile feedback for complex cases (e.g., large tumors, vascular involvement).
    • Preferred for locally advanced tumors or when malignancy is suspected.
    • Allows easier management of intraoperative complications (e.g., bleeding).
  • Disadvantages:
    • Larger incision leads to more postoperative pain.
    • Higher risk of wound infections and incisional hernias.
    • Longer hospital stay (typically 5–10 days).
    • Longer recovery time (4–8 weeks).
  • Complications: Higher rates of wound-related issues (5–10%) and longer-term recovery challenges.

Minimally Invasive Distal Pancreatectomy (Laparoscopic or Robotic)

  • Procedure: Uses small incisions with a laparoscope or robotic system to remove the pancreatic body/tail. May include spleen preservation or removal.
  • Advantages:
    • Smaller incisions reduce postoperative pain and scarring.
    • Lower risk of wound complications (e.g., infections ~2–5%).
    • Shorter hospital stay (3–7 days).
    • Faster recovery (2–4 weeks).
    • Robotic approach offers enhanced precision and 3D visualization.
  • Disadvantages:
    • Technically challenging, requiring surgeon expertise.
    • Longer operative time, especially for robotic procedures.
    • Limited applicability for complex cases (e.g., large tumors or vascular invasion).
    • Higher costs, particularly for robotic surgery.
  • Complications: Similar pancreatic-specific risks (e.g., pancreatic fistula ~10–30%), but fewer wound-related issues.

Key Comparisons

Factor
Open
Minimally Invasive
Incision Size
Large (10–20 cm)
Small (0.5–2 cm)
Hospital Stay
5–10 days
3–7 days
Recovery Time
4–8 weeks
2–4 weeks
Wound Complications
Higher (5–10%)
Lower (2–5%)
Operative Time
Shorter
Longer
Cost
Lower
Higher (especially robotic)
Oncologic Outcomes
Equivalent for resectable tumors
Equivalent for resectable tumors
Spleen Preservation
Feasible but less common
More feasible, especially robotic

Clinical Considerations

  • Patient Selection:
    • Open: Preferred for large tumors (>5 cm), suspected malignancy with vascular involvement, or patients with prior abdominal surgeries causing adhesions.
    • Minimally Invasive: Ideal for smaller, benign, or low-grade malignant tumors, and patients with fewer comorbidities.
  • Outcomes: Studies show comparable oncologic outcomes (e.g., margin-negative resection rates) for both approaches in appropriately selected patients. Minimally invasive techniques often result in better short-term outcomes (less pain, faster recovery).
  • Complications: Pancreatic fistula remains the most common complication (10–30%) for both approaches, with no significant difference in rates.
  • Spleen Preservation: More feasible with minimally invasive approaches, especially robotic, reducing risks like postsplenectomy infections.

Current Trends

  • Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy is increasingly preferred due to patient demand for faster recovery and advances in surgical technology.
  • Robotic-assisted surgery is gaining popularity for its precision, though cost and availability limit widespread adoption.
  • Guidelines (e.g., from the International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association) recommend minimally invasive approaches for benign or low-grade malignant lesions in high-volume centers with experienced surgeons.

Conclusion

  • Open is better for complex cases requiring extensive dissection or when malignancy is suspected.
  • Minimally invasive (laparoscopic or robotic) is preferred for smaller, less complex lesions, offering faster recovery and fewer wound complications.
  • Surgeon expertise, hospital resources, and patient factors (e.g., tumor size, comorbidities) guide the choice of approach.

Laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomy are minimally invasive surgical approaches for removing the distal (tail) portion of the pancreas. Both techniques aim to reduce complications, recovery time, and hospital stay compared to open surgery. Below is a comparison based on available evidence, focusing on key differences, advantages, and disadvantages.

Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy (LDP)

  • Definition: A minimally invasive procedure using small incisions, a camera (laparoscope), and specialized instruments to remove the distal pancreas.
  • Procedure: Performed by a surgeon manually controlling instruments through ports. Often includes spleen preservation or splenectomy, depending on the indication (e.g., benign vs. malignant lesions).
  • Advantages:
    • Cost: Generally less expensive than robotic surgery due to lower equipment and maintenance costs.
    • Availability: More widely available, as it requires standard laparoscopic equipment and trained surgeons.
    • Outcomes: Studies show comparable oncologic outcomes (e.g., margin-negative resection rates) to robotic approaches for pancreatic cancer, with similar postoperative complication rates (e.g., pancreatic fistula rates ~15-30%).
    • Learning Curve: Steeper than open surgery but less complex than robotic systems for experienced laparoscopic surgeons.
  • Disadvantages:
    • Ergonomics: Less ergonomic for surgeons, leading to fatigue during long procedures.
    • Precision: Limited by two-dimensional visualization and restricted instrument mobility (non-articulating instruments).
    • Complex Cases: May be less effective for complex tumors or vascular involvement due to limited dexterity.
    • Spleen Preservation: Spleen-preserving LDP is technically challenging, with success rates around 60-80% in experienced hands.

 Robotic Distal Pancreatectomy (RDP)

  • Definition: A minimally invasive procedure using a robotic surgical system (e.g., da Vinci) controlled by a surgeon at a console, providing enhanced visualization and dexterity.
  • Procedure: Similar to LDP but uses robotic arms with articulated instruments, 3D high-definition imaging, and tremor filtration.
  • Advantages:
    • Precision and Dexterity: Robotic systems offer superior instrument articulation (wrist-like movements) and 3D visualization, improving precision in delicate dissections, especially for spleen-preserving procedures.
    • Spleen Preservation: Higher success rates for spleen preservation (up to 90% in some series) due to enhanced control and visualization.
    • Ergonomics: More comfortable for surgeons, reducing fatigue during complex or lengthy procedures.
    • Learning Curve: Potentially shorter for surgeons transitioning from open surgery, though it requires robotic-specific training.
    • Complex Cases: Better suited for tumors with vascular involvement or challenging anatomy due to enhanced maneuverability.
  • Disadvantages:
    • Cost: Significantly more expensive due to robotic system costs, maintenance, and disposable instruments. Studies estimate 20-40% higher costs compared to LDP.
    • Availability: Limited to centers with robotic systems and trained staff, reducing accessibility.
    • Operative Time: Often longer than LDP (by 30-60 minutes in some studies), especially during the learning curve.
    • Outcomes: No definitive evidence of superior oncologic outcomes (e.g., survival or margin status) compared to LDP for pancreatic cancer.

 Comparative Outcomes (Based on Studies up to 2025)

  • Operative Time: RDP typically takes longer (e.g., 250-300 min vs. 200-250 min for LDP), though this gap narrows with surgeon experience.
  • Blood Loss: Both approaches have comparable blood loss (200-400 mL), though RDP may reduce blood loss in complex cases.
  • Complications: Postoperative complications (e.g., pancreatic fistula, bleeding) are similar, with rates of 20-40% for both. Major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo ≥3) is around 10-15% for both.
  • Hospital Stay: Both techniques result in shorter stays (5-8 days) compared to open surgery (8-12 days), with no significant difference between LDP and RDP.
  • Oncologic Outcomes: For pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, both achieve similar R0 resection rates (80-90%) and lymph node retrieval (12-20 nodes).
  • Spleen Preservation: RDP has a higher spleen preservation rate (70-90% vs. 60-80% for LDP) in benign or low-grade malignant cases.
  • Cost: RDP costs $10,000-$15,000 more per procedure in some analyses, driven by equipment and longer operative times..

 Indications and Patient Selection

  • LDP: Preferred for straightforward cases, benign lesions (e.g., mucinous cystic neoplasms, neuroendocrine tumors), or in centers without robotic systems. Best for cost-conscious settings or when spleen preservation is not critical.
  • RDP: Preferred for complex cases (e.g., tumors near major vessels, spleen-preserving intent, or obese patients) due to enhanced visualization and control. Ideal in high-volume robotic centers.

Current Trends and Evidence

  • Recent meta-analyses (e.g., 2023-2024 studies on PubMed) show no significant difference in long-term survival or major complications between LDP and RDP for pancreatic cancer, but RDP is associated with higher spleen preservation rates and slightly lower conversion rates to open surgery (5-10% vs. 10-15% for LDP).
  • X posts (searched May 14, 2025) highlight ongoing discussions about robotic surgery’s cost-effectiveness, with some surgeons advocating for RDP’s precision in academic settings, while others argue LDP remains sufficient for most cases.
  • No significant new trials or breakthroughs on LDP vs. RDP were noted in 2025 web searches, but robotic adoption is increasing in high-volume centers.

 Conclusion

  • Choose LDP for cost-effectiveness, wider availability, and straightforward cases where spleen preservation is not critical.
  • Choose RDP for complex cases, spleen-preserving procedures, or when advanced precision is needed, provided the center has robotic expertise.
  • Both are safe and effective, with choice depending on patient factors (e.g., tumor complexity, spleen preservation), surgeon expertise, and institutional resources.
Disclaimer

This page is designed only for learning support purposes.
It is not dedicated for any medical use or patient care.
HBPSurG makes no claims of the accuracy of the information contained herein.​

error: Content is protected !!
✕
HBPSurG

GRATUIT
VOIR