A retrospective comparison of robotic versus laparoscopic distal resection and enucleation for potentially benign pancreatic neoplasms.

Najafi, Nawid; Mintziras, I; Wiese, D; Albers, M B; Maurer, E; Bartsch, D K

PURPOSE The present study aimed to compare robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic distal pancreatic resection and enucleation for potentially benign pancreatic neoplasms. METHODS Patients were retrieved from a prospectively maintained database. Demographic data, tumor types, and the perioperative outcomes were retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS In a 10-year period, 75 patients (female, n = 44; male, n = 31; median age, 53 years [range, 9-84 years]) were identified. The majority of patients had pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (n = 39, 52%) and cystic neoplasms (n = 23, 31%) with a median tumor size of 17 (3-60) mm. Nineteen (25.3%) patients underwent enucleation (robotic, n = 11; laparoscopic, n = 8) and 56 (74.7%) patients underwent distal pancreatic resection (robotic, n = 24; laparoscopic, n = 32), of those 48 (85%) underwent spleen-preserving procedures. Eight (10.7%) procedures had to be converted to open surgery. The rate of vessel preservation in distal pancreatectomy was significantly higher in robotic-assisted procedures (62.5% vs. 12.5%, p = 0.01). Twenty-six (34.6%) patients experienced postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo grade > 3). Twenty (26.7%) patients developed a pancreatic fistula type B. There was no mortality. After a median follow-up period of 58 months (range 2-120 months), one patient (1.3%) developed local recurrence (glucagonoma) after enucleation, which was treated with a Whipple procedure. CONCLUSION The robotic approach is comparably safe, but increases the rate of splenic vessel preservation and reduces the risk of conversion to open surgery.