Efficacy comparison between robotic and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy in treatment of pancreatic body and tail cancer
10.3760/cma.j.issn.1006-9801.2019.09.005
- VernacularTitle: 机器人与腹腔镜胰体尾切除术治疗胰体尾部肿瘤效果比较
- Author:
Tianyu HUO
1
;
Yuxuan WEI
1
;
Hongyin ZHU
1
;
Wangping CUI
1
;
Zhigang WEI
2
Author Information
1. The First Clinical Medical College of Shanxi Medical University, Taiyuan 030001, China
2. Department of General Surgery, the First Hospital of Shanxi Medical University, Taiyuan 030001, China
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Pancreatic neoplasms;
Distal pancreatectomy;
Robotics;
Laparoscopy
- From:
Cancer Research and Clinic
2019;31(9):597-600
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To compare the short-term efficacy of robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) in treatment of pancreatic body and tail cancer, and to explore the feasibility of RDP.
Methods:The clinical data of 11 patients who received RDP and 26 patients who received LDP from January 2014 to May 2018 in the First Hospital of Shanxi Medical University were retrospectively analyzed. The operation indexes and the hospitalized cost of both groups were compared.
Results:There were no significant differences in spleen-preserving rate, postoperative hospital stay, postoperative pain, intraoperative or postoperative blood transfusion, postoperative bleeding and pancreatic fistula between the two groups (all P > 0.05), but the amount of intraoperative bleeding in RDP group was less than that in LDP group, and the difference was statistically significant [(144±51) vs. (199±65) ml, t = -2.530, P = 0.016]. Compared with LDP group, the total hospitalization cost and operation cost of RDP group was increased [(75 000±14 000) yuan vs. (107 000±12 000) yuan; (21 000±9 000) yuan vs. (39 000±16 000) yuan; both P < 0.01].
Conclusion:Both RDP and LDP are safe and feasible. LDP has the advantages of relative low cost and wide range of operations. RDP has obvious advantages in controlling intraoperative bleeding, but the high cost limits its further clinical promotion.
