TY - JOUR
T1 - Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies: A systematic review and meta-analysis on costs and perioperative outcome
AU - DI MARTINO, MARCELLO
AU - Caruso, R
AU - D'Ovidio, A
AU - Nunez-Alfonsel, J
AU - FB, Pinilla
AU - YQ, Collazo
AU - Vicente, E
AU - Ielpo, B
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
PY - 2021
Y1 - 2021
N2 - Aim: The aim of this meta-analysis is to compare perioperative outcomes and costs of robotic and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (RDP and LDP). Material and methods: In accordance with the PRISMA guidelines, we searched Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane and Web of Science for reports published before December 2020. Results: The literature search identified 11 papers (1 187 patients). RDP showed a lower conversion rate (odds ratio: 2.56, 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 1.31 to 5.00) with no significant differences in bleeding and operative time, complications ≥ Clavien–Dindo grade III, pancreatic fistulas and length of stay. Despite RDP presenting higher costs in all included studies, none of these differences were significant. However, RDP showed higher total costs than LDP (standardized mean differences [SMD]: −1.18, 95% CI: −1.97 to −0.39). A subgroup analysis according to the continent of origin showed that studies coming from Asian research groups kept showing significant differences (SMD: −2.62, 95% CI: −3.38 to −1.85), while Western groups did not confirm these findings. Conclusion: Based on low-quality evidence, despite some potential technical advantages, RDP still seems to be costlier than LDP.
AB - Aim: The aim of this meta-analysis is to compare perioperative outcomes and costs of robotic and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (RDP and LDP). Material and methods: In accordance with the PRISMA guidelines, we searched Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane and Web of Science for reports published before December 2020. Results: The literature search identified 11 papers (1 187 patients). RDP showed a lower conversion rate (odds ratio: 2.56, 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 1.31 to 5.00) with no significant differences in bleeding and operative time, complications ≥ Clavien–Dindo grade III, pancreatic fistulas and length of stay. Despite RDP presenting higher costs in all included studies, none of these differences were significant. However, RDP showed higher total costs than LDP (standardized mean differences [SMD]: −1.18, 95% CI: −1.97 to −0.39). A subgroup analysis according to the continent of origin showed that studies coming from Asian research groups kept showing significant differences (SMD: −2.62, 95% CI: −3.38 to −1.85), while Western groups did not confirm these findings. Conclusion: Based on low-quality evidence, despite some potential technical advantages, RDP still seems to be costlier than LDP.
UR - https://iris.uniupo.it/handle/11579/183660
U2 - 10.1002/rcs.2295 EA JUN 2021
DO - 10.1002/rcs.2295 EA JUN 2021
M3 - Article
SN - 1478-5951
VL - 17
JO - International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery
JF - International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery
IS - 5
ER -