Propensity score-matched analysis of robotic versus open surgical enucleation for small pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours

Abstract

NCT02125929 ( https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/).

Minimally invasive versus open pancreatic enucleation. Systematic review and meta‐analysis of surgical outcomes

“…On the basis of titles and abstracts, a total of 39 potentially pertinent records were detected. Nine additional records were identified by hand searching of bibliographies, for a total of 48 records . After the evaluation of full‐texts, eight studies met all the inclusion criteria and were considered eligible for data extraction and meta‐analysis.…”

“…Nine additional records were identified by hand searching of bibliographies, for a total of 48 records . After the evaluation of full‐texts, eight studies met all the inclusion criteria and were considered eligible for data extraction and meta‐analysis. The remaining studies were excluded for the following reasons: impossibility to extrapolate detailed data of MIS versus open surgery: 14 studies, absence of a comparator group: 18 studies, reviews articles: 7 studies and presence of duplicate data: 1 study .…”

“…Six out of eight studies compared conventional laparoscopy with open surgery, whereas the two remaining studies reported data evaluating robotic versus open surgery. Seven studies included solely enucleation procedures, while from the paper by Sa Cunha et al the data on enucleation were available and extrapolated from a general series concerning all types of pancreatectomy.…”

“…In most studies, POPF has been diagnosed using the system proposed by the International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistula . Briefly, according to this classification PF is defined as any measurable volume of drain fluid on or after postoperative day 3 with amylase level >3 times the upper limit of normal amylase.…”

“…One further study did not provide details concerning the method of the POPF assessment. Most studies defined complications (including major complications) according to the Clavien‐Dindo Classification, while the remaining articles did not use specific definition criteria. The Clavien Dindo Classification, originally described in 2004, is widely used throughout surgery for ranking adverse events following surgical procedures.…”