Comparison of Pancreatic Fistula Between Robotic-Assisted and Open Pancreatoduodenectomy: A Comprehensive Evaluation Using an Alternative Fistula Risk Score
Issued Date
2025-01-01
Resource Type
ISSN
18686974
eISSN
18686982
Scopus ID
2-s2.0-105008655696
Journal Title
Journal of Hepato Biliary Pancreatic Sciences
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
Journal of Hepato Biliary Pancreatic Sciences (2025)
Suggested Citation
Assawasirisin C., Han Y., Jung H.S., Yun W.G., Chae Y.S., Kwon W., Park J.S., Jang J.Y. Comparison of Pancreatic Fistula Between Robotic-Assisted and Open Pancreatoduodenectomy: A Comprehensive Evaluation Using an Alternative Fistula Risk Score. Journal of Hepato Biliary Pancreatic Sciences (2025). doi:10.1002/jhbp.12167 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/111036
Title
Comparison of Pancreatic Fistula Between Robotic-Assisted and Open Pancreatoduodenectomy: A Comprehensive Evaluation Using an Alternative Fistula Risk Score
Author's Affiliation
Corresponding Author(s)
Other Contributor(s)
Abstract
Background: Robotic-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) offers ergonomic advantages, yet its effect on pancreatic fistula risk remains unclear. This study evaluated RPD safety using the alternative fistula risk score (aFRS). Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the pancreatoduodenectomy database at Seoul National University Hospital (2014–2023), comparing RPD with open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) in a 1:1 aFRS probability-matched analysis. Baseline characteristics and outcomes were compared overall and by aFRS risk groups. Results: In the matched cohort, RPD patients had a similar BMI but a higher incidence of soft pancreatic texture, smaller ducts, and increased aFRS probability compared to OPD. Overall, clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) rates were similar (11% vs. 10%, p = 0.84). However, RPD had lower rates of delayed gastric emptying (3.1% vs. 5.4%, p = 0.024) and wound complications (1.9% vs. 5.5%, p < 0.001). Notably, in the high-risk aFRS group, RPD demonstrated significantly lower CR-POPF rates both before (12% vs. 18%, p = 0.049) and after matching (11% vs. 17%, p = 0.042). Conclusion: RPD is a safe and feasible approach, offering particular benefits in reducing CR-POPF among high-risk patients.