Skip to main content
. 2017 Apr 19;152(4):327–335. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2016.4755

Table 3. Impact of Undergoing RPD vs OPD for Clinically Relevant Pancreatic Fistula (CR-POPF) Occurrence and Other Postoperative Outcomes in Propensity Score-Matched Cohorts (Model 1)a.

Variable, No. (%) No. (%) P Value
OPD RPD
Patients 152 (50.0) 152 (50.0)
CR-POPF 17 (11.2) 10 (6.6) .23
FRS risk zone
Negligible, FRS 0 0 1 (4.3) >.99
Low, FRS 0-2 2 (6.7) 0 .50
Moderate, FRS 3-6 12 (14.1) 5 (5.9) .14
High, FRS 7-10 3 (21.4) 4 (28.6) >.99
Grade B POPF 14 (9.2) 10 (6.6) .52
Grade C POPF 3 (2.0) 0 .25
Complications
Any, Accordion severity grading system grade ≥1 101 (66.4) 112 (73.7) .21
Mild/moderate, Accordion score 1-2 65 (42.8) 77 (50.7) .24
Severe, Accordion severity grading system grade ≥3 36 (23.7) 35 (23.0) >.99
Readmission, 30-d 33 (21.7) 34 (22.4) >.99
Duration of hospital stay, d
Mean (SD) 11.8 (10.6) 10.5 (6.9) .22
Median, IQR 8.5 (7-12) 8 (7-12) .31
Mortality, 90-d 2 (1.3) 5 (3.3) .38

Abbreviations: FRS, Fistula Risk Score; IQR, interquartile range; OPD, open pancreatoduodenectomy; PDAC, pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma; POPF, postoperative pancreatic fistula; RPD, robotic pancreatoduodenectomy.

a

CR-POPF outcome comparisons were also stratified across FRS risk zones.