Literature DB >> 21394014

Laparoscopic versus open left pancreatectomy: can preoperative factors indicate the safer technique?

Clifford S Cho1, David A Kooby, C Max Schmidt, Attila Nakeeb, David J Bentrem, Nipun B Merchant, Alexander A Parikh, Ronald C G Martin, Charles R Scoggins, Syed A Ahmad, Hong J Kim, Nicholas Hamilton, William G Hawkins, Sharon M Weber.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic left pancreatectomy (LLP) is associated with favorable outcomes compared with open left pancreatectomy (OLP). However, it is unclear if the risk factors associated with operative morbidity differ between these two techniques. Guidelines for determining which patients should undergo OLP versus LLP do not exist.
METHODS: A multi-institutional analysis of OLP and LLP performed in 9 academic medical centers was undertaken. LLP cases were defined in an intent-to-treat manner. Perioperative variables were analyzed to identify factors associated with complications and pancreatic fistulae after OLP and LLP. In addition, complication and fistula rates for patients undergoing OLP and LLP were compared in matched cohorts to determine if one approach resulted in superior outcomes over the other.
RESULTS: Six hundred and ninety-three left pancreatectomy cases (439 OLP, 254 LLP) were analyzed. OLP and LLP cases were similar with respect to patient age and American Society of Anesthesiologists score. Body mass index (BMI) was higher in patients undergoing LLP. OLP was more often performed for adenocarcinoma and larger tumors, resulted in longer resected specimen lengths, and more commonly involved concomitant splenectomy. Estimated blood loss was higher and operative times were longer during OLP. On multivariate analysis, variables associated with major complications and clinically significant fistulae differed between OLP and LLP. Patients with body mass index ≤27, without adenocarcinoma, and with pancreatic specimen length ≤8.5 cm had significantly higher rates of significant fistulae after OLP than after LLP; in contrast, no preoperatively evaluable variables were associated with a higher likelihood of significant fistula after LLP versus OLP.
CONCLUSIONS: Risk factors for complications and pancreatic fistulae after left pancreatectomy differ when open versus laparoscopic techniques are employed. Preoperative characteristics may identify cohorts of patients who will benefit more from LLP, and no patient cohorts had higher postoperative complication rates after LLP than OLP. These observations suggest that LLP may be the operative procedure of choice for most patients with left-sided pancreatic lesions; a more definitive prospective and randomized comparison may be warranted. @ 2011 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21394014     DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3182128869

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Surg        ISSN: 0003-4932            Impact factor:   12.969


  28 in total

1.  Comparison of outcomes and costs between laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy and open resection at a single center.

Authors:  Adrian M Fox; Kristen Pitzul; Faizal Bhojani; Max Kaplan; Carol-Anne Moulton; Alice C Wei; Ian McGilvray; Sean Cleary; Allan Okrainec
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2011-12-17       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 2.  Laparoscopic pancreatic surgery for benign and malignant disease.

Authors:  Thijs de Rooij; Sjors Klompmaker; Mohammad Abu Hilal; Michael L Kendrick; Olivier R Busch; Marc G Besselink
Journal:  Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2016-02-17       Impact factor: 46.802

3.  Mesh reinforcement of pancreatic transection decreases incidence of pancreatic occlusion failure for left pancreatectomy: a single-blinded, randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Nicholas A Hamilton; Matthew R Porembka; Fabian M Johnston; Feng Gao; Steven M Strasberg; David C Linehan; William G Hawkins
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 12.969

4.  Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is as safe and feasible as open procedure: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Kun Xie; Yi-Ping Zhu; Xiao-Wu Xu; Ke Chen; Jia-Fei Yan; Yi-Ping Mou
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2012-04-28       Impact factor: 5.742

5.  Does Pancreatic Stump Closure Method Influence Distal Pancreatectomy Outcomes?

Authors:  Eugene P Ceppa; Robert M McCurdy; David C Becerra; E Molly Kilbane; Nicholas J Zyromski; Attila Nakeeb; C Max Schmidt; Keith D Lillemoe; Henry A Pitt; Michael G House
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2015-04-23       Impact factor: 3.452

Review 6.  Ductal pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

Authors:  Thomas Seufferlein; Marc Porzner; Volker Heinemann; Andrea Tannapfel; Martin Stuschke; Waldemar Uhl
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2014-05-30       Impact factor: 5.594

Review 7.  Laparoscopic pancreatectomy: indications and outcomes.

Authors:  Shuyin Liang; Usmaan Hameed; Shiva Jayaraman
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-10-21       Impact factor: 5.742

8.  Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy for nonfunctioning pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: a large single-center study.

Authors:  Sang Hyup Han; In Woong Han; Jin Seok Heo; Seong Ho Choi; Dong Wook Choi; Sunjong Han; Yung Hun You
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2017-06-29       Impact factor: 4.584

9.  Pancreatic fistula following laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is probably unrelated to the stapler size but to the drainage modality and significantly decreased with a small suction drain.

Authors:  Safi Dokmak; Fadhel Samir Ftériche; Roberto Luca Meniconi; Béatrice Aussilhou; Igor Duquesne; Genaro Perrone; Chihebeddine Romdhani; Jacques Belghiti; Philippe Lévy; Olivier Soubrane; Alain Sauvanet
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2019-02-09       Impact factor: 3.445

10.  Robotic-assisted minimally invasive central pancreatectomy: technique and outcomes.

Authors:  Gerard J Abood; M Fatih Can; Mustapha Daouadi; Harold T Huss; Jennifer Y Steve; Lekshmi Ramalingam; Michael Stang; David L Bartlett; Herbert J Zeh; A James Moser
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2013-01-17       Impact factor: 3.452

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.