BACKGROUND: Previous studies comparing open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) have found advantages related to minimal-access surgery. Few studies have compared direct and associated costs after LDP versus ODP. The purpose of the current study was to compare perioperative outcomes of patients undergoing LDP and ODP and to assess whether LDP was a cost-effective procedure compared with the traditional ODP. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database of 52 distal pancreatic resections that were performed during a 10-year period was performed. RESULTS: Patients included in the analysis were 16 in the LDP group and 29 in the ODP. Tumors operated laparoscopically were smaller than those removed at open operation, but the length of pancreatic resection was similar. The mean operating time for LDP was longer than ODP (204 ± 31 vs. 160 ± 35; P < 0.0001), whereas blood loss was higher in the open group (365 ± 215 vs. 160 ± 185, P < 0.0001). Morbidity (25 vs. 41; P = 0.373) and pancreatic fistula (18 vs. 20%; P = 0.6) rates were similar after LDP and ODP, as was 30-day mortality (0 vs. 2%; P = 0.565). LDP had a shorter mean length of hospital stay than ODP (6.4 (2.3) vs. 8.8 (1.7) days; P < 0.0001). Operative cost for LDP was higher than ODP (<euro>2889 vs. <euro>1989; P < 0.0001). The entire cost of the associated hospital stay was higher in the ODP group (<euro>8955 vs. <euro>6714; P < 0.043). The total cost was comparable in LDP and ODP groups (<euro>9603 vs. <euro>10944; P = 0.204). CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for left-sided lesions can be performed safely and effectively in selected patients, with reduced hospital stay and operative blood loss. Major complications, including pancreatic leak, were not reduced, whereas total cost was comparable between LDP and ODP. A selective use of LDP seems to be an effective and cost-efficient alternative to ODP.
BACKGROUND: Previous studies comparing open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) have found advantages related to minimal-access surgery. Few studies have compared direct and associated costs after LDP versus ODP. The purpose of the current study was to compare perioperative outcomes of patients undergoing LDP and ODP and to assess whether LDP was a cost-effective procedure compared with the traditional ODP. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database of 52 distal pancreatic resections that were performed during a 10-year period was performed. RESULTS:Patients included in the analysis were 16 in the LDP group and 29 in the ODP. Tumors operated laparoscopically were smaller than those removed at open operation, but the length of pancreatic resection was similar. The mean operating time for LDP was longer than ODP (204 ± 31 vs. 160 ± 35; P < 0.0001), whereas blood loss was higher in the open group (365 ± 215 vs. 160 ± 185, P < 0.0001). Morbidity (25 vs. 41; P = 0.373) and pancreatic fistula (18 vs. 20%; P = 0.6) rates were similar after LDP and ODP, as was 30-day mortality (0 vs. 2%; P = 0.565). LDP had a shorter mean length of hospital stay than ODP (6.4 (2.3) vs. 8.8 (1.7) days; P < 0.0001). Operative cost for LDP was higher than ODP (<euro>2889 vs. <euro>1989; P < 0.0001). The entire cost of the associated hospital stay was higher in the ODP group (<euro>8955 vs. <euro>6714; P < 0.043). The total cost was comparable in LDP and ODP groups (<euro>9603 vs. <euro>10944; P = 0.204). CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for left-sided lesions can be performed safely and effectively in selected patients, with reduced hospital stay and operative blood loss. Major complications, including pancreatic leak, were not reduced, whereas total cost was comparable between LDP and ODP. A selective use of LDP seems to be an effective and cost-efficient alternative to ODP.
Authors: Giuseppe R Nigri; Alan S Rosman; Niccolò Petrucciani; Alessandro Fancellu; Michele Pisano; Luigi Zorcolo; Giovanni Ramacciato; Marcovalerio Melis Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2010-12-24 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Jean-Yves Mabrut; Laureano Fernandez-Cruz; Juan Santiago Azagra; Claudio Bassi; Georges Delvaux; Joseph Weerts; Jean-Michel Fabre; Jean Boulez; Jacques Baulieux; Jean-Louis Peix; Jean-François Gigot Journal: Surgery Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Michelle L DeOliveira; Jordan M Winter; Markus Schafer; Steven C Cunningham; John L Cameron; Charles J Yeo; Pierre-Alain Clavien Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2006-12 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Clifford S Cho; 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 Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Markus K Diener; Christoph M Seiler; Inga Rossion; Jörg Kleeff; Matthias Glanemann; Giovanni Butturini; Ales Tomazic; Christiane J Bruns; Olivier R C Busch; Stefan Farkas; Orlin Belyaev; John P Neoptolemos; Christopher Halloran; Tobias Keck; Marco Niedergethmann; Klaus Gellert; Helmut Witzigmann; Otto Kollmar; Peter Langer; Ulrich Steger; Jens Neudecker; Frederik Berrevoet; Silke Ganzera; Markus M Heiss; Steffen P Luntz; Thomas Bruckner; Meinhard Kieser; Markus W Büchler Journal: Lancet Date: 2011-04-30 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Ka Lau Leung; Samuel P Y Kwok; Steve C W Lam; Janet F Y Lee; Raymond Y C Yiu; Simon S M Ng; Paul B S Lai; Wan Yee Lau Journal: Lancet Date: 2004-04-10 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Song C Kim; Kwan T Park; Ji W Hwang; Hyeng C Shin; Sang S Lee; Dong W Seo; Sung K Lee; Myung H Kim; Duck J Han Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2008-06-05 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Thuy B Tran; Monica M Dua; David J Worhunsky; George A Poultsides; Jeffrey A Norton; Brendan C Visser Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2015-08-15 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Hop S Tran Cao; Nicole Lopez; David C Chang; Andrew M Lowy; Michael Bouvet; Joel M Baumgartner; Mark A Talamini; Jason K Sicklick Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Paolo Limongelli; Chiara Vitiello; Andrea Belli; Madhava Pai; Salvatore Tolone; Gianmattia Del Genio; Luigi Brusciano; Giovanni Docimo; Nagy Habib; Giulio Belli; Long Richard Jiao; Ludovico Docimo Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2014-12-14 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Claudio Ricci; Riccardo Casadei; Giovanni Taffurelli; Selene Bogoni; Marielda D'Ambra; Carlo Ingaldi; Nico Pagano; Carlo Alberto Pacilio; Francesco Minni Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2015-05-22 Impact factor: 3.452
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
Authors: David J Worhunsky; Yulia Zak; Monica M Dua; George A Poultsides; Jeffrey A Norton; Brendan C Visser Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2014-06-18 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Daniel R Rutz; Malcolm H Squires; Shishir K Maithel; Juan M Sarmiento; Joanna W Etra; Sebastian D Perez; William Knechtle; Kenneth Cardona; Maria C Russell; Charles A Staley; John F Sweeney; David A Kooby Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2014-06-16 Impact factor: 3.647