AIM: To evaluate the feasibility and safety of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) compared with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP). METHODS: Meta-analysis was performed using the databases, including PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science and BIOSIS Previews. Articles should contain quantitative data of the comparison of LDP and ODP. Each article was reviewed by two authors. Indices of operative time, spleen-preserving rate, time to fluid intake, ratio of malignant tumors, postoperative hospital stay, incidence rate of pancreatic fistula and overall morbidity rate were analyzed. RESULTS: Nine articles with 1341 patients who underwent pancreatectomy met the inclusion criteria. LDP was performed in 501 (37.4%) patients, while ODP was performed in 840 (62.6%) patients. There were significant differences in the operative time, time to fluid intake, postoperative hospital stay and spleen-preserving rate between LDP and ODP. There was no difference between the two groups in pancreatic fistula rate [random effects model, risk ratio (RR) 0.996 (0.663, 1.494), P = 0.983, I² = 28.4%] and overall morbidity rate [random effects model, RR 0.81 (0.596, 1.101), P = 0.178, I² = 55.6%]. CONCLUSION: LDP has the advantages of shorter hospital stay and operative time, more rapid recovery and higher spleen-preserving rate as compared with ODP.
AIM: To evaluate the feasibility and safety of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) compared with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP). METHODS: Meta-analysis was performed using the databases, including PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science and BIOSIS Previews. Articles should contain quantitative data of the comparison of LDP and ODP. Each article was reviewed by two authors. Indices of operative time, spleen-preserving rate, time to fluid intake, ratio of malignant tumors, postoperative hospital stay, incidence rate of pancreatic fistula and overall morbidity rate were analyzed. RESULTS: Nine articles with 1341 patients who underwent pancreatectomy met the inclusion criteria. LDP was performed in 501 (37.4%) patients, while ODP was performed in 840 (62.6%) patients. There were significant differences in the operative time, time to fluid intake, postoperative hospital stay and spleen-preserving rate between LDP and ODP. There was no difference between the two groups in pancreatic fistula rate [random effects model, risk ratio (RR) 0.996 (0.663, 1.494), P = 0.983, I² = 28.4%] and overall morbidity rate [random effects model, RR 0.81 (0.596, 1.101), P = 0.178, I² = 55.6%]. CONCLUSION: LDP has the advantages of shorter hospital stay and operative time, more rapid recovery and higher spleen-preserving rate as compared with ODP.
Authors: Sandeep S Vijan; Kamran A Ahmed; William S Harmsen; Florencia G Que; Kaye M Reid-Lombardo; David M Nagorney; John H Donohue; Michael B Farnell; Michael L Kendrick Journal: Arch Surg Date: 2010-07
Authors: David A Kooby; William G Hawkins; C Max Schmidt; Sharon M Weber; David J Bentrem; Theresa W Gillespie; Johnita Byrd Sellers; Nipun B Merchant; Charles R Scoggins; Robert C G Martin; Hong Jin Kim; Syed Ahmad; Clifford S Cho; Alexander A Parikh; Carrie K Chu; Nicholas A Hamilton; Courtney J Doyle; Scott Pinchot; Amanda Hayman; Rebecca McClaine; Attila Nakeeb; Charles A Staley; Kelly M McMasters; Keith D Lillemoe Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 6.113
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: J Rubén Rodríguez; Michael G Madanat; Brian C Healy; Sarah P Thayer; Andrew L Warshaw; Carlos Fernández-del Castillo Journal: Surgery Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Peter Nau; W Scott Melvin; Vimal K Narula; P Mark Bloomston; E Christopher Ellison; Peter Muscarella Journal: Gastroenterol Res Pract Date: 2009-12-16 Impact factor: 2.260
Authors: Horacio J Asbun; Jony Van Hilst; Levan Tsamalaidze; Yoshikuni Kawaguchi; Dominic Sanford; Lucio Pereira; Marc G Besselink; John A Stauffer Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2019-05-28 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: 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: Claudio Ricci; Riccardo Casadei; Giovanni Taffurelli; Fabrizio Toscano; Carlo Alberto Pacilio; Selene Bogoni; Marielda D'Ambra; Nico Pagano; Maria Cristina Di Marco; Francesco Minni Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2015-01-06 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