BACKGROUND: As compared with open distal pancreatectomy, laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is associated with lower morbidity and shorter hospital stays. Existing reports do not elucidate trends in patient selection, technique, and outcomes over time. We aimed to determine outcomes after LDP at a specialized center, analyze trends of patient selection and operative technique, and validate a complication risk score (CRS). STUDY DESIGN: Patients undergoing LDP between January 2000 and January 2011 were identified and divided into 2 equal groups to represent our early and recent experiences. Demographics, tumor characteristics, operative technique, and perioperative outcomes were examined and compared between groups. A CRS was calculated for the entire cohort and examined against observed outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 132 LDPs were attempted, of which 8 (6.1%) were converted to open procedures. Thirty-day overall and major complication rates were 43.2% and 12.9%, respectively, with mortality < 1%. Pancreatic fistulas occurred in 28 (21%) patients, of which 14 (11%) were clinically significant. Recent LDPs (n = 66) included patients with increasingly severe comorbidities (Charlson scores > 2, 40.9% vs 16.7%, p = 0.003), more proximal tumors (74.2% vs 26.2%, p < 0.001), more extended resections (10.6 vs 8.3 cm, p < 0.001), shorter operative times (141 vs 172 minutes, p = 0.007), and less frequent use of a hand port (25.8% vs 66.6%, p < 0.001). No significant differences were found in perioperative outcomes between the groups. As compared with the hand access technique, the total laparoscopic approach was associated with shorter hospital stays (5.3 vs 6.8 days, p = 0.032). Increasing CRS was associated with longer operative time, significant fistulas, wound infections, blood transfusions, major complications, ICU readmissions, and rehospitalizations. CONCLUSIONS: This large, single-institution series demonstrates that despite a shift in patient selection to sicker patients with more proximal tumors, similar perioperative outcomes can be achieved with laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. The CRS appears to be a reliable preoperative assessment tool for assessing other adverse perioperative outcomes in addition to predicting overall complications and fistulas as originally published.
BACKGROUND: As compared with open distal pancreatectomy, laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is associated with lower morbidity and shorter hospital stays. Existing reports do not elucidate trends in patient selection, technique, and outcomes over time. We aimed to determine outcomes after LDP at a specialized center, analyze trends of patient selection and operative technique, and validate a complication risk score (CRS). STUDY DESIGN:Patients undergoing LDP between January 2000 and January 2011 were identified and divided into 2 equal groups to represent our early and recent experiences. Demographics, tumor characteristics, operative technique, and perioperative outcomes were examined and compared between groups. A CRS was calculated for the entire cohort and examined against observed outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 132 LDPs were attempted, of which 8 (6.1%) were converted to open procedures. Thirty-day overall and major complication rates were 43.2% and 12.9%, respectively, with mortality < 1%. Pancreatic fistulas occurred in 28 (21%) patients, of which 14 (11%) were clinically significant. Recent LDPs (n = 66) included patients with increasingly severe comorbidities (Charlson scores > 2, 40.9% vs 16.7%, p = 0.003), more proximal tumors (74.2% vs 26.2%, p < 0.001), more extended resections (10.6 vs 8.3 cm, p < 0.001), shorter operative times (141 vs 172 minutes, p = 0.007), and less frequent use of a hand port (25.8% vs 66.6%, p < 0.001). No significant differences were found in perioperative outcomes between the groups. As compared with the hand access technique, the total laparoscopic approach was associated with shorter hospital stays (5.3 vs 6.8 days, p = 0.032). Increasing CRS was associated with longer operative time, significant fistulas, wound infections, blood transfusions, major complications, ICU readmissions, and rehospitalizations. CONCLUSIONS: This large, single-institution series demonstrates that despite a shift in patient selection to sicker patients with more proximal tumors, similar perioperative outcomes can be achieved with laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. The CRS appears to be a reliable preoperative assessment tool for assessing other adverse perioperative outcomes in addition to predicting overall complications and fistulas as originally published.