Hop S Tran Cao1, Nicole Lopez2, David C Chang2, Andrew M Lowy2, Michael Bouvet2, Joel M Baumgartner2, Mark A Talamini3, Jason K Sicklick2. 1. Department of Surgical Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston2Department of Surgery, UC San Diego Health System, University of California, San Diego. 2. Department of Surgery, UC San Diego Health System, University of California, San Diego. 3. Department of Surgery, UC San Diego Health System, University of California, San Diego3now with Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, State University of New York, Stony Brook.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Interest in minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) has grown in recent years, but currently available data are limited. Greater insight into application patterns and outcomes may be gained from a national database inquiry. OBJECTIVES: To study trends in the use of MIDP and compare the short-term outcomes of MIDP with those of open distal pancreatectomy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Population-based retrospective cohort study evaluating perioperative outcomes and hospital charge measures for distal pancreatectomy, comparing the surgical approaches and adjusting for patient- and hospital-level factors, among patients undergoing elective distal pancreatectomy from 1998 to 2009 in the Nationwide Inpatient Sample in a 20% stratified sample of all US hospitals. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: In-hospital mortality, rates of perioperative complications and splenectomy, total charges, and length of stay. RESULTS: A total of 8957 distal pancreatectomies were included in this analysis, of which 382 (4.3%) were MIDPs. On a national level, this projected to 42,320 open distal pancreatectomies and 1908 MIDPs. The proportion of distal pancreatectomies performed via minimally invasive approaches tripled between 1998 and 2009, from 2.4% to 7.3%. The groups were comparable for sex and comorbidity profiles, while patients who underwent MIDP were 1.5 years older. On multivariate analysis, MIDP was associated with lower rates of overall predischarge complications, including lower incidences of postoperative infections and bleeding complications, as well as a shorter length of stay by 1.22 days. There were no differences in rates of in-hospital mortality, concomitant splenectomy, or total charges. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This population-based study of MIDP reveals that the application of this approach has tripled in practice and provides strong evidence that MIDP has evolved into a safe option in the treatment of benign and malignant pancreatic diseases.
IMPORTANCE: Interest in minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) has grown in recent years, but currently available data are limited. Greater insight into application patterns and outcomes may be gained from a national database inquiry. OBJECTIVES: To study trends in the use of MIDP and compare the short-term outcomes of MIDP with those of open distal pancreatectomy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Population-based retrospective cohort study evaluating perioperative outcomes and hospital charge measures for distal pancreatectomy, comparing the surgical approaches and adjusting for patient- and hospital-level factors, among patients undergoing elective distal pancreatectomy from 1998 to 2009 in the Nationwide Inpatient Sample in a 20% stratified sample of all US hospitals. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: In-hospital mortality, rates of perioperative complications and splenectomy, total charges, and length of stay. RESULTS: A total of 8957 distal pancreatectomies were included in this analysis, of which 382 (4.3%) were MIDPs. On a national level, this projected to 42,320 open distal pancreatectomies and 1908 MIDPs. The proportion of distal pancreatectomies performed via minimally invasive approaches tripled between 1998 and 2009, from 2.4% to 7.3%. The groups were comparable for sex and comorbidity profiles, while patients who underwent MIDP were 1.5 years older. On multivariate analysis, MIDP was associated with lower rates of overall predischarge complications, including lower incidences of postoperative infections and bleeding complications, as well as a shorter length of stay by 1.22 days. There were no differences in rates of in-hospital mortality, concomitant splenectomy, or total charges. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This population-based study of MIDP reveals that the application of this approach has tripled in practice and provides strong evidence that MIDP has evolved into a safe option in the treatment of benign and malignant pancreatic diseases.
Authors: Joshua A Waters; David F Canal; Eric A Wiebke; Ryan P Dumas; Joal D Beane; Juan R Aguilar-Saavedra; Chad G Ball; Michael G House; Nicholas J Zyromski; Attila Nakeeb; Henry A Pitt; Keith D Lillemoe; C Max Schmidt Journal: Surgery Date: 2010-08-24 Impact factor: 3.982
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: 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: Jeffrey S Barkun; Jeffrey K Aronson; Liane S Feldman; Guy J Maddern; Steven M Strasberg; Douglas G Altman; Jeffrey S Barkun; Jane M Blazeby; Isabell C Boutron; W Bruce Campbell; Pierre-Alain Clavien; Jonathan A Cook; Patrick L Ergina; David R Flum; Paul Glasziou; John C Marshall; Peter McCulloch; Jon Nicholl; Bournaby C Reeves; Christoph M Seiler; Jonathan L Meakins; Deborah Ashby; Nick Black; John Bunker; Martin Burton; Marion Campbell; Kalipso Chalkidou; Iain Chalmers; Marc de Leval; Jon Deeks; Adrian Grant; Muir Gray; Roger Greenhalgh; Milos Jenicek; Sean Kehoe; Richard Lilford; Peter Littlejohns; Yoon Loke; Rajan Madhock; Kim McPherson; Peter Rothwell; Bill Summerskill; David Taggart; Parris Tekkis; Matthew Thompson; Tom Treasure; Ulrich Trohler; Jan Vandenbroucke Journal: Lancet Date: 2009-09-26 Impact factor: 79.321
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: Shiva Jayaraman; Mithat Gonen; Murray F Brennan; Michael I D'Angelica; Ronald P DeMatteo; Yuman Fong; William R Jarnagin; Peter J Allen Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Sharon M Weber; Clifford S Cho; Nipun Merchant; Scott Pinchot; Robert Rettammel; Atilla Nakeeb; David Bentrem; Alex Parikh; Ashley E Mazo; Robert C G Martin; Charles R Scoggins; Syed A Ahmad; Hong Jin Kim; Nicholas Hamilton; William Hawkins; C Max Schmidt; David A Kooby Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2009-07-16 Impact factor: 5.344
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: Juan C Rodríguez-Sanjuán; Marcos Gómez-Ruiz; Soledad Trugeda-Carrera; Carlos Manuel-Palazuelos; Antonio López-Useros; Manuel Gómez-Fleitas Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2016-02-14 Impact factor: 5.742
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
Authors: Lapo Bencini; Mario Annecchiarico; Marco Farsi; Ilenia Bartolini; Vita Mirasolo; Francesco Guerra; Andrea Coratti Journal: World J Gastrointest Oncol Date: 2015-12-15
Authors: Mohamed Abdelgadir Adam; Kingshuk Choudhury; Paolo Goffredo; Shelby D Reed; Dan Blazer; Sanziana A Roman; Julie A Sosa Journal: World J Surg Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 3.352