BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy was proposed as an oncologically safe approach for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. METHODS: A systematic review of the studies comparing laparoscopic and open distal pancreatectomy was conducted. The primary endpoint was an R0 resection rate. The secondary endpoints were intra- and postoperative results, tumour size, mean harvested lymph node, number of patients eligible for adjuvant therapy and overall survival. RESULTS: Five comparative case control studies involving 261 patients (30.7% laparoscopic and 69.3% open) who underwent a distal pancreatectomy were included. The R0 resection rate was similar between the two groups (P = 0.53). The laparoscopic group had longer operative times (P = 0.04), lesser blood loss (P = 0.01), a shorter hospital stay (P < 0.001) and smaller tumour size (P = 0.04) as compared with the laparotomic group. Overall morbidity, postoperative pancreatic fistula, reoperation, mortality and number of patients eligible for adjuvant therapy were similar. The mean harvested lymph nodes were comparable in the two groups (P = 0.33). The laparoscopic approach did not affect the overall survival rate (P = 0.32). CONCLUSION: Even if the number of patients compared is underpowered, the laparoscopic approach in the treatment of PDAC seems to be safe and efficacious. However, additional prospective, randomised, multicentric trials are needed to correctly evaluate the laparoscopic approach in PDAC.
BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy was proposed as an oncologically safe approach for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. METHODS: A systematic review of the studies comparing laparoscopic and open distal pancreatectomy was conducted. The primary endpoint was an R0 resection rate. The secondary endpoints were intra- and postoperative results, tumour size, mean harvested lymph node, number of patients eligible for adjuvant therapy and overall survival. RESULTS: Five comparative case control studies involving 261 patients (30.7% laparoscopic and 69.3% open) who underwent a distal pancreatectomy were included. The R0 resection rate was similar between the two groups (P = 0.53). The laparoscopic group had longer operative times (P = 0.04), lesser blood loss (P = 0.01), a shorter hospital stay (P < 0.001) and smaller tumour size (P = 0.04) as compared with the laparotomic group. Overall morbidity, postoperative pancreatic fistula, reoperation, mortality and number of patients eligible for adjuvant therapy were similar. The mean harvested lymph nodes were comparable in the two groups (P = 0.33). The laparoscopic approach did not affect the overall survival rate (P = 0.32). CONCLUSION: Even if the number of patients compared is underpowered, the laparoscopic approach in the treatment of PDAC seems to be safe and efficacious. However, additional prospective, randomised, multicentric trials are needed to correctly evaluate the laparoscopic approach in PDAC.
Authors: Raghunandan Venkat; Barish H Edil; Richard D Schulick; Anne O Lidor; Martin A Makary; Christopher L Wolfgang Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: S Rehman; S K P John; R Lochan; B C Jaques; D M Manas; R M Charnley; J J French; S A White Journal: World J Surg Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 3.352
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: Claudio Ricci; Riccardo Casadei; Enrico Lazzarini; Marielda D'Ambra; Salvatore Buscemi; Carlo Alberto Pacilio; Giovanni Taffurelli; Francesco Minni Journal: Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int Date: 2014-10
Authors: Juan W Valle; Daniel Palmer; Richard Jackson; Trevor Cox; John P Neoptolemos; Paula Ghaneh; Charlotte L Rawcliffe; Claudio Bassi; Deborah D Stocken; David Cunningham; Derek O'Reilly; David Goldstein; Bridget A Robinson; Christos Karapetis; Andrew Scarfe; Francois Lacaine; Juhani Sand; Jakob R Izbicki; Julia Mayerle; Christos Dervenis; Attila Oláh; Giovanni Butturini; Pehr A Lind; Mark R Middleton; Alan Anthoney; Kate Sumpter; Ross Carter; Markus W Büchler Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-01-13 Impact factor: 44.544
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: Thijs de Rooij; Marc G Besselink; Awad Shamali; Giovanni Butturini; Olivier R Busch; Bjørn Edwin; Roberto Troisi; Laureano Fernández-Cruz; Ibrahim Dagher; Claudio Bassi; Mohammad Abu Hilal Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2015-12-10 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: Liza Abraham; Nik Goyert; Daniel J Kagedan; Andrea MacNeill; Michelle C Cleghorn; Julie Hallet; Fayez A Quereshy; Natalie G Coburn Journal: Can J Surg Date: 2018-12-01 Impact factor: 2.089