BACKGROUND: Data from high-volume institutions suggest that minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) provides favorable perioperative outcomes and adequate oncologic resection for pancreatic cancer; however, these outcomes may not be generalizable. This study examines patterns of use and short-term outcomes from MIDP (laparoscopic or robotic) versus open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) for pancreatic adenocarcinoma in the United States. METHODS: Adult patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy were identified from the National Cancer Database, 2010-2011. Multivariable modeling was applied to compare short-term outcomes from MIDP versus ODP for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. RESULTS: 1733 patients met inclusion criteria: 535 (31 %) had MIDP and 1198 (69 %) ODP. Use of MIDP increased 43 % between 2010 and 2011; the conversion rate from MIDP to ODP was 23 %. MIDP cases were performed at 215 hospitals, with 85 % of hospitals performing <10 cases overall. After adjustment, pancreatic adenocarcinoma patients undergoing MIDP versus ODP had a similar likelihood of complete resection (OR 1.48, p = 0.10), number of lymph nodes removed (RR 1.01, p = 0.91), and 30-day readmission rate (OR 1.02, p = 0.96); however, length of stay was shorter (RR 0.84, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Use of MIDP for cancer is increasing, with most centers performing a low volume of these procedures. Use of MIDP for body and tail pancreatic adenocarcinoma appears to have short-term outcomes that are similar to those of open procedures with the benefit of a shorter hospital stay. Larger studies with longer follow-up are needed.
BACKGROUND: Data from high-volume institutions suggest that minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) provides favorable perioperative outcomes and adequate oncologic resection for pancreatic cancer; however, these outcomes may not be generalizable. This study examines patterns of use and short-term outcomes from MIDP (laparoscopic or robotic) versus open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) for pancreatic adenocarcinoma in the United States. METHODS: Adult patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy were identified from the National Cancer Database, 2010-2011. Multivariable modeling was applied to compare short-term outcomes from MIDP versus ODP for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. RESULTS: 1733 patients met inclusion criteria: 535 (31 %) had MIDP and 1198 (69 %) ODP. Use of MIDP increased 43 % between 2010 and 2011; the conversion rate from MIDP to ODP was 23 %. MIDP cases were performed at 215 hospitals, with 85 % of hospitals performing <10 cases overall. After adjustment, pancreatic adenocarcinomapatients undergoing MIDP versus ODP had a similar likelihood of complete resection (OR 1.48, p = 0.10), number of lymph nodes removed (RR 1.01, p = 0.91), and 30-day readmission rate (OR 1.02, p = 0.96); however, length of stay was shorter (RR 0.84, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Use of MIDP for cancer is increasing, with most centers performing a low volume of these procedures. Use of MIDP for body and tail pancreatic adenocarcinoma appears to have short-term outcomes that are similar to those of open procedures with the benefit of a shorter hospital stay. Larger studies with longer follow-up are needed.
Authors: Adrian M Fox; Kristen Pitzul; Faizal Bhojani; Max Kaplan; Carol-Anne Moulton; Alice C Wei; Ian McGilvray; Sean Cleary; Allan Okrainec Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2011-12-17 Impact factor: 4.584
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: David A Kooby; Theresa Gillespie; David Bentrem; Attila Nakeeb; Max C Schmidt; Nipun B Merchant; Alex A Parikh; Robert C G Martin; Charles R Scoggins; Syed Ahmad; Hong Jin Kim; Jaemin Park; Fabian Johnston; Matthew J Strouch; Alex Menze; Jennifer Rymer; Rebecca McClaine; Steven M Strasberg; Mark S Talamonti; Charles A Staley; Kelly M McMasters; Andrew M Lowy; Johnita Byrd-Sellers; William C Wood; William G Hawkins Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2008-09 Impact factor: 12.969
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: Ser Yee Lee; Peter J Allen; Eran Sadot; Michael I D'Angelica; Ronald P DeMatteo; Yuman Fong; William R Jarnagin; T Peter Kingham Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2014-10-15 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Deepa Magge; William Gooding; Haroon Choudry; Jennifer Steve; Jennifer Steel; Amer Zureikat; Alyssa Krasinskas; Mustapha Daouadi; Kenneth K W Lee; Steven J Hughes; Herbert J Zeh; A James Moser Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2013-06 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Mohamed Abdelgadir Adam; Kingshuk Choudhury; Michaela A Dinan; Shelby D Reed; Randall P Scheri; Dan G Blazer; Sanziana A Roman; Julie A Sosa Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Armando Rosales-Velderrain; Steven P Bowers; Ross F Goldberg; Tatyan M Clarke; Mauricia A Buchanan; John A Stauffer; Horacio J Asbun Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2012-08-28 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: Bjørn Edwin; Mushegh A Sahakyan; Mohammad Abu Hilal; Marc G Besselink; Marco Braga; Jean-Michel Fabre; Laureano Fernández-Cruz; Brice Gayet; Song Cheol Kim; Igor E Khatkov Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2017-02-15 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Olga Kantor; Darren S Bryan; Mark S Talamonti; Waseem Lutfi; Susan Sharpe; David J Winchester; Richard A Prinz; Marshall S Baker Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2017-08-01 Impact factor: 3.452