Chien-Hung Liao1, Yu-Tung Wu1, Yu-Yin Liu2, Shang-Yu Wang1, Shih-Ching Kang1, Chun-Nan Yeh2, Ta-Sen Yeh3. 1. Department of Traumatology and Emergency Surgery, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan. 2. Department of General Surgery, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chang Gung University, 5 Fu-Hsing Street, Kwei-Shan Shiang, Taoyuan, Taiwan. 3. Department of General Surgery, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chang Gung University, 5 Fu-Hsing Street, Kwei-Shan Shiang, Taoyuan, Taiwan. Gsurgymet@gmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD), which includes laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD), is a complex procedure that needs to be performed by experienced surgeons. However, the safety and oncologic performance have not yet been conclusively determined. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed using the Embase, Medline, and PubMed databases to identify all studies published up to March 2015. Articles written in English containing the keywords: "pancreaticoduodenectomy" or "Whipple operation" combined with "laparoscopy," "laparoscopic," "robotic," "da vinci," or "minimally invasive surgery" were selected. Furthermore, to increase the power of evidence, articles describing more than ten MIPDs were selected for this review. RESULTS: Twenty-six articles matched the review criteria. A total of 780 LPDs and 248 RPDs were included in the current review. The overall conversion rate to open surgery was 9.1 %. The weighted average operative time was 422.6 min, and the weighted average blood loss was 321.1 mL. The weighted average number of harvested lymph nodes was 17.1, and the rate of microscopically positive tumor margins was 8.4 %. The cumulative morbidity was 35.9 %, and a pancreatic fistula was reported in 17.0 % of cases. The average length of hospital stay was 12.4 days, and the mortality rate was 2.2 %. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, after reviewing one-thousand cases in the current literature, we conclude that MIPD offers a good perioperative, postoperative, and oncologic outcome. MIPD is feasible and safe in well-selected patients.
BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD), which includes laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD), is a complex procedure that needs to be performed by experienced surgeons. However, the safety and oncologic performance have not yet been conclusively determined. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed using the Embase, Medline, and PubMed databases to identify all studies published up to March 2015. Articles written in English containing the keywords: "pancreaticoduodenectomy" or "Whipple operation" combined with "laparoscopy," "laparoscopic," "robotic," "da vinci," or "minimally invasive surgery" were selected. Furthermore, to increase the power of evidence, articles describing more than ten MIPDs were selected for this review. RESULTS: Twenty-six articles matched the review criteria. A total of 780 LPDs and 248 RPDs were included in the current review. The overall conversion rate to open surgery was 9.1 %. The weighted average operative time was 422.6 min, and the weighted average blood loss was 321.1 mL. The weighted average number of harvested lymph nodes was 17.1, and the rate of microscopically positive tumor margins was 8.4 %. The cumulative morbidity was 35.9 %, and a pancreatic fistula was reported in 17.0 % of cases. The average length of hospital stay was 12.4 days, and the mortality rate was 2.2 %. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, after reviewing one-thousand cases in the current literature, we conclude that MIPD offers a good perioperative, postoperative, and oncologic outcome. MIPD is feasible and safe in well-selected patients.
Authors: William E Fisher; Sally E Hodges; Meng-Fen Wu; Susan G Hilsenbeck; F Charles Brunicardi Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2011-11-09 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Paul J Speicher; Daniel P Nussbaum; Rebekah R White; Sabino Zani; Paul J Mosca; Dan G Blazer; Bryan M Clary; Theodore N Pappas; Douglas S Tyler; Alexander Perez Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2014-06-13 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: S Pedrazzoli; V DiCarlo; R Dionigi; F Mosca; P Pederzoli; C Pasquali; G Klöppel; K Dhaene; F Michelassi Journal: Ann Surg Date: 1998-10 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Pier Cristoforo Giulianotti; Fabio Sbrana; Francesco Maria Bianco; Enrique Fernando Elli; Galaxy Shah; Pietro Addeo; Giuseppe Caravaglios; Andrea Coratti Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2010-01-09 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Kristopher P Croome; Michael B Farnell; Florencia G Que; K Marie Reid-Lombardo; Mark J Truty; David M Nagorney; Michael L Kendrick Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Erika B Lindholm; Abdulaziz K Alkattan; Sara J Abramson; Anita P Price; Todd E Heaton; Vinod P Balachandran; Michael P La Quaglia Journal: J Pediatr Surg Date: 2016-11-16 Impact factor: 2.545
Authors: Matthew T McMillan; Amer H Zureikat; Melissa E Hogg; Stacy J Kowalsky; Herbert J Zeh; Michael H Sprys; Charles M Vollmer Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2017-04-01 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Pier C Giulianotti; Raquel Gonzalez-Heredia; Sofia Esposito; Mario Masrur; Antonio Gangemi; Francesco M Bianco Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2017-12-15 Impact factor: 4.584