Hang Zhang1, XiangHu Wu1, Feng Zhu1, Ming Shen1, Rui Tian1, ChengJian Shi1, Xin Wang1, GuangQin Xiao1, XingJun Guo1, Min Wang2, RenYi Qin3. 1. Department of Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery, Affiliated Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, 1095 Jiefang Ave, Wuhan, 430030, Hubei, China. 2. Department of Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery, Affiliated Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, 1095 Jiefang Ave, Wuhan, 430030, Hubei, China. wangmin0013128@aliyun.com. 3. Department of Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery, Affiliated Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, 1095 Jiefang Ave, Wuhan, 430030, Hubei, China. ryqin@tjh.tjmu.edu.cn.
Abstract
BACKGROUNDS AND OBJECTIVE: The technique of minimally invasive pancreatic surgeries has evolved rapidly, including minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD). However, controversy on safety and feasibility remains when comparing the MIPD with the open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD); therefore, we aimed to compare MIPD and OPD with a systemic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: Multiple electronic databases were systematically searched to identify studies (up to February 2016) comparing MIPD with OPD. Intra-operative outcomes, oncologic data, postoperative complications and postoperative recovery were evaluated. RESULTS: Twenty-two retrospective studies including 6120 patients (1018 MIPDs and 5102 OPDs) were included. MIPD was associated with a reduction in estimated blood loss (WMD -312.00 ml, 95 % CI -436.30 to -187.70 ml, p < 0.001), transfusion rate (OR 0.41, 95 % CI 0.30-0.55, p < 0.001), wound infection (OR 0.37, 95 % CI 0.20-0.66, p < 0.001) and length of hospital stay (WMD -3.57 days, 95 % CI -5.17 to -1.98 days, p < 0.001). Meanwhile, MIPD group has a higher R0 resection rate (OR 1.47, 95 % CI 1.18-1.82, p < 0.001) and more lymph nodes harvest (WMD 1.74, 95 % CI 1.03-2.45, p < 0.001). However, it had longer operation time (WMD 83.91 min, 95 % CI 36.60-131.21 min, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between the two procedures in morbidities (p = 0.86), postoperative pancreatic fistula (p = 0.17), delayed gastric empting (p = 0.65), vascular resection (p = 0.68), reoperation (p = 0.33) and mortality (p = 0.90). CONCLUSIONS: MIPD can be a reasonable alternative to OPD with potential advantages. However, further large-volume, well-designed RCTs with extensive follow-ups are suggested to confirm and update the findings of our analysis.
BACKGROUNDS AND OBJECTIVE: The technique of minimally invasive pancreatic surgeries has evolved rapidly, including minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD). However, controversy on safety and feasibility remains when comparing the MIPD with the open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD); therefore, we aimed to compare MIPD and OPD with a systemic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: Multiple electronic databases were systematically searched to identify studies (up to February 2016) comparing MIPD with OPD. Intra-operative outcomes, oncologic data, postoperative complications and postoperative recovery were evaluated. RESULTS: Twenty-two retrospective studies including 6120 patients (1018 MIPDs and 5102 OPDs) were included. MIPD was associated with a reduction in estimated blood loss (WMD -312.00 ml, 95 % CI -436.30 to -187.70 ml, p < 0.001), transfusion rate (OR 0.41, 95 % CI 0.30-0.55, p < 0.001), wound infection (OR 0.37, 95 % CI 0.20-0.66, p < 0.001) and length of hospital stay (WMD -3.57 days, 95 % CI -5.17 to -1.98 days, p < 0.001). Meanwhile, MIPD group has a higher R0 resection rate (OR 1.47, 95 % CI 1.18-1.82, p < 0.001) and more lymph nodes harvest (WMD 1.74, 95 % CI 1.03-2.45, p < 0.001). However, it had longer operation time (WMD 83.91 min, 95 % CI 36.60-131.21 min, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between the two procedures in morbidities (p = 0.86), postoperative pancreatic fistula (p = 0.17), delayed gastric empting (p = 0.65), vascular resection (p = 0.68), reoperation (p = 0.33) and mortality (p = 0.90). CONCLUSIONS: MIPD can be a reasonable alternative to OPD with potential advantages. However, further large-volume, well-designed RCTs with extensive follow-ups are suggested to confirm and update the findings of our analysis.
Entities:
Keywords:
Meta-analysis; Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy; Open pancreaticoduodenectomy
Authors: Maria S Altieri; Jie Yang; Dana A Telem; Jiawen Zhu; Caitlin Halbert; Mark Talamini; Aurora D Pryor Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2015-07-03 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Abdul R Hakeem; Caroline S Verbeke; Alison Cairns; Amer Aldouri; Andrew M Smith; Krishna V Menon Journal: Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int Date: 2014-08
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: Claudio Ricci; Riccardo Casadei; Giovanni Taffurelli; Carlo Alberto Pacilio; Marco Ricciardiello; Francesco Minni Journal: World J Surg Date: 2018-03 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Ibrahim Nassour; Sam C Wang; Matthew R Porembka; Adam C Yopp; Michael A Choti; Mathew M Augustine; Patricio M Polanco; John C Mansour; Rebecca M Minter Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2017-08-17 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Michael H Gerber; Daniel Delitto; Cristina J Crippen; Thomas J George; Kevin E Behrns; Jose G Trevino; Jessica L Cioffi; Steven J Hughes Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2017-05-31 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Linda D Mellby; Andreas P Nyberg; Julia S Johansen; Christer Wingren; Børge G Nordestgaard; Stig E Bojesen; Breeana L Mitchell; Brett C Sheppard; Rosalie C Sears; Carl A K Borrebaeck Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2018-08-14 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Orlando Jorge M Torres; Eduardo de Souza M Fernandes; Rodrigo Rodrigues Vasques; Fabio Luís Waechter; Paulo Cezar G Amaral; Marcelo Bruno de Rezende; Roland Montenegro Costa; André Luís Montagnini Journal: Arq Bras Cir Dig Date: 2017 Jul-Sep