Riccardo Casadei1, Claudio Ricci2, Giovanni Taffurelli2, Anna Guariniello2, Anthony Di Gioia2, Mariacristina Di Marco3, Nico Pagano2, Carla Serra2, Lucia Calculli3, Donatella Santini3, Francesco Minni2. 1. Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences-DIMEC, S.Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, Alma Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna, Via Massarenti n.9, 40138, Bologna, Italy. riccardo.casadei@unibo.it. 2. Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences-DIMEC, S.Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, Alma Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna, Via Massarenti n.9, 40138, Bologna, Italy. 3. Department of Specialist, Diagnostic and Experimental Medicine (DIMES), S.Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, Alma Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Total pancreatectomy is actually considered a viable option in selected patients even if large comparative studies between partial versus total pancreatectomy are not currently available. Our aim was to evaluate whether total pancreatectomy can be considered as feasible, safe, efficacious, and cost-effective as pancreaticoduodenectomy. METHODS: A single center, prospective, observational trial, regarding postoperative outcomes, long-term results, and cost-effectiveness, in a tertiary referral center was conducted, comparing consecutive patients who underwent elective total pancreatectomy and/or pancreaticoduodenectomy. RESULTS: Seventy-three consecutive elective total pancreatectomies and 184 pancreaticoduodenectomies were compared. There were no significant differences regarding postoperative outcomes and overall survival. The quality of life, evaluated in 119 patients according to the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire, showed that there were no significant differences regarding the five items considered. The mean EQ-5D-5L score was similar in the two procedures (total pancreatectomy = 0.872, range 0.345-1.000; pancreaticoduodenectomy = 0.832, range 0.393-1.000; P = 0.320). The impact of diabetes according to the Problem Areas in Diabetes (PAID) questionnaire did not show any significant differences except for question 13 (total pancreatectomy = 0.60; pancreaticoduodenectomy = 0.19; P = 0.022). The cost-effectiveness analysis suggested that the quality-adjusted life year was not significantly different between the two procedures (total pancreatectomy = 0.910, range 0.345-1.000; pancreaticoduodenectomy = 0.910, range -0.393-1.000; P = 0.320). CONCLUSIONS: From this study, it seems reasonable to suggest that total pancreatectomy can be considered as safe, feasible, and efficacious as PD and acceptable in terms of cost-effectiveness.
BACKGROUND: Total pancreatectomy is actually considered a viable option in selected patients even if large comparative studies between partial versus total pancreatectomy are not currently available. Our aim was to evaluate whether total pancreatectomy can be considered as feasible, safe, efficacious, and cost-effective as pancreaticoduodenectomy. METHODS: A single center, prospective, observational trial, regarding postoperative outcomes, long-term results, and cost-effectiveness, in a tertiary referral center was conducted, comparing consecutive patients who underwent elective total pancreatectomy and/or pancreaticoduodenectomy. RESULTS: Seventy-three consecutive elective total pancreatectomies and 184 pancreaticoduodenectomies were compared. There were no significant differences regarding postoperative outcomes and overall survival. The quality of life, evaluated in 119 patients according to the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire, showed that there were no significant differences regarding the five items considered. The mean EQ-5D-5L score was similar in the two procedures (total pancreatectomy = 0.872, range 0.345-1.000; pancreaticoduodenectomy = 0.832, range 0.393-1.000; P = 0.320). The impact of diabetes according to the Problem Areas in Diabetes (PAID) questionnaire did not show any significant differences except for question 13 (total pancreatectomy = 0.60; pancreaticoduodenectomy = 0.19; P = 0.022). The cost-effectiveness analysis suggested that the quality-adjusted life year was not significantly different between the two procedures (total pancreatectomy = 0.910, range 0.345-1.000; pancreaticoduodenectomy = 0.910, range -0.393-1.000; P = 0.320). CONCLUSIONS: From this study, it seems reasonable to suggest that total pancreatectomy can be considered as safe, feasible, and efficacious as PD and acceptable in terms of cost-effectiveness.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cost-effectiveness; Long-term results; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Postoperative outcomes; Total pancreatectomy
Authors: Sushanth Reddy; Christopher L Wolfgang; John L Cameron; Frederic Eckhauser; Michael A Choti; Richard D Schulick; Barish H Edil; Timothy M Pawlik Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Max Almond; Keith J Roberts; James Hodson; Robert Sutcliffe; Ravi Marudanayagam; John Isaac; Paolo Muiesan; Darius Mirza Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2014-11-19 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: Riccardo Casadei; Claudio Ricci; Giovanni Taffurelli; Marielda D'Ambra; Carlo Alberto Pacilio; Carlo Ingaldi; Francesco Minni Journal: Surg Today Date: 2014-10-21 Impact factor: 2.549
Authors: Keith J Roberts; Robert P Sutcliffe; Ravi Marudanayagam; James Hodson; John Isaac; Paolo Muiesan; Alex Navarro; Krashna Patel; Asif Jah; Sara Napetti; Anya Adair; Stefanos Lazaridis; Andreas Prachalias; Guy Shingler; Bilal Al-Sarireh; Roland Storey; Andrew M Smith; Nehal Shah; Guiseppe Fusai; Jamil Ahmed; Mohammad Abu Hilal; Darius F Mirza Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Neil H Bhayani; Jennifer L Miller; Gail Ortenzi; Jussuf T Kaifi; Eric T Kimchi; Kevin F Staveley-O'Carroll; Niraj J Gusani Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2013-10-29 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Werner Hartwig; Alexander Gluth; Ulf Hinz; Frank Bergmann; Pauline E R Spronk; Thilo Hackert; Jens Werner; Markus W Büchler Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2015-03 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Lianne Scholten; Anouk Ej Latenstein; Cora M Aalfs; Marco J Bruno; Olivier R Busch; Bert A Bonsing; Bas Groot Koerkamp; I Quintus Molenaar; Dirk T Ubbink; Jeanin E van Hooft; Paul Fockens; Jolanda Glas; J Hans DeVries; Marc G Besselink Journal: United European Gastroenterol J Date: 2020-07-23 Impact factor: 4.623
Authors: L Scholten; T F Stoop; M Del Chiaro; O R Busch; C van Eijck; I Q Molenaar; J H de Vries; M G Besselink Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2019-09-10 Impact factor: 6.939