Literature DB >> 27664556

Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy: A comprehensive review.

Mingjun Wang1, He Cai1, Lingwei Meng1, Yunqiang Cai1, Xin Wang1, Yongbin Li1, Bing Peng2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: While an increasing number of open procedures are now routinely performed laparoscopically or robotically, minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) remains one of the most challenging operations in abdomen. The aim of this study is to evaluate the current status and development of MIPD.
METHODS: Embase, Medline, and PubMed databases were searched to identify studies up to and including Feb 2016 using the keywords "laparoscopic", or "laparoscopy", or "hand-assisted", or "minimally invasive", or "robotic", or "da vinci" combined with "pancreaticoduodenectomy", or "duodenopancreatectomy", "Whipple", or "pancreatic resection". Articles written in English with more than 10 cases were included for review.
RESULTS: Thirty-two articles representing 2209 patients were included for review. The weighted average operative time and intraoperative blood loss was 427.3 min and 289.4 mL respectively. A total of 375 patients required conversion to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD), with an overall conversion rate of 17.8%. The postoperative severe complications (the Clavien-Dindo Classification ≥ III) occurred in 3.8%-33.0% patients, with an overall severe morbidity of 14.3%. Particularly, the overall incidence of clinically significant postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) was 8.0%. There were 26 perioperative death cases in total, with an overall postoperative mortality rate of 2.3%. The weighted average number of collected lymph nodes was 17.9, and R0 resection ranged from 60.0% to 100.0%. Comparisons between MIPD and OPD showed that MIPD increased operative time, decreased intraoperative blood loss and shortened the length of hospital stay, but the overall morbidity and mortality were comparable.
CONCLUSIONS: MIPD is technically feasible and safe in highly selected patients and can offer acceptable oncological outcomes. But concerns such as long-term outcomes, cost-effectiveness analysis, and learning curve analysis should be fully demonstrated before the popularization of this challenging procedure.
Copyright © 2016 IJS Publishing Group Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Laparoscopy; Learning curve; Minimally invasive surgery; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Robot

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27664556     DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2016.09.016

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Surg        ISSN: 1743-9159            Impact factor:   6.071


  15 in total

Review 1.  Minimally Invasive Pancreaticoduodenectomy: What is the Best "Choice"? A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of Non-randomized Comparative Studies.

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

Review 2.  Total robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  Michail Kornaropoulos; Demetrios Moris; Eliza W Beal; Marinos C Makris; Apostolos Mitrousias; Athanasios Petrou; Evangelos Felekouras; Adamantios Michalinos; Michail Vailas; Dimitrios Schizas; Alexandros Papalampros
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2017-04-07       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  [Robotic pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy : Video article].

Authors:  H Aselmann; J Hendrik Egberts; J Henrik Beckmann; H Stein; C Schafmayer; S Hinz; B Reichert; T Becker
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2017-05       Impact factor: 0.955

4.  Safety and oncologic efficacy of robotic compared to open pancreaticoduodenectomy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for pancreatic cancer.

Authors:  Ibrahim Nassour; Samer Tohme; Richard Hoehn; Mohamed Abdelgadir Adam; Amer H Zureikat; Paniccia Alessandro
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2020-05-21       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy: a NSQIP Analysis.

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

6.  Surgical anatomy of the omental bursa and the stomach based on a minimally invasive approach: different approaches and technical steps to resection and lymphadenectomy.

Authors:  Hylke J F Brenkman; Nicole I van der Wielen; Jelle P Ruurda; Maarten S van Leeuwen; Joris J G Scheepers; Donald L van der Peet; Richard van Hillegersberg; Ronald L A W Bleys; Miguel A Cuesta
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2017-07       Impact factor: 2.895

7.  Comparison of laparoscopic to open pancreaticoduodenectomy in elderly patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

Authors:  Brandon C Chapman; Csaba Gajdos; Patrick Hosokawa; William Henderson; Alessandro Paniccia; Douglas M Overbey; Ana Gleisner; Richard D Schulick; Martin D McCarter; Barish H Edil
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2017-10-24       Impact factor: 4.584

8.  Technical considerations for the fully robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Authors:  Daniel Galvez; Rebecca Sorber; Ammar A Javed; Jin He
Journal:  J Vis Surg       Date:  2017-06-12

9.  Totally Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy: Comparison Between Early and Late Phase of an Initial Single-Center Learning Curve.

Authors:  Michele Mazzola; Alessandro Giani; Jacopo Crippa; Lorenzo Morini; Andrea Zironda; Camillo Leonardo Bertoglio; Paolo De Martini; Carmelo Magistro; Giovanni Ferrari
Journal:  Indian J Surg Oncol       Date:  2021-08-16

10.  Nomogram and a predictive model for postoperative hemorrhage in preoperative patients of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodectomy.

Authors:  Dongrui Li; Chengxu Du; Jiansheng Zhang; Zhongqiang Xing; Jianhua Liu
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-07-20       Impact factor: 4.379

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.