Michael L Kendrick1, Jony van Hilst2, Ugo Boggi3, Thijs de Rooij2, R Matthew Walsh4, Herbert J Zeh5, Steven J Hughes6, Yoshiharu Nakamura7, Charles M Vollmer8, David A Kooby9, Horacio J Asbun10. 1. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. Electronic address: kendrick.michael@mayo.edu. 2. Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 3. University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy. 4. Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA. 5. University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 6. University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA. 7. Nippon Medical School, Tokyo, Japan. 8. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 9. Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA. 10. Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) is increasingly performed with several institutional series and comparative studies reported. The aim was to conduct an assessment of the best-evidence and expert opinion on the current status and future challenges of MIPD. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed and best-evidence presented at a State-of-the-Art conference on Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Resection. Expert panel discussion and audience response activity was used to assess perceived value and future direction. RESULTS: From 582 studies, 26 comparative trials of MIPD and open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) were assessed for perioperative outcomes. There were no randomized controlled trials and all available comparative studies were determined of low quality. Several observational and case-matched studies demonstrate longer operative times, but less estimated blood loss and shorter length of hospital stay for MIPD. Registry-based studies demonstrate increased mortality rates after MIPD in low-volume centers. Oncologic assessment demonstrates comparable outcomes of MIPD. Expert opinion supports ongoing evaluation of MIPD. CONCLUSION: MIPD appears to provide similar perioperative and oncologic outcomes in selected patients, when performed at experienced, high-volume centers. Its overall role in pancreatoduodenectomy needs to be better defined. Improved training opportunities, registry participation and prospective evaluation are needed.
BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) is increasingly performed with several institutional series and comparative studies reported. The aim was to conduct an assessment of the best-evidence and expert opinion on the current status and future challenges of MIPD. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed and best-evidence presented at a State-of-the-Art conference on Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Resection. Expert panel discussion and audience response activity was used to assess perceived value and future direction. RESULTS: From 582 studies, 26 comparative trials of MIPD and open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) were assessed for perioperative outcomes. There were no randomized controlled trials and all available comparative studies were determined of low quality. Several observational and case-matched studies demonstrate longer operative times, but less estimated blood loss and shorter length of hospital stay for MIPD. Registry-based studies demonstrate increased mortality rates after MIPD in low-volume centers. Oncologic assessment demonstrates comparable outcomes of MIPD. Expert opinion supports ongoing evaluation of MIPD. CONCLUSION: MIPD appears to provide similar perioperative and oncologic outcomes in selected patients, when performed at experienced, high-volume centers. Its overall role in pancreatoduodenectomy needs to be better defined. Improved training opportunities, registry participation and prospective evaluation are needed.
Authors: Qu Liu; Zhiming Zhao; Guodong Zhao; Yuanxing Gao; Nan Jiang; Wan Yee Lau; Rong Liu Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2020-10-20 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Gregory A Williams; Jingxia Liu; William C Chapman; William G Hawkins; Ryan C Fields; Dominic E Sanford; Majella B Doyle; Chet W Hammill; Adeel S Khan; Steven M Strasberg Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2019-12-16 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Matteo De Pastena; Jony van Hilst; Thijs de Rooij; Olivier R Busch; Michael F Gerhards; Sebastiaan Festen; Marc G Besselink Journal: J Vis Exp Date: 2018-06-17 Impact factor: 1.355
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
Authors: Maria Luisa Brandi; Sunita K Agarwal; Nancy D Perrier; Kate E Lines; Gerlof D Valk; Rajesh V Thakker Journal: Endocr Rev Date: 2021-03-15 Impact factor: 19.871