OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare complications and oncologic outcomes of patients undergoing laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) and open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) at a single center. METHODS: Distal pancreatectomies performed for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma during a 4-year period were included in this study. A retrospective analysis of a database of this cohort was conducted. RESULTS: Twenty-two patients underwent LDP for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, in comparison to seventy-six patients with comparable tumor characteristics treated by ODP. No patients with locally advanced lesions were included in this study. Comparing LDP group to ODP group, there were no significant differences in operation time (P=0.06) or blood loss (P=0.24). Complications (pancreatic fistula, P=0.62; intra-abdominal abscess, P=0.44; postpancreatectomy hemorrhage, P=0.34) were similar. There were no significant differences in the number of lymph nodes harvested (11.2±4.6 in LDP group vs. 14.4±5.5 in ODP group, P=0.44) nor the rate of patients with positive lymph nodes (36% in LDP group vs. 41% in ODP group, P=0.71). Incidence of positive margins was similar (9% in LDP group vs. 13% in ODP group, P=0.61). The mean overall survival time was (29.6±3.7) months for the LDP group and (27.6±2.1) months for ODP group. There was no difference in overall survival between the two groups (P=0.34). CONCLUSIONS: LDP is a safe and effective treatment for selected patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. A slow-compression of pancreas tissue with the GIA stapler is effective in preventing postoperative pancreatic fistula. The oncologic outcome is comparable with the conventional open approach. Laparoscopic radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy contributed to oncological clearance.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare complications and oncologic outcomes of patients undergoing laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) and open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) at a single center. METHODS: Distal pancreatectomies performed for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma during a 4-year period were included in this study. A retrospective analysis of a database of this cohort was conducted. RESULTS: Twenty-two patients underwent LDP for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, in comparison to seventy-six patients with comparable tumor characteristics treated by ODP. No patients with locally advanced lesions were included in this study. Comparing LDP group to ODP group, there were no significant differences in operation time (P=0.06) or blood loss (P=0.24). Complications (pancreatic fistula, P=0.62; intra-abdominal abscess, P=0.44; postpancreatectomy hemorrhage, P=0.34) were similar. There were no significant differences in the number of lymph nodes harvested (11.2±4.6 in LDP group vs. 14.4±5.5 in ODP group, P=0.44) nor the rate of patients with positive lymph nodes (36% in LDP group vs. 41% in ODP group, P=0.71). Incidence of positive margins was similar (9% in LDP group vs. 13% in ODP group, P=0.61). The mean overall survival time was (29.6±3.7) months for the LDP group and (27.6±2.1) months for ODP group. There was no difference in overall survival between the two groups (P=0.34). CONCLUSIONS: LDP is a safe and effective treatment for selected patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. A slow-compression of pancreas tissue with the GIA stapler is effective in preventing postoperative pancreatic fistula. The oncologic outcome is comparable with the conventional open approach. Laparoscopic radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy contributed to oncological clearance.
Authors: Yu Feng Soh; Alfred Wei Chieh Kow; Kar Yong Wong; Bei Wang; Chung Yip Chan; Kui Hin Liau; Choon Kiat Ho Journal: Asian J Surg Date: 2012-05-25 Impact factor: 2.767
Authors: Giuseppe R Nigri; Alan S Rosman; Niccolò Petrucciani; Alessandro Fancellu; Michele Pisano; Luigi Zorcolo; Giovanni Ramacciato; Marcovalerio Melis Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2010-12-24 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Christopher D Briggs; Christopher D Mann; Glen R B Irving; Christopher P Neal; Mark Peterson; Iain C Cameron; David P Berry Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2009-01-07 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: David A Kooby; Theresa Gillespie; David Bentrem; Attila Nakeeb; Max C Schmidt; Nipun B Merchant; Alex A Parikh; Robert C G Martin; Charles R Scoggins; Syed Ahmad; Hong Jin Kim; Jaemin Park; Fabian Johnston; Matthew J Strouch; Alex Menze; Jennifer Rymer; Rebecca McClaine; Steven M Strasberg; Mark S Talamonti; Charles A Staley; Kelly M McMasters; Andrew M Lowy; Johnita Byrd-Sellers; William C Wood; William G Hawkins Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2008-09 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Alok A Khorana; Pamela B Mangu; Jordan Berlin; Anitra Engebretson; Theodore S Hong; Anirban Maitra; Supriya G Mohile; Matthew Mumber; Richard Schulick; Marc Shapiro; Susan Urba; Herbert J Zeh; Matthew H G Katz Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-05-31 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: David A Kooby; William G Hawkins; C Max Schmidt; Sharon M Weber; David J Bentrem; Theresa W Gillespie; Johnita Byrd Sellers; Nipun B Merchant; Charles R Scoggins; Robert C G Martin; Hong Jin Kim; Syed Ahmad; Clifford S Cho; Alexander A Parikh; Carrie K Chu; Nicholas A Hamilton; Courtney J Doyle; Scott Pinchot; Amanda Hayman; Rebecca McClaine; Attila Nakeeb; Charles A Staley; Kelly M McMasters; Keith D Lillemoe Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Deniece Riviere; Kurinchi Selvan Gurusamy; David A Kooby; Charles M Vollmer; Marc G H Besselink; Brian R Davidson; Cornelis J H M van Laarhoven Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2016-04-04
Authors: Thijs de Rooij; Johanna A Tol; Casper H van Eijck; Djamila Boerma; Bert A Bonsing; Koop Bosscha; Ronald M van Dam; Marcel G Dijkgraaf; Michael F Gerhards; Harry van Goor; Erwin van der Harst; Ignace H de Hingh; Geert Kazemier; Joost M Klaase; I Quintus Molenaar; Gijs A Patijn; Hjalmar C van Santvoort; Joris J Scheepers; George P van der Schelling; Egbert Sieders; Olivier R Busch; Marc G Besselink Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2015-10-27 Impact factor: 5.344