BACKGROUND: Selected studies have reported improved outcomes in laparoscopic compared with open distal pancreatic resection. Concerns regarding failure to achieve proper oncological resection and compromised long-term outcomes remain. This study investigated whether postoperative outcomes and long-term survival after laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy are comparable to those after an open procedure. METHODS: This retrospective case-control study included patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy for resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma between 2010 and 2013, identified from the National Cancer Database. Propensity score nearest-neighbour 1 : 1 matching was performed between patients undergoing laparoscopic or open distal pancreatectomy based on all relevant co-variables. The primary outcome was overall survival. RESULTS: Of 1947 eligible patients, 605 (31·1 per cent) underwent laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. After propensity score matching, two well balanced groups of 563 patients each were analysed. There was no difference in overall survival at 3 years after laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy (41·6 versus 36·0 per cent; hazard ratio 0·93, 95 per cent c.i. 0·77 to 1·12; P = 0·457). The overall conversion rate was 27·3 per cent (165 of 605). Patients who underwent laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy had outcomes comparable to those of patients who had an open procedure with regard to median time to chemotherapy (50 versus 50 days; P = 0·342), median number of nodes examined (12 versus 12; P = 0·759); 30-day mortality (1·2 versus 0·9 per cent; P = 0·562); 90-day mortality (2·8 versus 3·7 per cent; P = 0·403), 30-day readmission rate (9·6 versus 9·2 per cent; P = 0·838) and positive margin rate (14·9 versus 18·5 per cent; P = 0·110). However, median duration of hospital stay was shorter in the laparoscopic group (6 versus 7 days; P < 0·001). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is an acceptable alternative to open distal pancreatectomy with no detriment to survival.
BACKGROUND: Selected studies have reported improved outcomes in laparoscopic compared with open distal pancreatic resection. Concerns regarding failure to achieve proper oncological resection and compromised long-term outcomes remain. This study investigated whether postoperative outcomes and long-term survival after laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy are comparable to those after an open procedure. METHODS: This retrospective case-control study included patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy for resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma between 2010 and 2013, identified from the National Cancer Database. Propensity score nearest-neighbour 1 : 1 matching was performed between patients undergoing laparoscopic or open distal pancreatectomy based on all relevant co-variables. The primary outcome was overall survival. RESULTS: Of 1947 eligible patients, 605 (31·1 per cent) underwent laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. After propensity score matching, two well balanced groups of 563 patients each were analysed. There was no difference in overall survival at 3 years after laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy (41·6 versus 36·0 per cent; hazard ratio 0·93, 95 per cent c.i. 0·77 to 1·12; P = 0·457). The overall conversion rate was 27·3 per cent (165 of 605). Patients who underwent laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy had outcomes comparable to those of patients who had an open procedure with regard to median time to chemotherapy (50 versus 50 days; P = 0·342), median number of nodes examined (12 versus 12; P = 0·759); 30-day mortality (1·2 versus 0·9 per cent; P = 0·562); 90-day mortality (2·8 versus 3·7 per cent; P = 0·403), 30-day readmission rate (9·6 versus 9·2 per cent; P = 0·838) and positive margin rate (14·9 versus 18·5 per cent; P = 0·110). However, median duration of hospital stay was shorter in the laparoscopic group (6 versus 7 days; P < 0·001). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is an acceptable alternative to open distal pancreatectomy with no detriment to survival.
Authors: Sandeep S Vijan; Kamran A Ahmed; William S Harmsen; Florencia G Que; Kaye M Reid-Lombardo; David M Nagorney; John H Donohue; Michael B Farnell; Michael L Kendrick Journal: Arch Surg Date: 2010-07
Authors: Irina Pavlik Marangos; Trond Buanes; Bård I Røsok; Airazat M Kazaryan; Arne R Rosseland; Krzysztof Grzyb; Olaug Villanger; Øystein Mathisen; Ivar P Gladhaug; Bjørn Edwin Journal: Surgery Date: 2012-01-28 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Jean-Yves Mabrut; Laureano Fernandez-Cruz; Juan Santiago Azagra; Claudio Bassi; Georges Delvaux; Joseph Weerts; Jean-Michel Fabre; Jean Boulez; Jacques Baulieux; Jean-Louis Peix; Jean-François Gigot Journal: Surgery Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Erik von Elm; Douglas G Altman; Matthias Egger; Stuart J Pocock; Peter C Gøtzsche; Jan P Vandenbroucke Journal: Lancet Date: 2007-10-20 Impact factor: 79.321
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: M Korrel; S Lof; J van Hilst; A Alseidi; U Boggi; O R Busch; S van Dieren; B Edwin; D Fuks; T Hackert; T Keck; I Khatkov; G Malleo; I Poves; M A Sahakyan; C Bassi; M Abu Hilal; M G Besselink Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2020-06-25 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Riccardo Casadei; Carlo Ingaldi; Claudio Ricci; Laura Alberici; Emilio De Raffele; Maria Chiara Vaccaro; Francesco Minni Journal: Updates Surg Date: 2021-04-03