Ke Chen1, Yu Pan1, Yi-Ping Mou2, Jia-Fei Yan1, Ren-Chao Zhang2, Miao-Zun Zhang3, Jia-Yu Zhou4, Xian-Fa Wang1, Hendi Maher5, Qi-Long Chen6. 1. Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, 3 East Qingchun Road, Hangzhou, 310016, Zhejiang, China. 2. Department of Gastrointestinal and Pancreatic Surgery, Zhejiang Provincial People's Hospital, 158 Shangtang Road, Hangzhou, 310014, Zhejiang, China. 3. Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, Ningbo Medical Center, Lihuili Hospital, Ningbo, 315100, Zhejiang, China. 4. Department of Thoracic Surgery, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, 3 East Qingchun Road, Hangzhou, 310016, Zhejiang, China. 5. School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, 866 Yuhangtang Road, Hangzhou, 310058, Zhejiang, China. 6. Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, 3 East Qingchun Road, Hangzhou, 310016, Zhejiang, China. faithchen@zju.edu.cn.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although recent reports have suggested the advantages of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP), the potential benefits of this approach in elderly patients remain unclear. The aim of this study was to clarify the value of LDP in the elderly, in whom co-morbid diseases were generally more common. METHODS: Seventy elderly patients (≥ 70 years) and 264 non-elderly patients (40-69 years) who underwent LDP, and 48 elderly patients (≥ 70 years) who underwent open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) between May 2005 and May 2018 were studied. Demographics, intraoperative, and postoperative outcomes were compared. RESULTS: Comorbidity was more common in elderly patients than in non-elderly patients who underwent LDP (57.1 vs. 38.3%, p < 0.01). The intraoperative factors, postoperative complication rate, and length of hospital stay were comparable in these two groups. Elderly patients who underwent LDP had a significantly shorter operative time (185.5 vs. 208.0 min, p = 0.02), less blood loss (191.0 vs. 291.8 mL, p < 0.01), and reduced length of postoperative hospital stay (11.4 vs. 15.1 days, p < 0.01) than elderly patients who had ODP. The overall complication rate tended to be lower in LDP group than that in ODP group (20.0 vs. 33.3%, p = 0.07). CONCLUSION: LDP performed on the elderly is safe and feasible, leading to short-term outcomes similar to those of non-elderly patients. LDP could be an alternative to ODP in elderly patients, providing a lower rate of morbidity and favorable postoperative recovery and outcomes.
BACKGROUND: Although recent reports have suggested the advantages of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP), the potential benefits of this approach in elderly patients remain unclear. The aim of this study was to clarify the value of LDP in the elderly, in whom co-morbid diseases were generally more common. METHODS: Seventy elderly patients (≥ 70 years) and 264 non-elderly patients (40-69 years) who underwent LDP, and 48 elderly patients (≥ 70 years) who underwent open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) between May 2005 and May 2018 were studied. Demographics, intraoperative, and postoperative outcomes were compared. RESULTS: Comorbidity was more common in elderly patients than in non-elderly patients who underwent LDP (57.1 vs. 38.3%, p < 0.01). The intraoperative factors, postoperative complication rate, and length of hospital stay were comparable in these two groups. Elderly patients who underwent LDP had a significantly shorter operative time (185.5 vs. 208.0 min, p = 0.02), less blood loss (191.0 vs. 291.8 mL, p < 0.01), and reduced length of postoperative hospital stay (11.4 vs. 15.1 days, p < 0.01) than elderly patients who had ODP. The overall complication rate tended to be lower in LDP group than that in ODP group (20.0 vs. 33.3%, p = 0.07). CONCLUSION: LDP performed on the elderly is safe and feasible, leading to short-term outcomes similar to those of non-elderly patients. LDP could be an alternative to ODP in elderly patients, providing a lower rate of morbidity and favorable postoperative recovery and outcomes.
Authors: David Martínez-Cecilia; Federica Cipriani; Vishal Shelat; Francesca Ratti; Hadrien Tranchart; Leonid Barkhatov; Federico Tomassini; Roberto Montalti; Mark Halls; Roberto I Troisi; Ibrahim Dagher; Luca Aldrighetti; Bjorn Edwin; Mohammad Abu Hilal Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Thijs de Rooij; Federica Cipriani; Majd Rawashdeh; Susan van Dieren; Salvatore Barbaro; Mahmoud Abuawwad; Jony van Hilst; Martina Fontana; Marc G Besselink; Mohammed Abu Hilal Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2017-01-24 Impact factor: 6.113
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: Jin He; Barish H Edil; John L Cameron; Richard D Schulick; Ralph H Hruban; Joseph M Herman; Lei Zheng; Christine Iacobuzio-Donahue; Nita Ahuja; Timothy M Pawlik; Christopher L Wolfgang Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2012-11-27 Impact factor: 3.452