Literature DB >> 31016458

Predictors and outcomes of converted minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy: a propensity score matched analysis.

Caitlin A Hester1, Ibrahim Nassour1, Alana Christie2, Mathew M Augustine1, John C Mansour1, Patricio M Polanco1,3, Matthew R Porembka1, Thomas H Shoultz4, Sam C Wang1, Adam C Yopp1, Herbert J Zeh1, Rebecca M Minter5.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Data-driven patient selection guidelines are not available to optimize outcomes in minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD). We aimed to define risk factors associated with conversion from MIPD to open PD and to determine the impact of conversion on post-operative outcomes.
METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of MIPD using NSQIP from 2014 to 2015. Propensity score was used to match patients who underwent completed MIPD to converted MIPD.
RESULTS: 467 patients were included: 375 (80.3%) MIPD and 92 (19.7%) converted. Converted patients were more often male (64% vs. 52%, p = 0.030), had higher rates of dyspnea (10% vs. 3%, p = 0.009), underwent more vascular (44% vs. 14%, p < 0.001) or multivisceral resection (19% vs. 6%, p = 0.0005), and were more likely attempted laparoscopically compared to robotically (76% vs. 51%, p < 0.001). Robotic approach was independently associated with reduced risk of conversion (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.23-0.69), while male gender (OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.02-2.84), history of dyspnea (OR 3.85, 95% CI 1.49-9.96), vascular resection (OR 4.32, 95% CI 2.53-7.37), and multivisceral resection (OR 2.18, 95% CI 1.05-4.52) were associated with increased risk. Major complications were more common in converted patients (68% vs. 37%, p < 0.001). Converted patients had increased odds of non-home discharge (OR 3.25, 95% CI 1.06-9.97) and an associated increased length of stay of 3 days (95% CI 0.1-6.7).
CONCLUSION: Patients with a history of dyspnea or tumors requiring vascular or multivisceral resection were at increased risk of conversion, and the robotic platform was associated with a lower rate of conversion. Conversion was independently associated with increased overall complications, increased length of stay, and non-home discharge.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Converted; Minimally invasive; Outcomes; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Predictors

Year:  2019        PMID: 31016458     DOI: 10.1007/s00464-019-06792-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surg Endosc        ISSN: 0930-2794            Impact factor:   4.584


  41 in total

1.  Outcomes after robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary lesions.

Authors:  Herbert J Zeh; Amer H Zureikat; Aaron Secrest; Mustapha Dauoudi; David Bartlett; A James Moser
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2011-09-24       Impact factor: 5.344

2.  Effect of hospital volume, surgeon experience, and surgeon volume on patient outcomes after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a single-institution experience.

Authors:  C Max Schmidt; Olivier Turrini; Purvi Parikh; Michael G House; Nicholas J Zyromski; Atilla Nakeeb; Thomas J Howard; Henry A Pitt; Keith D Lillemoe
Journal:  Arch Surg       Date:  2010-07

Review 3.  Minimally-invasive vs open pancreaticoduodenectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Camilo Correa-Gallego; Helen E Dinkelspiel; Isabel Sulimanoff; Sarah Fisher; Eduardo F Viñuela; T Peter Kingham; Yuman Fong; Ronald P DeMatteo; Michael I D'Angelica; William R Jarnagin; Peter J Allen
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2013-11-23       Impact factor: 6.113

4.  Minimally invasive hepatopancreatobiliary surgery in North America: an ACS-NSQIP analysis of predictors of conversion for laparoscopic and robotic pancreatectomy and hepatectomy.

Authors:  Amer H Zureikat; Jeffrey Borrebach; Henry A Pitt; Douglas Mcgill; Melissa E Hogg; Vanessa Thompson; David J Bentrem; Bruce L Hall; Herbert J Zeh
Journal:  HPB (Oxford)       Date:  2017-04-08       Impact factor: 3.647

5.  Conversion of Minimally Invasive Distal Pancreatectomy: Predictors and Outcomes.

Authors:  Ibrahim Nassour; Sam C Wang; Matthew R Porembka; Mathew M Augustine; Adam C Yopp; John C Mansour; Rebecca M Minter; Michael A Choti; Patricio M Polanco
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2017-08-28       Impact factor: 5.344

6.  Laparoscopic vs open pancreaticoduodenectomy: overall outcomes and severity of complications using the Accordion Severity Grading System.

Authors:  Horacio J Asbun; John A Stauffer
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2012-09-19       Impact factor: 6.113

7.  Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a retrospective review of 19 cases.

Authors:  Raffaele Pugliese; Ildo Scandroglio; Fabio Sansonna; Dario Maggioni; Andrea Costanzi; Davide Citterio; Giovanni Carlo Ferrari; Stefano Di Lernia; Carmelo Magistro
Journal:  Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 1.719

8.  Robotics in general surgery: personal experience in a large community hospital.

Authors:  Pier Cristoforo Giulianotti; Andrea Coratti; Marta Angelini; Fabio Sbrana; Simone Cecconi; Tommaso Balestracci; Giuseppe Caravaglios
Journal:  Arch Surg       Date:  2003-07

9.  Laparoscopic pylorus-preserving pancreatoduodenectomy.

Authors:  M Gagner; A Pomp
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  1994-05       Impact factor: 4.584

10.  Laparoscopic vs. open resection of noninvasive intraductal pancreatic mucinous neoplasms.

Authors:  Andrew A Gumbs; Philippe Grès; Fabio A Madureira; Brice Gayet
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2007-10-02       Impact factor: 3.452

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.