Sang Hyup Han1,2, Chang Moo Kang3, Ho Kyoung Hwang4, Dong Sup Yoon4, Woo Jung Lee4. 1. Department of Surgery, Chuncheon Sacred Heart Hospital, Hallym University College of Medicine, Chuncheon, Korea. 2. Pharmacology, Kangwon National University, Chuncheon, Korea. 3. Division of HBP Surgery, Department of Surgery, Severance Hospital, Pancreatobiliary Cancer Center, Yonsei Cancer Center, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Faculty Research Building #204 Ludlow 50 Yonsei-ro, Seoul, 120-752, Korea. cmkang@yuhs.ac. 4. Division of HBP Surgery, Department of Surgery, Severance Hospital, Pancreatobiliary Cancer Center, Yonsei Cancer Center, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Faculty Research Building #204 Ludlow 50 Yonsei-ro, Seoul, 120-752, Korea.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With continued technical advances in surgical instruments and growing expertise, several surgeons have performed laparoscopic pylorus preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (L-PPPD) safely with good results, and the laparoscopic approach is being performed more frequently. We performed over 100 cases of L-PPPD and compared their outcomes to those of open PPPD (O-PPPD) using the large sample size. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of L-PPPD compared with O-PPPD. METHODS: From September 2012 to June 2017, PPPD was performed for 217 patients at Yonsei University Severance Hospital by a single surgeon. Patients were divided into two groups: those who underwent O-PPPD (n = 113) and those who underwent L-PPPD (n = 104). We performed a 1:1 propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis and retrospectively analyzed the demographic and surgical outcomes. We also reviewed all previous studies of more than 100 cases. RESULTS: The L-PPPD group had lesser intraoperative blood loss than the O-PPPD group (548.1 ml vs. 244.7 ml; p < 0.001). Both groups showed similar rates of negative resection margins (99.1% vs. 96.2%; p = 0.196). Overall complication rates did not differ significantly between O-PPPD and L-PPPD (39.8% vs. 35.6%; p = 0.519). The clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) rates in the O-PPPD and L-PPPD groups were 18.8% and 13.5%, respectively (p = 0.311). There was no difference in 30- and 90-day mortality rates between the two groups (p = 0.479). Similar results were obtained after PSM analysis. CONCLUSIONS: L-PPPD can be a good alternative option for well-selected patients with periampullary lesions requiring PPPD.
BACKGROUND: With continued technical advances in surgical instruments and growing expertise, several surgeons have performed laparoscopic pylorus preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (L-PPPD) safely with good results, and the laparoscopic approach is being performed more frequently. We performed over 100 cases of L-PPPD and compared their outcomes to those of open PPPD (O-PPPD) using the large sample size. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of L-PPPD compared with O-PPPD. METHODS: From September 2012 to June 2017, PPPD was performed for 217 patients at Yonsei University Severance Hospital by a single surgeon. Patients were divided into two groups: those who underwent O-PPPD (n = 113) and those who underwent L-PPPD (n = 104). We performed a 1:1 propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis and retrospectively analyzed the demographic and surgical outcomes. We also reviewed all previous studies of more than 100 cases. RESULTS: The L-PPPD group had lesser intraoperative blood loss than the O-PPPD group (548.1 ml vs. 244.7 ml; p < 0.001). Both groups showed similar rates of negative resection margins (99.1% vs. 96.2%; p = 0.196). Overall complication rates did not differ significantly between O-PPPD and L-PPPD (39.8% vs. 35.6%; p = 0.519). The clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) rates in the O-PPPD and L-PPPD groups were 18.8% and 13.5%, respectively (p = 0.311). There was no difference in 30- and 90-day mortality rates between the two groups (p = 0.479). Similar results were obtained after PSM analysis. CONCLUSIONS:L-PPPD can be a good alternative option for well-selected patients with periampullary lesions requiring PPPD.
Authors: Thuy B Tran; Monica M Dua; David J Worhunsky; George A Poultsides; Jeffrey A Norton; Brendan C Visser Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2015-08-15 Impact factor: 4.584
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
Authors: Song C Kim; Ki B Song; Yong S Jung; Young H Kim; Do H Park; Sang S Lee; Dong W Seo; Sung K Lee; Myung H Kim; Kwang M Park; Young J Lee Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2012-06-30 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Michael H Gerber; Daniel Delitto; Cristina J Crippen; Thomas J George; Kevin E Behrns; Jose G Trevino; Jessica L Cioffi; Steven J Hughes Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2017-05-31 Impact factor: 3.452