Literature DB >> 31454072

Multicentre observational cohort study of implementation and outcomes of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy.

S Lof1, A L Moekotte1, B Al-Sarireh2, B Ammori3, S Aroori4, D Durkin5, G K Fusai6, J J French7, D Gomez8, G Marangoni9, R Marudanayagam, Z Soonawalla10, R Sutcliffe11, S A White7, M Abu Hilal1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is increasingly being performed as an alternative to open surgery. Whether the implementation and corresponding learning curve of LDP have an impact on patient outcome is unknown. The aim was to investigate the temporal trends in practice across UK centres.
METHODS: This was a retrospective multicentre observational cohort study of LDP in 11 tertiary referral centres in the UK between 2006 and 2016. The learning curve was analysed by pooling data for the first 15 consecutive patients who had LDP and examining trends in surgical outcomes in subsequent patients.
RESULTS: In total, 570 patients underwent LDP, whereas 888 underwent open resection. For LDP the median duration of operation was 240 min, with 200 ml blood loss. The conversion rate was 12·1 per cent. Neuroendocrine tumours (26·7 per cent) and mucinous cystic neoplasms (19·7 per cent) were commonest indications. The proportion of LDPs increased from 24·4 per cent in 2006-2009 (P1) to 46·0 per cent in 2014-2016 (P3) (P < 0·001). LDP was increasingly performed for patients aged 70 years or more (16 per cent in P1 versus 34·4 per cent in P3; P = 0·002), pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (6 versus 19·1 per cent; P = 0·005) and advanced malignant tumours (27 versus 52 per cent; P = 0·016). With increasing experience, there was a trend for a decrease in blood transfusion rate (14·1 per cent for procedures 1-15 to 3·5 per cent for procedures 46-75; P = 0·008), ICU admissions (32·7 to 19·2 per cent; P = 0·021) and median duration of hospital stay (7 (i.q.r. 5-9) to 6 (4-7) days; P = 0·002). After 30 procedures, a decrease was noted in rates of both overall morbidity (57·7 versus 42·2 per cent for procedures 16-30 versus 46-75 respectively; P = 0·009) and severe morbidity (18·8 versus 9·7 per cent; P = 0·031).
CONCLUSION: LDP has increased as a treatment option for lesions of the distal pancreas as indications for the procedure have expanded. Perioperative outcomes improved with the number of procedures performed.
© 2019 BJS Society Ltd Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31454072     DOI: 10.1002/bjs.11292

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Surg        ISSN: 0007-1323            Impact factor:   6.939


  8 in total

1.  Evaluation of factors predicting loss of benefit provided by laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy compared to open approach.

Authors:  Stefano Partelli; Lorenzo Cinelli; Valentina Andreasi; Paola Maria Vittoria Rancoita; Nicolò Pecorelli; Domenico Tamburrino; Stefano Crippa; Massimo Falconi
Journal:  Updates Surg       Date:  2021-10-23

2.  Revisiting the potential advantage of robotic surgical system in spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy over conventional laparoscopic approach.

Authors:  Seok Jeong Yang; Ho Kyoung Hwang; Chang Moo Kang; Woo Jung Lee
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2020-03

Review 3.  Improvement in distal pancreatectomy for tumors in the body and tail of the pancreas.

Authors:  Li Jiang; Deng Ning; Xiao-Ping Chen
Journal:  World J Surg Oncol       Date:  2021-02-15       Impact factor: 2.754

4.  Comparative analysis of open, laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatic resection: The United Kingdom's first single-centre experience.

Authors:  Sivesh Kathir Kamarajah; Nathania Sutandi; Gourab Sen; John Hammond; Derek M Manas; Jeremy J French; Steven A White
Journal:  J Minim Access Surg       Date:  2022 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 1.407

5.  Laparoscopic versus open extended radical left pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: an international propensity-score matched study.

Authors:  A Balduzzi; J van Hilst; M Korrel; S Lof; B Al-Sarireh; A Alseidi; F Berrevoet; B Björnsson; P van den Boezem; U Boggi; O R Busch; G Butturini; R Casadei; R van Dam; S Dokmak; B Edwin; M A Sahakyan; G Ercolani; J M Fabre; M Falconi; A Forgione; B Gayet; D Gomez; B Groot Koerkamp; T Hackert; T Keck; I Khatkov; C Krautz; R Marudanayagam; K Menon; A Pietrabissa; I Poves; A Sa Cunha; R Salvia; S Sánchez-Cabús; Z Soonawalla; M Abu Hilal; M G Besselink
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2021-01-04       Impact factor: 4.584

6.  Implementation and training with laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: 23-year experience from a high-volume center.

Authors:  Mushegh A Sahakyan; Bård I Røsok; Tore Tholfsen; Dyre Kleive; Anne Waage; Dejan Ignjatovic; Trond Buanes; Knut Jørgen Labori; Bjørn Edwin
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2021-02-03       Impact factor: 4.584

7.  Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy: a single centre propensity score matching analysis.

Authors:  Riccardo Casadei; Carlo Ingaldi; Claudio Ricci; Laura Alberici; Emilio De Raffele; Maria Chiara Vaccaro; Francesco Minni
Journal:  Updates Surg       Date:  2021-04-03

8.  401 consecutive minimally invasive distal pancreatectomies: lessons learned from 20 years of experience.

Authors:  Alessandro Esposito; Marco Ramera; Luca Casetti; Matteo De Pastena; Martina Fontana; Isabella Frigerio; Alessandro Giardino; Roberto Girelli; Luca Landoni; Giuseppe Malleo; Giovanni Marchegiani; Salvatore Paiella; Antonio Pea; Paolo Regi; Filippo Scopelliti; Massimiliano Tuveri; Claudio Bassi; Roberto Salvia; Giovanni Butturini
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2022-01-31       Impact factor: 3.453

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.