INTRODUCTION: Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) is a complex and challenging procedure even with experienced surgeons. The aim of this study is to evaluate the feasibility and surgical and oncological outcomes of LPD compared with open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD). PATIENTS AND METHOD: This is a propensity score-matched analysis for patients with periampullary tumors who underwent PD. Patients underwent LPD and matched group underwent OPD included in the study. The primary outcome measure was the rate of total postoperative morbidities. Secondary outcomes included operative times, hospital stay, wound length and cosmosis, oncological outcomes, recurrence rate, and survival rate. RESULTS: A total of 111 patients were included in the study (37 LPD and 74 OPD). The conversion rate from LPD to OPD was 4 cases (10.8%). LPD provides significantly shorter hospital stay (7 vs. 10 d; P=0.004), less blood loss (250 vs. 450 mL, P=0.001), less postoperative pain, early oral intake, and better cosmosis. The length of the wound is significantly shorter in LPD. The operative time needed for dissection and reconstruction was significantly longer in LPD group (420 vs. 300 min; P=0.0001). Both groups were comparable as regards lymph node retrieved (15 vs. 14; P=0.21) and R0 rate (86.5% vs. 83.8%; P=0.6). No significant difference was seen as regards postoperative morbidities, re-exploration, readmission, recurrence, and survival rate. CONCLUSIONS: LPD is a feasible procedure; it provided a shorter hospital stay, less blood loss, earlier oral intake, and better cosmosis than OPD. It had the same postoperative complications and oncological outcomes as OPD.
INTRODUCTION: Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) is a complex and challenging procedure even with experienced surgeons. The aim of this study is to evaluate the feasibility and surgical and oncological outcomes of LPD compared with open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD). PATIENTS AND METHOD: This is a propensity score-matched analysis for patients with periampullary tumors who underwent PD. Patients underwent LPD and matched group underwent OPD included in the study. The primary outcome measure was the rate of total postoperative morbidities. Secondary outcomes included operative times, hospital stay, wound length and cosmosis, oncological outcomes, recurrence rate, and survival rate. RESULTS: A total of 111 patients were included in the study (37 LPD and 74 OPD). The conversion rate from LPD to OPD was 4 cases (10.8%). LPD provides significantly shorter hospital stay (7 vs. 10 d; P=0.004), less blood loss (250 vs. 450 mL, P=0.001), less postoperative pain, early oral intake, and better cosmosis. The length of the wound is significantly shorter in LPD. The operative time needed for dissection and reconstruction was significantly longer in LPD group (420 vs. 300 min; P=0.0001). Both groups were comparable as regards lymph node retrieved (15 vs. 14; P=0.21) and R0 rate (86.5% vs. 83.8%; P=0.6). No significant difference was seen as regards postoperative morbidities, re-exploration, readmission, recurrence, and survival rate. CONCLUSIONS: LPD is a feasible procedure; it provided a shorter hospital stay, less blood loss, earlier oral intake, and better cosmosis than OPD. It had the same postoperative complications and oncological outcomes as OPD.