Qingbo Feng1, Zechang Xin2, Bo Zhu3, Mingheng Liao1, Wenwei Liao1, Yong Zeng1. 1. Department of Liver Surgery and Liver Transplantation Centre, State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy and Cancer Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China. 2. Department of General Surgery, First Affiliated Hospital of Dalian Medical University, Dalian, China. 3. Department of hepatobiliary surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To compare perioperative and short-term oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) using data from large-scale retrospective cohorts and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the last 10 years. METHODS: A meta-analysis to assess the safety and feasibility of LDP and OPD registered with PROSPERO: (CRD42020218080) was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. Studies comparing LPD with OPD published between January 2010 and October 2020 were included; only clinical studies reporting more than 30 cases for each operation were included. Two authors performed data extraction and quality assessment independently. The primary endpoint was operative times, blood loss, and 90 days mortality. Secondary endpoints included reoperation, length of hospital stay (LOS), morbidity, Clavien-Dindo ≥3 complications, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), blood transfusion, delayed gastric emptying (DGE), postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), and oncologic outcomes (R0-resection, lymph node dissection). RESULTS: Overall, the final analysis included 15 retrospective cohorts and 3 RCTs comprising 12,495 patients (2,037 and 10,458 patients underwent LPD and OPD). It seems OPD has more lymph nodes harvested but no significant differences [weighted mean difference (WMD): 1.08; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.02 to 2.14; P=0.05]. Nevertheless, compared with OPD, LPD was associated with a higher R0 resection rate [odds ratio (OR): 1.26; 95% CI: 1.10-1.44; P=0.0008] and longer operative time (WMD: 89.80 min; 95% CI: 63.75-115.84; P<0.00001), patients might benefit from lower rate of wound infection (OR: 0.36; 95% CI: 0.33-0.59; P<0.0001), much less blood loss (WMD: -212.25 mL; 95% CI: -286.15 to -138.14; P<0.00001) and lower blood transfusion rate (OR: 0.58; 95% CI: 0.43-0.77; P=0.0002) and shorter LOS (WMD: -1.63 day; 95% CI: -2.73 to -0.51; P=0.004). No significant differences in 90-day mortality, overall morbidity, Clavien-Dindo ≥3 complications, reoperation, POPF, DGE and PPH between LPD and OPD. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that after learning curve, LPD is a safe and feasible alternative to OPD as it provides similar perioperative and acceptable oncological outcomes when compared with OPD. 2021 Gland Surgery. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND: To compare perioperative and short-term oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) using data from large-scale retrospective cohorts and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the last 10 years. METHODS: A meta-analysis to assess the safety and feasibility of LDP and OPD registered with PROSPERO: (CRD42020218080) was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. Studies comparing LPD with OPD published between January 2010 and October 2020 were included; only clinical studies reporting more than 30 cases for each operation were included. Two authors performed data extraction and quality assessment independently. The primary endpoint was operative times, blood loss, and 90 days mortality. Secondary endpoints included reoperation, length of hospital stay (LOS), morbidity, Clavien-Dindo ≥3 complications, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), blood transfusion, delayed gastric emptying (DGE), postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), and oncologic outcomes (R0-resection, lymph node dissection). RESULTS: Overall, the final analysis included 15 retrospective cohorts and 3 RCTs comprising 12,495 patients (2,037 and 10,458 patients underwent LPD and OPD). It seems OPD has more lymph nodes harvested but no significant differences [weighted mean difference (WMD): 1.08; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.02 to 2.14; P=0.05]. Nevertheless, compared with OPD, LPD was associated with a higher R0 resection rate [odds ratio (OR): 1.26; 95% CI: 1.10-1.44; P=0.0008] and longer operative time (WMD: 89.80 min; 95% CI: 63.75-115.84; P<0.00001), patients might benefit from lower rate of wound infection (OR: 0.36; 95% CI: 0.33-0.59; P<0.0001), much less blood loss (WMD: -212.25 mL; 95% CI: -286.15 to -138.14; P<0.00001) and lower blood transfusion rate (OR: 0.58; 95% CI: 0.43-0.77; P=0.0002) and shorter LOS (WMD: -1.63 day; 95% CI: -2.73 to -0.51; P=0.004). No significant differences in 90-day mortality, overall morbidity, Clavien-Dindo ≥3 complications, reoperation, POPF, DGE and PPH between LPD and OPD. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that after learning curve, LPD is a safe and feasible alternative to OPD as it provides similar perioperative and acceptable oncological outcomes when compared with OPD. 2021 Gland Surgery. All rights reserved.
Entities:
Keywords:
Pancreatic cancer; laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD); meta-analysis; open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD)
Authors: Olga Kantor; Mark S Talamonti; Susan Sharpe; Waseem Lutfi; David J Winchester; Kevin K Roggin; David J Bentrem; Richard A Prinz; Marshall S Baker Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2016-12-28 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Ayman El Nakeeb; Mohamed Attia; Mohamed El Sorogy; Helmy Ezzat; Ahmed Shehta; Aly Salem; Mohamed A El Gawad; Hosam Hamed; Talaat A Allah; Ahmed A El-Geidi; Omar Fathy; Emad El Hefnawy; Amgad Zaghloul Journal: Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech Date: 2020-02 Impact factor: 1.719
Authors: Felix Nickel; Caelán Max Haney; Karl Friedrich Kowalewski; Pascal Probst; Eldridge Frederick Limen; Eva Kalkum; Marcus K Diener; Oliver Strobel; Beat Peter Müller-Stich; Thilo Hackert Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2020-01 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Simon Kuesters; Sophia Chikhladze; Frank Makowiec; Olivia Sick; Stefan Fichtner-Feigl; Ulrich T Hopt; Uwe A Wittel Journal: Int J Surg Date: 2018-05-25 Impact factor: 6.071
Authors: Susan M Sharpe; Mark S Talamonti; Chihsiung E Wang; Richard A Prinz; Kevin K Roggin; David J Bentrem; David J Winchester; Robert D W Marsh; Susan J Stocker; Marshall S Baker Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2015-04-28 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Mohamed Abdelgadir Adam; Kingshuk Choudhury; Michaela A Dinan; Shelby D Reed; Randall P Scheri; Dan G Blazer; Sanziana A Roman; Julie A Sosa Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 12.969