Dataset Information

Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary disease: a comprehensive review of literature and meta-analysis of outcomes compared with open surgery.

ABSTRACT: Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) has been gradually attempted. However, whether MIPD is superior, equal or inferior to its conventional open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) is not clear.Studies published up to May 2017 were searched in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Main outcomes were comprehensively reviewed and measured including conversion to open approach, operation time (OP), estimated blood loss (EBL), transfusion, length of hospital stay (LOS), overall complications, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), delayed gastric emptying (DGE), post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), readmission, reoperation and reasons of preoperative death, number of retrieved lymph nodes (RLN), surgical margins, recurrence, and survival. The software of Review Manage version 5.1 was used for meta-analysis.One hundred studies were included for systematic review and 26 out of them (totally 3402 cases, 1064 for MIPD, 2338 for OPD) were included for meta-analysis. In the early years, most articles were case reports or non-control case series studies, while in the last 6 years high-volume and comparative researches were increasing gradually. Systematic review revealed conversion rates of MIPD to OPD ranged from 0% to 40%. The mean or median OP of MIPD ranged from 276 to 657 min. The total POPF rates vary between 3.8% and 50% observed in all systematic reviewed studies. Meta-analysis demonstrated MIPD had longer OP (WMD = 99.4 min; 95%CI: 46.0 ~ 152.8, P < 0.01), lower blood loss (WMD = -0.54 ml; 95% CI, -0.88 ~ -0.20 ml; P < 0.01), lower transfusion rate (RR = 0.73, 95%CI: 0.57 ~ 0.94, P = 0.02), shorter LOS (WMD = -3.49 days; 95%CI: -4.83 ~ -2.15, P < 0.01). There was no significant difference in time to oral intake, postoperative complications, POPF, reoperation, readmission, perioperative mortality and number of retrieved lymph nodes.Our study demonstrates MIPD is technically feasible and safety on the basis of historical studies. MIPD is associated with less blood loss, faster postoperative recovery, shorter length of hospitalization and longer operation time. These findings are waiting for being confirmed with robust prospective comparative studies and randomized clinical trials.

SUBMITTER: Chen K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5701376 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary disease: a comprehensive review of literature and meta-analysis of outcomes compared with open surgery.

Chen Ke K Pan Yu Y Liu Xiao-Long XL Jiang Guang-Yi GY Wu Di D Maher Hendi H Cai Xiu-Jun XJ

BMC gastroenterology 20171123 1

<h4>Background</h4>Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) has been gradually attempted. However, whether MIPD is superior, equal or inferior to its conventional open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) is not clear.<h4>Methods</h4>Studies published up to May 2017 were searched in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Main outcomes were comprehensively reviewed and measured including conversion to open approach, operation time (OP), estimated blood loss (EBL), transfusion, length ...[more]

PMID: 29169337

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe outcomes of minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy have not been adequately compared with those of open pancreaticoduodenectomy in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. We performed a meta-analysis to compare the perioperative and oncological outcomes of these two pancreaticoduodenectomy procedures specifically in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.MethodsBefore this study was initiated, a specific protocol was designed and has been registered in PROSEPRO (ID: CRD42020149438). Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were systematically searched for studies published between January 1994 and October 2019. Overall survival, disease-free survival, and time to commencing adjuvant chemotherapy were the primary endpoint measurements, whereas perioperative and short-term outcomes were the secondary endpoints.ResultsThe final analysis included 9 retrospective cohorts comprising 11,242 patients (1377 who underwent minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy and 9865 who underwent open pancreaticoduodenectomy). There were no significant differences in the patients' overall survival, operative time, postoperative complications, 30-day mortality, rate of vein resection, number of harvested lymph nodes, or rate of positive lymph nodes between the two approaches. However, disease-free survival, time to starting adjuvant chemotherapy, length of hospital stay, and rate of negative margins in patients who underwent minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy showed improvements relative to those in patients who underwent open surgery.ConclusionsMinimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy provides similar or even improved perioperative, short-term, and long-term oncological outcomes when compared with open pancreaticoduodenectomy for patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

Project description:BackgroundLittle is known about what factors predict better outcomes for patients who undergo minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD). We hypothesized that patients with dilated pancreatic ducts have improved postoperative outcomes with MIPD compared to OPD.MethodsAll patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy were prospectively followed over a time period of 47 months, and perioperative and pathologic covariates and outcomes were compared. Ideal outcome after PD was defined as follows: (1) no complications, (2) postoperative length of stay < 7 days, and (3) negative (R0) margins on pathology. Patients with dilated pancreatic ducts (≥ 3 mm) who underwent MIPD were 1:3 propensity score-matched to patients with dilated ducts who underwent OPD and outcomes compared. Likewise, patients with non-dilated pancreatic ducts (< 3 mm) who underwent MIPD were 1:3 propensity score-matched to patients with non-dilated ducts who underwent OPD and outcomes were compared.Results371 patients underwent PD-74 (19.9%) MIPD and 297 (80.1%) underwent OPD. Overall, patients who underwent MIPD had significantly less intraoperative blood loss. After 1:3 propensity score matching, patients with dilated pancreatic ducts who underwent MIPD (n = 45) had significantly lower overall complication and 90-day readmission rates compared to matched OPD patients (n = 135) with dilated ducts. Patients with dilated duct who underwent MIPD were more likely to have an ideal outcome than patients with OPD (29 vs 15%, p = 0.035). There were no significant differences in postoperative outcomes among propensity score-matched patients with non-dilated pancreatic ducts who underwent MIPD (n = 29) compared to matched patients undergoing OPD (n = 87) with non-dilated ducts.ConclusionsMIPD is safe with comparable perioperative outcomes to OPD. Patients with pancreatic ducts ≥ 3 mm appear to derive the most benefit from MIPD in terms of fewer complications, lower readmission rates, and higher likelihood of ideal outcome.

Project description:AimTo investigate the role of minimally invasive surgery for gastric cancer and determine surgical, clinical, and oncological outcomes.MethodsThis is a propensity score-matched case-control study, comparing three treatment arms: robotic gastrectomy (RG), laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG), open gastrectomy (OG). Data collection started after sharing a specific study protocol. Data were recorded through a tailored and protected web-based system. Primary outcomes: harvested lymph nodes, estimated blood loss, hospital stay, complications rate. Among the secondary outcomes, there are: operative time, R0 resections, POD of mobilization, POD of starting liquid diet and soft solid diet. The analysis includes the evaluation of type and grade of postoperative complications. Detailed information of anastomotic leakages is also provided.ResultsThe present analysis was carried out of 1026 gastrectomies. To guarantee homogenous distribution of cases, patients in the RG, LG and OG groups were 1:1:2 matched using a propensity score analysis with a caliper = 0.2. The successful matching resulted in a total sample of 604 patients (RG = 151; LG = 151; OG = 302). The three groups showed no differences in all baseline patients characteristics, type of surgery (P = 0.42) and stage of the disease (P = 0.16). Intraoperative blood loss was significantly lower in the LG (95.93 ± 119.22) and RG (117.91 ± 68.11) groups compared to the OG (127.26 ± 79.50, P = 0.002). The mean number of retrieved lymph nodes was similar between the RG (27.78 ± 11.45), LG (24.58 ± 13.56) and OG (25.82 ± 12.07) approach. A benefit in favor of the minimally invasive approaches was found in the length of hospital stay (P < 0.0001). A similar complications rate was found (P = 0.13). The leakage rate was not different (P = 0.78) between groups.ConclusionLaparoscopic and robotic surgery can be safely performed and proposed as possible alternative to open surgery. The main highlighted benefit is a faster postoperative functional recovery.

Dataset Information

Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary disease: a comprehensive review of literature and meta-analysis of outcomes compared with open surgery.

Publications

Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary disease: a comprehensive review of literature and meta-analysis of outcomes compared with open surgery.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets