Dataset Information

Minimally-invasive versus open enucleation for pancreatic tumours: A propensity-score adjusted analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Backgrounds/aims

This study aims to evaluate the perioperative outcomes of minimally-invasive enucleation (MIEn) of the pancreas versus open enucleation (OEn).

Methods

This is a retrospective review of 20 consecutive patients who underwent pancreatic enucleation at a single institution.

Results

Seven patients underwent MIEn, of which 3 were robotic and 4 were laparoscopic. After propensity-adjusted analysis, the only significant difference was a reduced rate of readmissions within 30 days in the MIEn group versus the OEn group [0 vs 4 (30.8%), p=0.0464]. There were no conversions to open in the MIEn group, and median operation time was similar in both groups. There was no difference in median EBL in both groups, and none of the patients in our series required blood transfusions. The overall morbidity rate was 45.0% and the major complication (Clavien-Dindo>2) rate was 15%; which was similar between both groups. Seven (35%) patients had a Grade B/C POPF, and there was no significant difference between the two groups for this. The MIEn group had a shorter median length of stay compared to OEn [5 days (range, 3-24) vs 8.5 days (range, 5-42)] this was not significant on propensity-adjusted analysis (p=0.3195). There was no post-operative 90-day/in-hospital mortality in all 20 patients.

Conclusions

Our experience demonstrates that MIEn was associated with similar perioperative outcomes and fewer readmissions compared to OEn.

SUBMITTER: Kabir T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6728251 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Minimally-invasive versus open enucleation for pancreatic tumours: A propensity-score adjusted analysis.

Kabir Tousif T Tan Zoe Z X ZZX Syn Nicholas N Chung Alexander Y F AYF Ooi London L P J LLPJ Goh Brian K P BKP

Annals of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery 20190830 3

<h4>Backgrounds/aims</h4>This study aims to evaluate the perioperative outcomes of minimally-invasive enucleation (MIEn) of the pancreas versus open enucleation (OEn).<h4>Methods</h4>This is a retrospective review of 20 consecutive patients who underwent pancreatic enucleation at a single institution.<h4>Results</h4>Seven patients underwent MIEn, of which 3 were robotic and 4 were laparoscopic. After propensity-adjusted analysis, the only significant difference was a reduced rate of readmissions ...[more]

PMID: 31501815

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:BackgroundOpioid dependence is a public health crisis and surgery is a risk factor for long-term opioid use. Though minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is associated with less perioperative pain, demonstrating an association with less long-term opioid use would be another reason to justify adoption of minimally invasive techniques. We compared the rates for long-term opioid prescriptions among patients in a large national database who underwent minimally invasive and open colectomy.MethodsUsing the MarketScan Database, we retrospectively analyzed patients undergoing colon resection for benign and malignant diseases between 2013 and 2017. Among opioid-naïve patients who had ≥ 1 opioid prescriptions filled perioperatively (30 days before surgery to 14 days after discharge), propensity score matching was applied for group comparisons [open (OS) versus MIS, and laparoscopic (LS) versus robotic-assisted surgery (RS)]. The primary outcome was long-term opioid use defined as the proportion of patients with ≥ 1 long-term opioid prescriptions filled 90-180 days after discharge. Risks factors for long-term opioid use were assessed using logistic regression.ResultsAmong the 5413 matched pairs in the MIS versus OS cohorts, MIS significantly reduced long-term opioid use of 'any opioids' (13.3% vs. 20.9%), schedule II/III opioids (11.7% vs. 19.2%), and high-dose opioids (4.3% vs. 7.7%; all p < 0.001). Among the 1195 matched pairs in the RS versus LS cohorts, RS was associated with less high-dose opioids (2.1% vs. 3.8%, p = 0.015) 90-180 days after discharge. Other risk factors for long-term opioid use included younger age, benign indications, tobacco use, mental health conditions, and > 6 Charlson comorbidities.ConclusionMinimally invasive colectomy is associated with a significant reduction in long-term opioid use when compared to OS. Robotic-assisted colectomy was associated with less high-dose opioids compared to LS. Increasing adoption of minimally invasive surgery for colectomy and including RS, where appropriate, may decrease long-term opioid use.

Project description:AimsThe mortality in cardiogenic shock (CS) is high. The role of specific mechanical circulatory support (MCS) systems is unclear. We aimed to compare patients receiving Impella versus ECLS (extracorporal life support) with regard to baseline characteristics, feasibility, and outcomes in CS.Methods and resultsThis is a retrospective cohort study including CS patients over 18 years with a complete follow-up of the primary endpoint and available baseline lactate level, receiving haemodynamic support either by Impella 2.5 or ECLS from two European registries. The decision for device implementation was made at the discretion of the treating physician. The primary endpoint of this study was all-cause mortality at 30 days. A propensity score for the use of Impella was calculated, and multivariable logistic regression was used to obtain adjusted odds ratios (aOR). In total, 149 patients were included, receiving either Impella (n = 73) or ECLS (n = 76) for CS. The feasibility of device implantation was high (87%) and similar (aOR: 3.14; 95% CI: 0.18-56.50; P = 0.41) with both systems. The rates of vascular injuries (aOR: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.10-3.50; P = 0.56) and bleedings requiring transfusions (aOR: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.09-2.10; P = 0.29) were similar in ECLS patients and Impella patients. The use of Impella or ECLS was not associated with increased odds of mortality (aOR: 4.19; 95% CI: 0.53-33.25; P = 0.17), after correction for propensity score and baseline lactate level. Baseline lactate level was independently associated with increased odds of 30 day mortality (per mmol/L increase; OR: 1.29; 95% CI: 1.14-1.45; P < 0.001).ConclusionsIn CS patients, the adjusted mortality rates of both ECLS and Impella were high and similar. The baseline lactate level was a potent predictor of mortality and could play a role in patient selection for therapy in future studies. In patients with profound CS, the type of device is likely to be less important compared with other parameters including non-cardiac and neurological factors.

Project description:BackgroundRecently, the first randomized trials comparing minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) for non-malignant and malignant disease showed a 2-day reduction in time to functional recovery after MIDP. However, for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), concerns have been raised regarding the oncologic safety (i.e., radical resection, lymph node retrieval, and survival) of MIDP, as compared to ODP. Therefore, a randomized controlled trial comparing MIDP and ODP in PDAC regarding oncological safety is warranted. We hypothesize that the microscopically radical resection (R0) rate is non-inferior for MIDP, as compared to ODP.Methods/designDIPLOMA is an international randomized controlled, patient- and pathologist-blinded, non-inferiority trial performed in 38 pancreatic centers in Europe and the USA. A total of 258 patients with an indication for elective distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy because of proven or highly suspected PDAC of the pancreatic body or tail will be randomly allocated to MIDP (laparoscopic or robot-assisted) or ODP in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome is the microscopically radical resection margin (R0, distance tumor to pancreatic transection and posterior margin ≥ 1 mm), which is assessed using a standardized histopathology assessment protocol. The sample size is calculated with the following assumptions: 5% one-sided significance level (α), 80% power (1-β), expected R0 rate in the open group of 58%, expected R0 resection rate in the minimally invasive group of 67%, and a non-inferiority margin of 7%. Secondary outcomes include time to functional recovery, operative outcomes (e.g., blood loss, operative time, and conversion to open surgery), other histopathology findings (e.g., lymph node retrieval, perineural- and lymphovascular invasion), postoperative outcomes (e.g., clinically relevant complications, hospital stay, and administration of adjuvant treatment), time and site of disease recurrence, survival, quality of life, and costs. Follow-up will be performed at the outpatient clinic after 6, 12, 18, 24, and 36 months postoperatively.DiscussionThe DIPLOMA trial is designed to investigate the non-inferiority of MIDP versus ODP regarding the microscopically radical resection rate of PDAC in an international setting.Trial registrationISRCTN registry ISRCTN44897265 . Prospectively registered on 16 April 2018.

Dataset Information

Minimally-invasive versus open enucleation for pancreatic tumours: A propensity-score adjusted analysis.

Backgrounds/aims

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Minimally-invasive versus open enucleation for pancreatic tumours: A propensity-score adjusted analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets