Dataset Information

Improved outcomes with minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy in patients with dilated pancreatic ducts: a prospective study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Little 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.

Methods

All 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.

Results

371 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.

Conclusions

MIPD 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.

SUBMITTER: Cos H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8262764 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

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:BackgroundMinimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) has been gradually attempted. However, whether MIPD is superior, equal or inferior to its conventional open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) is not clear.MethodsStudies 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.ResultsOne 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.ConclusionOur 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.

Project description:BackgroundPancreatic resections are among the most technically demanding procedures, including a high risk of potentially life-threatening complications and outcomes strongly correlated to hospital volume and individual surgeon experience. Minimally invasive pancreatic resections (MIPRs) have become a part of standard surgical practice worldwide over the last decade; however, in comparison with other surgical procedures, the implementation of minimally invasive approaches into clinical practice has been rather slow.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to highlight and summarize the available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the role of minimally invasive approaches in pancreatic surgery.MethodsA WHO trial registry and Pubmed database literature search was performed to identify all RCTs comparing MIPRs (robot-assisted and/or laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy [DP] or pancreatoduodenectomy [PD]) with open pancreatic resections (OPRs).ResultsOverall, five RCTs on MIPR versus OPR have been published and seven RCTs are currently recruiting. For DP, the results of two RCTs were in favor of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) in terms of shorter hospital stay and less intraoperative blood loss, with comparable morbidity and mortality. Regarding PD, two RCTs showed similar advantages for MIPD. However, concerns were raised after the early termination of the third multicenter RCT on MIPD versus open PD due to higher complication-related mortality in the laparoscopic group and no clear other demonstrable advantages. No RCTs on robot-assisted pancreatic procedures are available as yet.ConclusionAt the current level of evidence, MIDP is thought to be safe and feasible, although oncological safety should be further evaluated. Based on the results of the RCTs conducted for PD, MIPD cannot be proclaimed as the superior alternative to open PD, although promising outcomes have been demonstrated by experienced centers. Future studies should provide answers to the role of robotic approaches in pancreatic surgery and aim to identity the subgroups of patients or indications with the greatest benefit of MIPRs.

Project description:BackgroundMinimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion (SIJF) has become an increasingly accepted surgical option for chronic sacroiliac (SI) joint dysfunction, a prevalent cause of unremitting low back/buttock pain.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to report clinical and functional outcomes of SIJF using triangular titanium implants (TTI) in the treatment of chronic SI joint dysfunction due to degenerative sacroiliitis or sacroiliac joint (SIJ) disruption at 3 years postoperatively.MethodsA total of 103 subjects with SIJ dysfunction at 12 centers were treated with TTI in two prospective clinical trials (NCT01640353 and NCT01681004) and enrolled in this long-term follow-up study (NCT02270203). Subjects were evaluated in study clinics at study start and again at 3, 4, and 5 years.ResultsMean (SD) preoperative SIJ pain score was 81.5, and mean preoperative Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) was 56.3. At 3 years, mean pain SIJ pain score decreased to 26.2 (a 55-point improvement from baseline, p<0.0001). At 3 years, mean ODI was 28.2 (a 28-point improvement from baseline, p<0.0001). In all, 82% of subjects were very satisfied with the procedure at 3 years. EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) time trade-off index improved by 0.30 points (p<0.0001). No adverse events definitely related to the study device or procedure were reported; one subject underwent revision surgery at year 3.7. SIJ pain contralateral to the originally treated side occurred in 15 subjects of whom four underwent contralateral SIJF. The proportion of subjects who were employed outside the home full- or part-time at 3 years decreased somewhat from baseline (p=0.1814), and the proportion of subjects who would have the procedure again was lower at 3 years compared to earlier time points.ConclusionIn long-term (3-year) follow-up, minimally invasive trans-iliac SIJF with TTI was associated with improved pain, disability, and quality of life with relatively high satisfaction rates.Level of evidenceLevel II.Clinical relevanceSIJF with TTI.