Short-term outcomes after distal pancreatectomy: Laparotomy vs. laparoscopy - A single-center series

Abstract

BackgroundLaparoscopic distal pancreatectomy was introduced 15 years ago, but it is still not widely used. The aim of the study was to compare the postoperative complications and length of stay between open and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy.Materials and methodsA search of our institutional pancreas database was performed. All consecutive distal pancreatectomy patients from 2000 to 2015 were identified. Demographics, peri- and postoperative outcomes were reviewed. Postoperative complications were graded using Clavien classification. Standard statistical analyses were performed.ResultsOne hundred and five patients underwent distal pancreatectomy (45 women, 60 men, median age of 63 years). Seventy-nine cases were performed open and 26 by laparoscopy (conversion rate from laparoscopy to laparotomy: 7/26). Characteristics of both groups were similar. The tumor proportion was similar in both groups (56/79 and 23/26, p = 0.114). Overall complication rate was 41/79 (52%) in the open group and 9/26 (36%) in the laparoscopy group (p = 0.175). Two patients died during hospital stay in the open group compared to 0 in the laparoscopy group (p = 1). The fistula rates were comparable (17/79 and 5/26, p = 1). Median length of stay was shorter for the laparoscopy group (8 vs. 12 days, p < 0.001), as well as the median intermediate care stay (1 vs. 3 days, p = 0.004).ConclusionShort-term outcomes after open and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy regarding postoperative complications and mortality were similar, but length of stay was significantly shorter for the laparoscopic approach. Hence, laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy should be offered to all suitable patients.

The oncological safety in minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

“…In total, 2612 studies were identified from the electronic databases, and 954 studies were excluded because they were duplicate publications. Finally, the full texts of 40 studies 11,12,16–19,25–58 were screened for eligibility; however, 28 studies were excluded for various reasons 11,25,27–35,38,39,41–43,45–48,50–55,57,58 (Supplementary Materials). Only 12 studies 12,16–19,26,36,37,40,44,49,56 were included for further analysis.…”