Ann Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg.  2020 Feb;24(1):57-62. 10.14701/ahbps.2020.24.1.57.

Comparison of laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy for benign, pre-malignant, and low grade malignant pancreatic tumors

• Song SH
• Kim HJ
• Park EK
• Hur YH
• Koh YS
• Cho CK

• KMID: 2471190
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.14701/ahbps.2020.24.1.57

Abstract

BACKGROUNDS/AIMS
The purpose of this study is to demonstrate that laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy in benign disease is is safer and more favorable to patients than open distal pancreatectomy.
METHODS
We retrospectively reviewed data of 150 patients who underwent laparoscopic (n=69) or open (=81) distal pancreatectomy at a double institutes from 2008 to 2018. We reviewed each patient's history for age, sex, pathologic diagnosis. Specific outcomes that were included hospital stay, operative time (in minutes), operative blood loss (in milliliters), 30-daymajormorbidity and mortality (Clavian-Dindo classification), pancreatic leak rate (grade of leak A, B, or C), pancreatic hemorrhage.
RESULTS
From 2008 to 2018, there were 150 patients underwent distal pancreatectomy with or without splenectomy for benign pancreatic disease. 81 patients underwent open and 69 patients underwent laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) Intra-operative estimated blood loss was significantly lower in the LDP group than in the OPD group (200 vs. 400 ml p<0.01). There was no difference in blood transfusion between the two groups. There was a significant difference in the resection method between the two groups (p<0.01) and there was a significant difference in the use of mesh for prevention of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) (53 vs. 34 p<0.01). There was no significant difference in incidence of POPF (15.9% in LDP vs 7.4% in ODP, p=0.235) between the two groups, morbidity rate between the two groups (18 vs. 30 p=0.152), post - pancreatectomy hemorrhage, wound infection, hospital stay and readmission.
CONCLUSIONS
LDP showed there was no difference in the occurrence of POPF, complication and hospital stay. In contrast, intra-operative blood loss was significantly lower in the LDP group than in the ODP group, and LDP was also significantly better in the view point of the feeding advance. In other words, LDP is safer and more favorable to patients than ODP.

Keyword

Distal pancreatectomy; Laparoscopy; Blood loss; Hospital stay

MeSH Terms

Academies and Institutes
Blood Transfusion
Diagnosis
Hemorrhage
Humans
Incidence
Laparoscopy
Length of Stay
Methods
Mortality
Operative Time
Pancreatectomy*
Pancreatic Diseases
Pancreatic Fistula
Retrospective Studies
Splenectomy
Wound Infection

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 Placement of trocars for LDPR. Two 5 mm trocars (one locates the RUQ area for operator use and the other locates the left. Flank area for assistance) and two 12 mm trocars (one locates the umbilicus area for camera port and the other locates the midclavicular line parallel to the camera port for the operator's right hand).

Reference

1. Davis JAM, Miller-Tate H, Texter KM. Launching a new strategy for multidisciplinary management of single-ventricle heart defects. Crit Care Nurse. 2018; 38:60–71. PMID: 29437079.

2. John TG, Greig JD, Carter DC, Garden OJ. Carcinoma of the pancreatic head and periampullary region. Tumor staging with laparoscopy and laparoscopic ultrasonography. Ann Surg. 1995; 221:156–164. PMID: 7857143.

3. Laparoscopically assisted colectomy is as safe and effective as open colectomy in people with colon cancer Abstracted from: Nelson H, Sargent D, Wieand HS, et al; for the Clinical Outcomes of Surgical Therapy Study Group. A comparison of laparoscopically assisted and open colectomy for colon cancer. N Engl J Med 2004; 350: 2050-2059. Cancer Treat Rev. 2004; 30:707–709. PMID: 15541580.

4. Riegler FM, Lenglinger J, Cosentini EP. Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus open fundoplication for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (Br J Surg 2004; 91: 975–982). Br J Surg. 2004; 91:1381.

5. Ortega AE, Hunter JG, Peters JH, Swanstrom LL, Schirmer B. A prospective, randomized comparison of laparoscopic appendectomy with open appendectomy. Laparoscopic Appendectomy Study Group. Am J Surg. 1995; 169:208–212. discussion 212-213. PMID: 7840381.

6. Coccolini F, Catena F, Pisano M, Gheza F, Fagiuoli S, Di Saverio S, et al. Open versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy in acute cholecystitis. Systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Surg. 2015; 18:196–204. PMID: 25958296.

7. Schlottmann F, Patti MG. Laparoscopic versus open surgery still an open debate. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2017; 27:1223–1224. PMID: 29048986.

8. Jusoh AC, Ammori BJ. Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy: a systematic review of comparative studies. Surg Endosc. 2012; 26:904–913. PMID: 22083328.

9. Bassi C, Dervenis C, Butturini G, Fingerhut A, Yeo C, Izbicki J, et al. ; International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistula Definition. Postoperative pancreatic fistula: an international study group (ISGPF) definition. Surgery. 2005; 138:8–13. PMID: 16003309.

10. Bassi C, Marchegiani G, Dervenis C, Sarr M, Abu Hilal M, Adham M, et al. International Study Group on Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS). The 2016 update of the International Study Group (ISGPS) definition and grading of postoperative pancreatic fistula: 11 years after. Surgery. 2017; 161:584–591. PMID: 28040257.

11. Wente MN, Veit JA, Bassi C, Dervenis C, Fingerhut A, Gouma DJ, et al. Postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH): an International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) definition. Surgery. 2007; 142:20–25. PMID: 17629996.

12. Kim SC, Park KT, Hwang JW, Shin HC, Lee SS, Seo DW, et al. Comparative analysis of clinical outcomes for laparoscopic distal pancreatic resection and open distal pancreatic resection at a single institution. Surg Endosc. 2008; 22:2261–2268. PMID: 18528619.

13. Tan S, Wu G, Zhuang Q, Xi Q, Meng Q, Jiang Y, et al. Laparoscopic versus open repair for perforated peptic ulcer: a meta analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int J Surg. 2016; 33 Pt A:124–132. PMID: 27504848.

14. Hayashibe A, Ogino N. Clinical study for pancreatic fistula after distal pancreatectomy with mesh reinforcement. Asian J Surg. 2018; 41:236–240. PMID: 27964997.

15. Mehrabi A, Hafezi M, Arvin J, Esmaeilzadeh M, Garoussi C, Emami G, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy for benign and malignant lesions of the pancreas: it's time to randomize. Surgery. 2015; 157:45–55. PMID: 25482464.

16. Ricci C, Casadei R, Taffurelli G, Toscano F, Pacilio CA, Bogoni S, et al. Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy for ductal adenocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Gastrointest Surg. 2015; 19:770–781. PMID: 25560180.

17. Yi X, Chen S, Wang W, Zou L, Diao D, Zheng Y, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of laparoscopic and open distal pancreatectomy of nonductal adenocarcinomatous pancreatic tumor (NDACPT) in the pancreatic body and tail. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2017; 27:206–219. PMID: 28520652.

18. Riviere D, Gurusamy KS, Kooby DA, Vollmer CM, Besselink MG, Davidson BR, et al. Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016; 4:CD011391. PMID: 27043078.

19. de Rooij T, van Hilst J, van Santvoort H, Boerma D, van den Boezem P, Daams F, et al. Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group. Minimally invasive versus open distal Pancreatectomy (LEOPARD): a multicenter patient-blinded randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg. 2019; 269:2–9. PMID: 30080726.

20. Nakamura M, Wakabayashi G, Miyasaka Y, Tanaka M, Morikawa T, Unno M, et al. Study Group of JHBPS. JSEPS. Multicenter comparative study of laparoscopic and open distal pancreatectomy using propensity score-matching. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2015; 22:731–736. PMID: 26087943.