Outcomes After Minimally-invasive Versus Open Pancreatoduodenectomy: A Pan-European Propensity Score Matched Study
- PMID: 29864089
- DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002850
Outcomes After Minimally-invasive Versus Open Pancreatoduodenectomy: A Pan-European Propensity Score Matched Study
Abstract
Objective: To assess short-term outcomes after minimally invasive (laparoscopic, robot-assisted, and hybrid) pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) versus open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) among European centers.
Background: Current evidence on MIPD is based on national registries or single expert centers. International, matched studies comparing outcomes for MIPD and OPD are lacking.
Methods: Retrospective propensity score matched study comparing MIPD in 14 centers (7 countries) performing ≥10 MIPDs annually (2012-2017) versus OPD in 53 German/Dutch surgical registry centers performing ≥10 OPDs annually (2014-2017). Primary outcome was 30-day major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo ≥3).
Results: Of 4220 patients, 729/730 MIPDs (412 laparoscopic, 184 robot-assisted, and 130 hybrid) were matched to 729 OPDs. Median annual case-volume was 19 MIPDs (interquartile range, IQR 13-22), including the first MIPDs performed in 10/14 centers, and 31 OPDs (IQR 21-38). Major morbidity (28% vs 30%, P = 0.526), mortality (4.0% vs 3.3%, P = 0.576), percutaneous drainage (12% vs 12%, P = 0.809), reoperation (11% vs 13%, P = 0.329), and hospital stay (mean 17 vs 17 days, P > 0.99) were comparable between MIPD and OPD. Grade-B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) (23% vs 13%, P < 0.001) occurred more frequently after MIPD. Single-row pancreatojejunostomy was associated with POPF in MIPD (odds ratio, OR 2.95, P < 0.001), but not in OPD. Laparoscopic, robot-assisted, and hybrid MIPD had comparable major morbidity (27% vs 27% vs 35%), POPF (24% vs 19% vs 25%), and mortality (2.9% vs 5.2% vs 5.4%), with a fewer conversions in robot-assisted- versus laparoscopic MIPD (5% vs 26%, P < 0.001).
Conclusions: In the early experience of 14 European centers performing ≥10 MIPDs annually, no differences were found in major morbidity, mortality, and hospital stay between MIPD and OPD. The high rates of POPF and conversion, and the lack of superior outcomes (ie, hospital stay, morbidity) could indicate that more experience and higher annual MIPD volumes are needed.
Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03172572.
Comment in
-
Assessing the postoperative behaviors of minimally-invasive pancreatoduodenectomy versus open pancreatoduodenectomy.Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr. 2019 Jun;8(3):314-315. doi: 10.21037/hbsn.2019.01.22. Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr. 2019. PMID: 31245424 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
-
Comment on "Outcomes After Minimally Invasive Versus Open Pancreatoduodenectomy".Ann Surg. 2021 Dec 1;274(6):e733. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000004289. Ann Surg. 2021. PMID: 33074879 No abstract available.
-
Response to the Comment on "Outcomes After Minimally-invasive Versus Open Pancreatoduodenectomy".Ann Surg. 2021 Dec 1;274(6):e734. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000004278. Ann Surg. 2021. PMID: 33278167 No abstract available.
References
-
- De Rooij T, Lu MZ, Steen MW, et al. Minimally invasive versus open pancreatoduodenectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative cohort and registry studies. Ann Surg 2016; 264:257–267.
-
- Langan RC, Graham JA, Chin AB, et al. Laparoscopic-assisted versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: early favorable physical quality-of-life measures. Surgery 2014; 156:379–384.
-
- Birkmeyer JD, Stukel TA, Siewers AE, et al. Surgeon volume and operative mortality in the United States. N Engl J Med 2003; 349:2117–2127.
-
- Orti-Rodriguez RJ, Rahman SH. A comparative review between laparoscopic and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomies. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 2014; 24:103–108.
-
- Correa-Gallego C, Dinkelspiel HE, Sulimanoff I, et al. Minimally-invasive vs open pancreaticoduodenectomy: Systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Coll Surg 2014; 218:129–139.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Associated data
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
